Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Gartner Says 3D Printers Will Cost Less Than $2,000 By 2016
45 views
Skip to first unread message
David Loewe, Jr.
May 15, 2013, 11:44:57 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 20:51:30, gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb)
wrote:
>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>Hemocrit [...]
>>an overly low hemocrit/hemoglobin
>
>Correcting to be polite: "hematocrit".
I sit corrected. Thank you.
--
"Just think of it as evolution in action."
Tony Rand in Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's
'Oath of Fealty'
wrote:
>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>Hemocrit [...]
>>an overly low hemocrit/hemoglobin
>
>Correcting to be polite: "hematocrit".
I sit corrected. Thank you.
--
"Just think of it as evolution in action."
Tony Rand in Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's
'Oath of Fealty'
Jay E. Morris
May 15, 2013, 11:49:43 PM5/15/13
to
On 5/15/2013 9:12 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> ... the person keeping a gun for self defense probably carries it
>> (should carry it) *all the time*.
>
> That's hardly practical, given how many places guns are forbidden.
>
90% of the time. Only place I disarm is where I work, federal building.
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> ... the person keeping a gun for self defense probably carries it
>> (should carry it) *all the time*.
>
> That's hardly practical, given how many places guns are forbidden.
>
90% of the time. Only place I disarm is where I work, federal building.
Cryptoengineer
May 15, 2013, 11:55:36 PM5/15/13
to
On May 15, 9:50 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
> >> Likewise. They also check my iron level.
> > Yes, that too. But I've never been anywhere near iron deficient,
> > and I'm not worrying about the other end. (Although I do plan to
> > look up the range next time, and see where I am relative to the
> > other end, now.)
>
> Do they actually check for a number? Around here, they check to see
> how long it takes a drop of blood to sink to the bottom of a tube of
> some liquid. Only if it takes too long do they do a test with the
> machine that gives a number. (Well, the time to sink is a number,
> but not on the same scale.)
>
> As I've mentioned, one of my goals in frequently donating, and in
> avoiding red meat and iron-enriched foods, is to keep my iron levels
> toward the low end of normal, since I believe that to be healthier.
>
> My low-normal iron level did once get me the hairy eyeball during an
> insurance physical. Not because it's inherently bad, but because an
> *unexplained* low iron level can mean there's a serious problem.
>
> Suppose one's goal was to flunk a physical, perhaps to avoid being
> drafted. Or just to give weird results on medical tests. What would
> be some ineresting (but harmless) ways?
>
> I've discovered that it's possible to fill my bladder with air using
> an aquarium pump.
I know you like to experiment, but this tells me things about you that
I Did Not Want To Know. :-)
TMI TMI TMI
pt
> David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
> >> Likewise. They also check my iron level.
> > Yes, that too. But I've never been anywhere near iron deficient,
> > and I'm not worrying about the other end. (Although I do plan to
> > look up the range next time, and see where I am relative to the
> > other end, now.)
>
> Do they actually check for a number? Around here, they check to see
> how long it takes a drop of blood to sink to the bottom of a tube of
> some liquid. Only if it takes too long do they do a test with the
> machine that gives a number. (Well, the time to sink is a number,
> but not on the same scale.)
>
> As I've mentioned, one of my goals in frequently donating, and in
> avoiding red meat and iron-enriched foods, is to keep my iron levels
> toward the low end of normal, since I believe that to be healthier.
>
> My low-normal iron level did once get me the hairy eyeball during an
> insurance physical. Not because it's inherently bad, but because an
> *unexplained* low iron level can mean there's a serious problem.
>
> Suppose one's goal was to flunk a physical, perhaps to avoid being
> drafted. Or just to give weird results on medical tests. What would
> be some ineresting (but harmless) ways?
>
> I've discovered that it's possible to fill my bladder with air using
> an aquarium pump.
I know you like to experiment, but this tells me things about you that
I Did Not Want To Know. :-)
TMI TMI TMI
pt
Alan Woodford
May 16, 2013, 12:15:09 AM5/16/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 22:38:40 +0000 (UTC), Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com>
wrote:
>In <ddfr-50EAF0.1...@news.giganews.com> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:
>
>>In article
>><759c70fc-91cc-48ba...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> BTW; this is why the furor over the 'Liberator' 3d printed "gun" is so
>>> idiotic; the plastic gun those plans describe is far inferior to
>>> those which you can legally make out of durable metal.
>
>>Doing the latter requires skills and equipment that I don't think the
>>former requires.
>
>>Of course, it does require a 3d printer. Those are currently pretty
>>expensive and not useful to most people, but that may be changing pretty
>>fast.
>
>Low end 3D printers are down to $1000, which might or might not be
>considered "pretty expensive". And, as you say, the prices are dropping
>fast.
>
To the point where we are now using 3d printed airships and giant
squid in our RPG :-)
OK, so the main GM is a hardened collector and builder of techno-toys,
but I can't help thinking that 3d printingmost of the shell for a
radio-conrtolled nixie tube clock, complete with analogue meters for
time since last sync and another one whose purpose escapes me, is
heading towards tech for the sake of tech...
Alan Woodford, off to save the Multiverse -again- this weekend.
The Greying Lensman
wrote:
>In <ddfr-50EAF0.1...@news.giganews.com> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:
>
>>In article
>><759c70fc-91cc-48ba...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> BTW; this is why the furor over the 'Liberator' 3d printed "gun" is so
>>> idiotic; the plastic gun those plans describe is far inferior to
>>> those which you can legally make out of durable metal.
>
>>Doing the latter requires skills and equipment that I don't think the
>>former requires.
>
>>Of course, it does require a 3d printer. Those are currently pretty
>>expensive and not useful to most people, but that may be changing pretty
>>fast.
>
>Low end 3D printers are down to $1000, which might or might not be
>considered "pretty expensive". And, as you say, the prices are dropping
>fast.
>
To the point where we are now using 3d printed airships and giant
squid in our RPG :-)
OK, so the main GM is a hardened collector and builder of techno-toys,
but I can't help thinking that 3d printingmost of the shell for a
radio-conrtolled nixie tube clock, complete with analogue meters for
time since last sync and another one whose purpose escapes me, is
heading towards tech for the sake of tech...
Alan Woodford, off to save the Multiverse -again- this weekend.
The Greying Lensman
Cryptoengineer
May 16, 2013, 12:27:48 AM5/16/13
to
This post of Keith's deserves to be preserved, along with the complete
version of the one it replies to, in the Keith Hall of Folly. It
displays so many of his flaws.
On May 15, 9:11 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> ppint. at pplay <v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > - this is enough to make the transition effectively impossible, even
> > if the glare problems of non-car and lorry road-users are ignored.
> > the glare drivers using the ultra-bright, blue-white halogen
> > headlamps cause other users (and themselves in heavy snow and fog)
> > is bad enough, the dazzle temporarily blinding drivers of oncoming
> > vehicles ...
>
> I'm not convinced. Headlights are as bright as they are today mainly
> to compensate for the dazzle from oncoming headlights. It's an arms
> race, one that nobody can win. Remove the dazzle, and headlights can
> all get a lot dimmer and yet serve their purpose better than ever
> before.
Here's something Keith should know better than to do. He makes a flat
assertion on a subject in which he has very little experience (driving
cars at night) to an audience full of people well experienced in the
subject.
How many drivers here were aware that there was a was an arms race
between ourselves to put in brighter headlights? None? I thought so.
Only in Keithworld is this true. I use my headlights to see the road,
often in conditions where there are no other cars. Dazzle from
oncoming cars simply isn't a factor. It's annoying when it happens,
but almost never a serious problem.
> As for non-motorists -- of which I am one -- they can wear polarized
> glasses or clip-ons. In busy areas, there's more than enough light to
> see by even if half of it is blocked. In less busy areas, there isn't
> enough oncoming traffic to worry about, so there's no need for such
> glasses.
90+% of the time when walking around at night, you're *not* dealing
with dazzle, even in the city. But Keith want everyone to diminish the
light available to see by by 50%. I'm not that stupid. I don't think
most people are. Here Keith is creating a serious problem to solve a
trivial one.
> > add to this the cost of converting - or junking - all cars' lorries'
> > and bikes' head, turn indicator, rear, stop and fog lights, all
> > front, rear and front passenger windscreens and windows, all bikers'
> > helmet visors & goggles, and all cycles' lights systems ...
>
> There's no need to convert bicycle headlights, as those have never
> been especially bright. They're mostly meant for being seen, not for
> seeing.
Keith is a city boy. I've ridden bikes many times when the bike
headlight made the difference between being able to ride, and having
to walk. Not everyone is Just Like Keith.
Neither is there any need to convert turn indicators, brake
> lights, or anything else that isn't dazzlingly bright.
>
> The conversion is easy, as it just consists of adding a polarized
> filter.
Except they'll all now be half as bright.
> Contrast this with the oft-repeated claim that it's necessarily to
> completely replace *all* computer equipment and peripherals, and
> every cell phone, every two or three years, forever. And to replace
> them with completely incompatible equipment with different user
> interfaces.
This may happen on Keithworld. I'm glad I don't live there.
> > ..and providing suitable polarised glasses for the entire population
> > to wear whilst cycling or walking along roads at night...
> Yes. So? Do you think that's beyond the industrial capacity of the
> US or the UK?
Wearing sunglasses at night is dumb, even if it saves you from having
to shade your eyes against the occasional car. Keith is creating a
serious problem to solve a trivial one.
> > (would it be a legal offence to cycle at night without wearing these
> > essential protective wear against driving whilst dazzled? to walk
> > about on public roads at night, likewise? horse-riding?)
>
> Of course not. Since headlights would be dimmer, dazzling would be
> less of a problem. They would be available for those who want them.
As explained, headlights would actually become brighter, not dimmer.
Keith's imaginary brightness arms race is just that - a self-
justifying fantasy.
> Those will probably mostly be people who who live in built-up areas or
> who are especially sensitive to glare.
>
> As for seeing oncoming vehicles, polarizers aren't 100%. Oncoming
> headlights would still be easily visible, they just wouldn't be
> blindingly bright.
>
> As for the mention of polarization being scrambled by the road
> surface, I don't think so. It isn't scrambled by movie screens,
> otherwise 3D movies that rely on polarized glasses wouldn't work.
> Why would roads be any different?
They're different, because roads aren't coated in silver or aluminum,
as the screens that are used for 3d projection are. Specular
reflections off metal don't lose much polarization. Diffuse
reflections, as off of asphalt, do. As Wikipedia says: "Polarized
light reflected from an ordinary motion picture screen typically loses
most of its polarization, but the loss is negligible if a silver
screen or aluminized screen is used."
Of course, Keith, in his studied ignorance, doesn't know this.
> What's the alternative? The current arms race isn't working, even if
> you totally ignore the big losers in the lumen game -- pedestrians and
> cyclists. Everyone can't have brighter headlights than everyone else.
There isn't an arms race, and there are legal limits on headlight
brightness. Newer systems are a lot better than they used to be; the
upper cut-off of the beam is far better defined.
> There have long been eyeglasses that darken in response to bright
> light. Is it possible to have eyeglasses that darken in response to
> bright light in just one direction, and which do so very quickly?
Yes. The rearview mirror in my car does this.
Finally, note that Keith carefully cuts out the point that there are
legal limits to windscreen tints, which his proposal violates. He
doesn't actually have any way to reply to it, so he pretends it didn't
happen.
pt
version of the one it replies to, in the Keith Hall of Folly. It
displays so many of his flaws.
On May 15, 9:11 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> ppint. at pplay <v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > - this is enough to make the transition effectively impossible, even
> > if the glare problems of non-car and lorry road-users are ignored.
> > the glare drivers using the ultra-bright, blue-white halogen
> > headlamps cause other users (and themselves in heavy snow and fog)
> > is bad enough, the dazzle temporarily blinding drivers of oncoming
> > vehicles ...
>
> I'm not convinced. Headlights are as bright as they are today mainly
> to compensate for the dazzle from oncoming headlights. It's an arms
> race, one that nobody can win. Remove the dazzle, and headlights can
> all get a lot dimmer and yet serve their purpose better than ever
> before.
Here's something Keith should know better than to do. He makes a flat
assertion on a subject in which he has very little experience (driving
cars at night) to an audience full of people well experienced in the
subject.
How many drivers here were aware that there was a was an arms race
between ourselves to put in brighter headlights? None? I thought so.
Only in Keithworld is this true. I use my headlights to see the road,
often in conditions where there are no other cars. Dazzle from
oncoming cars simply isn't a factor. It's annoying when it happens,
but almost never a serious problem.
> As for non-motorists -- of which I am one -- they can wear polarized
> glasses or clip-ons. In busy areas, there's more than enough light to
> see by even if half of it is blocked. In less busy areas, there isn't
> enough oncoming traffic to worry about, so there's no need for such
> glasses.
90+% of the time when walking around at night, you're *not* dealing
with dazzle, even in the city. But Keith want everyone to diminish the
light available to see by by 50%. I'm not that stupid. I don't think
most people are. Here Keith is creating a serious problem to solve a
trivial one.
> > add to this the cost of converting - or junking - all cars' lorries'
> > and bikes' head, turn indicator, rear, stop and fog lights, all
> > front, rear and front passenger windscreens and windows, all bikers'
> > helmet visors & goggles, and all cycles' lights systems ...
>
> There's no need to convert bicycle headlights, as those have never
> been especially bright. They're mostly meant for being seen, not for
> seeing.
Keith is a city boy. I've ridden bikes many times when the bike
headlight made the difference between being able to ride, and having
to walk. Not everyone is Just Like Keith.
Neither is there any need to convert turn indicators, brake
> lights, or anything else that isn't dazzlingly bright.
>
> The conversion is easy, as it just consists of adding a polarized
> filter.
Except they'll all now be half as bright.
> Contrast this with the oft-repeated claim that it's necessarily to
> completely replace *all* computer equipment and peripherals, and
> every cell phone, every two or three years, forever. And to replace
> them with completely incompatible equipment with different user
> interfaces.
This may happen on Keithworld. I'm glad I don't live there.
> > ..and providing suitable polarised glasses for the entire population
> > to wear whilst cycling or walking along roads at night...
> Yes. So? Do you think that's beyond the industrial capacity of the
> US or the UK?
Wearing sunglasses at night is dumb, even if it saves you from having
to shade your eyes against the occasional car. Keith is creating a
serious problem to solve a trivial one.
> > (would it be a legal offence to cycle at night without wearing these
> > essential protective wear against driving whilst dazzled? to walk
> > about on public roads at night, likewise? horse-riding?)
>
> Of course not. Since headlights would be dimmer, dazzling would be
> less of a problem. They would be available for those who want them.
As explained, headlights would actually become brighter, not dimmer.
Keith's imaginary brightness arms race is just that - a self-
justifying fantasy.
> Those will probably mostly be people who who live in built-up areas or
> who are especially sensitive to glare.
>
> As for seeing oncoming vehicles, polarizers aren't 100%. Oncoming
> headlights would still be easily visible, they just wouldn't be
> blindingly bright.
>
> As for the mention of polarization being scrambled by the road
> surface, I don't think so. It isn't scrambled by movie screens,
> otherwise 3D movies that rely on polarized glasses wouldn't work.
> Why would roads be any different?
They're different, because roads aren't coated in silver or aluminum,
as the screens that are used for 3d projection are. Specular
reflections off metal don't lose much polarization. Diffuse
reflections, as off of asphalt, do. As Wikipedia says: "Polarized
light reflected from an ordinary motion picture screen typically loses
most of its polarization, but the loss is negligible if a silver
screen or aluminized screen is used."
Of course, Keith, in his studied ignorance, doesn't know this.
> What's the alternative? The current arms race isn't working, even if
> you totally ignore the big losers in the lumen game -- pedestrians and
> cyclists. Everyone can't have brighter headlights than everyone else.
There isn't an arms race, and there are legal limits on headlight
brightness. Newer systems are a lot better than they used to be; the
upper cut-off of the beam is far better defined.
> There have long been eyeglasses that darken in response to bright
> light. Is it possible to have eyeglasses that darken in response to
> bright light in just one direction, and which do so very quickly?
Yes. The rearview mirror in my car does this.
Finally, note that Keith carefully cuts out the point that there are
legal limits to windscreen tints, which his proposal violates. He
doesn't actually have any way to reply to it, so he pretends it didn't
happen.
pt
Alan Woodford
May 16, 2013, 12:44:19 AM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 00:22:47 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Michael Benveniste <m...@murkyether.com> wrote:
>> Ben Yalow wrote:
>>> Very few printer cartridges are small and expensive -- the small
>>> ones are usually cheap.
>
>> My inkjet printer takes 7 cartridges, each of which holds 14ml and
>> sells at retail for over $14 per. Did I mention that if you don't
>> use the thing for a while, you end up wasting more ink on cleaning?
>
>Maybe by Ben's standards that isn't expensive.
>
>As for size, today I carried a lawnmower a few miles to my brother's
>house. Last year I carried a 39 inch flatscreen TV there from even
>further away. So by my standards, anything for which a hand truck is
>superfluous is small. A whole lot of printer cartridges can fit in
>the space taken up by one lawnmower or one TV set. Per unit volume,
>the printer cartridges are much more expensive than either. Or than
>almost anything else except currency, gold, jewelry, or drugs.
How about memory cards?
My usual online supplier has high speed (Class 10) 32GB MicroSD cards
for 20 pounds and upwards, for a volume of 0.165ml, or roughly 120
pounds per ml.
And that price per byte is roughly 10^-8 times the cost of the first
RAM I saw bought :-D
Don't you just love this modern world...
Alan Woodford
The Greying Lensman
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Michael Benveniste <m...@murkyether.com> wrote:
>> Ben Yalow wrote:
>>> Very few printer cartridges are small and expensive -- the small
>>> ones are usually cheap.
>
>> My inkjet printer takes 7 cartridges, each of which holds 14ml and
>> sells at retail for over $14 per. Did I mention that if you don't
>> use the thing for a while, you end up wasting more ink on cleaning?
>
>Maybe by Ben's standards that isn't expensive.
>
>As for size, today I carried a lawnmower a few miles to my brother's
>house. Last year I carried a 39 inch flatscreen TV there from even
>further away. So by my standards, anything for which a hand truck is
>superfluous is small. A whole lot of printer cartridges can fit in
>the space taken up by one lawnmower or one TV set. Per unit volume,
>the printer cartridges are much more expensive than either. Or than
>almost anything else except currency, gold, jewelry, or drugs.
How about memory cards?
My usual online supplier has high speed (Class 10) 32GB MicroSD cards
for 20 pounds and upwards, for a volume of 0.165ml, or roughly 120
pounds per ml.
And that price per byte is roughly 10^-8 times the cost of the first
RAM I saw bought :-D
Don't you just love this modern world...
Alan Woodford
The Greying Lensman
Alan Woodford
May 16, 2013, 1:01:42 AM5/16/13
to
Philip Chee
May 16, 2013, 1:01:34 AM5/16/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 10:27:42 -0500, David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
>>Maybe a radar-invisible drone would be possible.
>
> Current designs have radar cross sections far smaller than what you'd
> expect. Supposedly, the F-22 has one the size of a metal marble and the
> F-35 and B-2 have ones the size of a metal golf ball.
>
> <http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-4408.html>
I see. So all we have to do now is to watch out for flying metal golf
balls (and marbles). Not many of them up there in the air.
Phil
--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
>>Maybe a radar-invisible drone would be possible.
>
> Current designs have radar cross sections far smaller than what you'd
> expect. Supposedly, the F-22 has one the size of a metal marble and the
> F-35 and B-2 have ones the size of a metal golf ball.
>
> <http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-4408.html>
I see. So all we have to do now is to watch out for flying metal golf
balls (and marbles). Not many of them up there in the air.
Phil
--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
Philip Chee
May 16, 2013, 1:17:17 AM5/16/13
to
On 16/05/2013 07:13, David Friedman wrote:
> In article
> <9aedc7b5-0fde-40bd...@j4g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 15, 1:56 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:43:14, Cryptoengineer <petert...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >This is a games trainee lawyers also play, with
>> > > >the damage to their souls mentioned in the paragraph above.
>> >
>> > I just thought I should point out, in case anyone in the conversation
>> > doesn't realize it, that I have never been either a lawyer or a law
>> > student.
>>
>> I'm aware of that; nothing in my post said you were or have been.
>> However, you are a professor of law: you've spent more time around
>> them than is healthy.
>
> I think my relevant characteristics were fixed quite a long time before
> I first had a position at a law school.
>
> I also think your view of lawyers and law schools is not entirely
> accurate.
I think it's your view that isn't entirely accurate.
q.v. <http://www.popehat.com/tag/prenda-law/>
> In article
> <9aedc7b5-0fde-40bd...@j4g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 15, 1:56 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:43:14, Cryptoengineer <petert...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >This is a games trainee lawyers also play, with
>> > > >the damage to their souls mentioned in the paragraph above.
>> >
>> > I just thought I should point out, in case anyone in the conversation
>> > doesn't realize it, that I have never been either a lawyer or a law
>> > student.
>>
>> I'm aware of that; nothing in my post said you were or have been.
>> However, you are a professor of law: you've spent more time around
>> them than is healthy.
>
> I think my relevant characteristics were fixed quite a long time before
> I first had a position at a law school.
>
> I also think your view of lawyers and law schools is not entirely
> accurate.
I think it's your view that isn't entirely accurate.
q.v. <http://www.popehat.com/tag/prenda-law/>
David Goldfarb
May 16, 2013, 1:14:44 AM5/16/13
to
In article <kn1e1e$dqg$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
but quite some time ago they switched to just using the machine,
and I've never seen any in the center in Houston either.
>As I've mentioned, one of my goals in frequently donating, and in
>avoiding red meat and iron-enriched foods, is to keep my iron levels
>toward the low end of normal, since I believe that to be healthier.
For my part, I need to take iron supplements in order to keep my
hematocrit above the minimum necessary. (This is true, even now
that I'm doing platelets more than whole blood.)
--
David Goldfarb |"My society worries about people getting their
goldf...@gmail.com | hands on illegal drugs but they'll sell any
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | idiot a bag of concrete."
| -- Teresa Nielsen Hayden
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Do they actually check for a number? Around here, they check to see
>how long it takes a drop of blood to sink to the bottom of a tube of
>some liquid.
Copper sulfate, probably. The center in Oakland used to use that,
>Do they actually check for a number? Around here, they check to see
>how long it takes a drop of blood to sink to the bottom of a tube of
>some liquid.
but quite some time ago they switched to just using the machine,
and I've never seen any in the center in Houston either.
>As I've mentioned, one of my goals in frequently donating, and in
>avoiding red meat and iron-enriched foods, is to keep my iron levels
>toward the low end of normal, since I believe that to be healthier.
hematocrit above the minimum necessary. (This is true, even now
that I'm doing platelets more than whole blood.)
--
David Goldfarb |"My society worries about people getting their
goldf...@gmail.com | hands on illegal drugs but they'll sell any
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | idiot a bag of concrete."
| -- Teresa Nielsen Hayden
David Goldfarb
May 16, 2013, 1:20:53 AM5/16/13
to
In article <kn1fue$9nf$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>sold them were often displayed operating, aimed straight up, with big
>colorful beach balls moving wildly in the air stream but somehow never
>blowing to one side and hitting the floor. I haven't seen a display
>like that in decades. Does anyone else remember such a display? Has
>anyone seen anything like it recently?
I've never seen a display of air conditioning units, but I have seen
something very like that at the Exploratorium in San Francisco.
The ball never leaves the air jet because inside the jet the
pressure is lower than in the surrounding, relatively still air.
So when the ball moves towards the edge, it experiences a force
pushing back to the center. The Bernoulli Effect in action.
<http://www.exploratorium.edu/books/bernoulli/> has more about this,
with pictures of some of the "Bernoulli Blower" exhibits around
the world.
--
David Goldfarb |"Think of me as a brief electromagnetic anomaly
goldf...@gmail.com | who told you some true things for your own good."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Babylon 5, "Day of the Dead"
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>I'm reminded that when I was a child, air conditioners in stores that
>sold them were often displayed operating, aimed straight up, with big
>colorful beach balls moving wildly in the air stream but somehow never
>blowing to one side and hitting the floor. I haven't seen a display
>like that in decades. Does anyone else remember such a display? Has
>anyone seen anything like it recently?
I've never seen a display of air conditioning units, but I have seen
something very like that at the Exploratorium in San Francisco.
The ball never leaves the air jet because inside the jet the
pressure is lower than in the surrounding, relatively still air.
So when the ball moves towards the edge, it experiences a force
pushing back to the center. The Bernoulli Effect in action.
<http://www.exploratorium.edu/books/bernoulli/> has more about this,
with pictures of some of the "Bernoulli Blower" exhibits around
the world.
--
David Goldfarb |"Think of me as a brief electromagnetic anomaly
goldf...@gmail.com | who told you some true things for your own good."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Babylon 5, "Day of the Dead"
Joy Beeson
May 16, 2013, 12:31:29 AM5/16/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 21:49:46 -0500 (CDT), rksh...@rosettacondot.com
wrote:
> At 70 mph? Wow.
I've done 30 mph that I know of. I suspect that I've done faster on
roads that didn't have convenient mile markers and the leisure to time
my passage between them.
Not at night, however.
(Nowadays I don't go out at night at all, in any vehicle, if I have an
alternative.)
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://www.debeeson.net/joy/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
wrote:
> At 70 mph? Wow.
I've done 30 mph that I know of. I suspect that I've done faster on
roads that didn't have convenient mile markers and the leisure to time
my passage between them.
Not at night, however.
(Nowadays I don't go out at night at all, in any vehicle, if I have an
alternative.)
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://www.debeeson.net/joy/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
Paul Dormer
May 16, 2013, 6:52:00 AM5/16/13
to
In article <kn19ad$f35$4...@reader1.panix.com>, k...@KeithLynch.net (Keith F.
Lynch) wrote:
>
> I'd think far more people wouldn't get the reference to the raft of
> the Medusa, as that raft was built 74 years before Ho was born.
>
> Or is the music a reference to the painting by that name?
Indeed, the painting is mentioned by the narrator at the start. And one
of the singers represents Jean-Paul, the mulatto in the painting waving
the red flag. The oratorio was written as a requiem for Che Guevara.
Lynch) wrote:
>
> I'd think far more people wouldn't get the reference to the raft of
> the Medusa, as that raft was built 74 years before Ho was born.
>
> Or is the music a reference to the painting by that name?
Indeed, the painting is mentioned by the narrator at the start. And one
of the singers represents Jean-Paul, the mulatto in the painting waving
the red flag. The oratorio was written as a requiem for Che Guevara.
Paul Dormer
May 16, 2013, 6:52:00 AM5/16/13
to
In article <kn15a8$isp$7...@reader1.panix.com>, yb...@panix.com (Ben Yalow)
wrote:
>
> Horn & Hardart was a chain of self-service restaurants (called
> automats), mostly in New York and Philadelphia. You had a wall of
> rectangular boxes with a dish of food in each, and a coin operation
> so that you deposited money and could open the door and get the
> plate of food.
I had seen these in American films and TV shows, but didn't know what
they were called.
> Which is why, for Schikele's "Hardart", you drop coins into it to
> retrieve implements to play the notes.
Of course, I only heard the piece as a gramophone recording. I did see
Schickele once with the London Symphony Orchestra, but that wasn't on the
programme.
wrote:
>
> Horn & Hardart was a chain of self-service restaurants (called
> automats), mostly in New York and Philadelphia. You had a wall of
> rectangular boxes with a dish of food in each, and a coin operation
> so that you deposited money and could open the door and get the
> plate of food.
I had seen these in American films and TV shows, but didn't know what
they were called.
> Which is why, for Schikele's "Hardart", you drop coins into it to
> retrieve implements to play the notes.
Of course, I only heard the piece as a gramophone recording. I did see
Schickele once with the London Symphony Orchestra, but that wasn't on the
programme.
rksh...@rosettacondot.com
May 16, 2013, 8:11:59 AM5/16/13
to
Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 21:49:46 -0500 (CDT), rksh...@rosettacondot.com
> wrote:
>
>> At 70 mph? Wow.
>
> I've done 30 mph that I know of. I suspect that I've done faster on
> roads that didn't have convenient mile markers and the leisure to time
> my passage between them.
>
> Not at night, however.
My point was that on highways in unlit areas the headlights need to reach
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 21:49:46 -0500 (CDT), rksh...@rosettacondot.com
> wrote:
>
>> At 70 mph? Wow.
>
> I've done 30 mph that I know of. I suspect that I've done faster on
> roads that didn't have convenient mile markers and the leisure to time
> my passage between them.
>
> Not at night, however.
out as far as the stopping distance of the vehicle to allow the driver
time to react to an obstacle in the road.
At 20 mph that's about 40 ft, at 30 about 75, and at 70 about 315. In all
cases assuming a reasonably good reaction time on the part of the driver.
I think 2/3 second is the standard value. IME most older headlights didn't
reach out far enough to allow driving at 70 mph. The ones on my Cherokee
were absolute garbage...60 was pushing it on those, especially since
they tended to accumulate road grime worse than on any other vehicle I've
ever owned or driven.
> (Nowadays I don't go out at night at all, in any vehicle, if I have an
> alternative.)
bit earlier than he likes in winter to avoid driving at night. He
realized that he couldn't see important features like the edge of the
road after dark.
Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com
David V. Loewe, Jr
May 16, 2013, 9:56:06 AM5/16/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 21:27:48, Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com>
wrote:
One thing that I am surprised that no one has yet (that I've seen)
brought up is that you use low beams when there is approaching traffic
or you are overtaking traffic. The highest levels of available light,
which would seem to be what Keith is complaining about (what with dazzle
and all) are not used when they can blind or dazzle other motorists - it
is against the law.
<http://www.ehow.com/about_6628368_high-beams-law.html>
--
"When it is broken down, the philosophy of environmentalism is the
philosophy of life on earth without humanity at all. Green becomes
the color of a forest that grows over unmarked graves."
Michelle Minton
wrote:
brought up is that you use low beams when there is approaching traffic
or you are overtaking traffic. The highest levels of available light,
which would seem to be what Keith is complaining about (what with dazzle
and all) are not used when they can blind or dazzle other motorists - it
is against the law.
<http://www.ehow.com/about_6628368_high-beams-law.html>
--
"When it is broken down, the philosophy of environmentalism is the
philosophy of life on earth without humanity at all. Green becomes
the color of a forest that grows over unmarked graves."
Michelle Minton
David V. Loewe, Jr
May 16, 2013, 10:35:19 AM5/16/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 19:03:38, Michael Benveniste <m...@murkyether.com>
wrote:
>On 5/15/2013 6:54 PM, Ben Yalow wrote:
>
>> Very few printer cartridges are small and expensive -- the small ones are
>> usually cheap.
>
>My inkjet printer takes 7 cartridges, each of which holds 14ml and
>sells at retail for over $14 per. Did I mention that if you don't
>use the thing for a while, you end up wasting more ink on cleaning?
And here I thought the 6 (2 different blacks, gray and the standard CYM)
that my new MFP needs was a bit over the top...
These (Canon CLI-250 and 251) come in two sizes - regular and XL.
Regular 251s seem to be $11.99 and XLs $17.99. Regular 250s are $14.99
and XLs are $22.99.
--
"When PETA starts trying to toss red paint on motorcycle riders
wearing leather jackets, things will get more interesting (and I hope
someone's there with a camera)."
- James Jones
wrote:
>On 5/15/2013 6:54 PM, Ben Yalow wrote:
>
>> Very few printer cartridges are small and expensive -- the small ones are
>> usually cheap.
>
>My inkjet printer takes 7 cartridges, each of which holds 14ml and
>sells at retail for over $14 per. Did I mention that if you don't
>use the thing for a while, you end up wasting more ink on cleaning?
that my new MFP needs was a bit over the top...
These (Canon CLI-250 and 251) come in two sizes - regular and XL.
Regular 251s seem to be $11.99 and XLs $17.99. Regular 250s are $14.99
and XLs are $22.99.
--
"When PETA starts trying to toss red paint on motorcycle riders
wearing leather jackets, things will get more interesting (and I hope
someone's there with a camera)."
- James Jones
David Harmon
May 16, 2013, 10:52:31 AM5/16/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 00:50:36 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, David
Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote,
>Also, a "prefect" was a student position of some importance at some
>British schools, whereas the name is just a strange-sounding word in
>America (looks like a mis-spelling of "perfect" as much as anything).
But known to any American who has read Harry Potter.
Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote,
>Also, a "prefect" was a student position of some importance at some
>British schools, whereas the name is just a strange-sounding word in
>America (looks like a mis-spelling of "perfect" as much as anything).
But known to any American who has read Harry Potter.
Cryptoengineer
May 16, 2013, 11:05:34 AM5/16/13
to
On May 16, 9:56 am, "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net>
wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 21:27:48, Cryptoengineer <petert...@gmail.com>
Well, of course. Considerate motorists also use low beams when there
are approaching pedestrians. But changes in road slope can create
dazzle even with low beams.
But I don't think Keith cares; where he lives, I suspect that high
beam users are few and far between (there's no call for them where
there's streetlighting). He'd rather the entire world install polaroid
filters and stumble around in the dark with sunglasses, than that he
be inconvenienced.
pt
wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 21:27:48, Cryptoengineer <petert...@gmail.com>
are approaching pedestrians. But changes in road slope can create
dazzle even with low beams.
But I don't think Keith cares; where he lives, I suspect that high
beam users are few and far between (there's no call for them where
there's streetlighting). He'd rather the entire world install polaroid
filters and stumble around in the dark with sunglasses, than that he
be inconvenienced.
pt
David Harmon
May 16, 2013, 11:09:44 AM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 01:56:04 +0000 (UTC) in rec.arts.sf.fandom,
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,
> (Again, there's never a time machine around when you
>need one.)
Whereas a properly programmed time machine would always be around
exactly when you need it.
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,
> (Again, there's never a time machine around when you
>need one.)
Whereas a properly programmed time machine would always be around
exactly when you need it.
Alan Woodford
May 16, 2013, 11:40:35 AM5/16/13
to
beam, the fact that there is a dip option is so glaringly obvious that
most drivers don't even think about it...
Although on my motor, which has the ultra bright blue-white lights
Keith objects to (OK they are Xenons rather than halogens, but that
only makes them brighter and bluer...), I don't have to think about it
most of the time, they dip automatically if there are lights in the
field of view of the gubbins in the centre of the windscreen.
Street lights, headlights, tail lights, pedestrians with torches, the
only thing it doesn't spot is pedestrians without lights, so I have to
stay awake to do that :-)
David Friedman
May 16, 2013, 12:27:39 PM5/16/13
to
In article <pv6dnUdj5IFebwnM...@earthlink.com>,
Or _Stalky and Company_.
Or quite a lot of other books.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx
Or quite a lot of other books.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx
David Friedman
May 16, 2013, 12:34:17 PM5/16/13
to
In article <i1p9p8hs016m4omsm...@4ax.com>,
limit, that too being against the law?
> One thing that I am surprised that no one has yet (that I've seen)
> brought up is that you use low beams when there is approaching traffic
> or you are overtaking traffic. The highest levels of available light,
> which would seem to be what Keith is complaining about (what with dazzle
> and all) are not used when they can blind or dazzle other motorists - it
> is against the law.
Along similar lines, we know that nobody drives faster than the speed
> brought up is that you use low beams when there is approaching traffic
> or you are overtaking traffic. The highest levels of available light,
> which would seem to be what Keith is complaining about (what with dazzle
> and all) are not used when they can blind or dazzle other motorists - it
> is against the law.
limit, that too being against the law?
ppint. at pplay
May 16, 2013, 10:13:26 AM5/16/13
to
- hi; in article,
<memo.2013051...@pauldormer.compulink.co.uk>,
p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk "Paul Dormer" expanded:
> ("ppint. at pplay") wrote:
>> the only things for which i now remember him are his mag-
>> nificent, luxuriant facial hair, and his expostulatory out-
>> bursts - essentially, i think he was a conservative in the
>> sense of being against *any* change, as well as in the sense
>> of being a member of the tory party and a back-bench m.p.
>
>The other thing he was famous for was getting done for some traffic
>offence. He famously had a car registration plate NAB 1 (and, I think,
>NAB 2, NAB 3 and NAB 4) so he could hardly claim it wasn't his car. So
- oh, yes! and yes, at least a couple more nabs - sir
gerald was multiply nabbed, quite aside of being nabbed
for this.
>he claimed it was his secretary driving, but she didn't have a handlebar
>moustache. As Wikipedia puts it, "Nabarro insisted that his secretary
>had been driving at the time, however, and although subsequently
>acquitted of the driving charge, popular opinion was that he had indeed
>been driving."
- how peculiarly temporally appropriate this item has once
again become: two politicians've just been let out of prison
after serving just one quarter of their sentences, he for
having claimed she was driving to avoid getting the points
for the offence on his licence, and she for having colluded
with him upon this initially successful attempt to pervert
the course of justice.
and for both m.p.'s offences, hers, the wife dumped in the
intervening period's, was iiuc the crucial evidence.
- love, a ppint. as recalls her unsuccessful defence being
the claim that he'd subjected her to duress within marriage
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"never trust a man with shaved buttocks"
- jim darby, 2/9/96 (9/2/96 for merkins)
<memo.2013051...@pauldormer.compulink.co.uk>,
p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk "Paul Dormer" expanded:
> ("ppint. at pplay") wrote:
>> the only things for which i now remember him are his mag-
>> nificent, luxuriant facial hair, and his expostulatory out-
>> bursts - essentially, i think he was a conservative in the
>> sense of being against *any* change, as well as in the sense
>> of being a member of the tory party and a back-bench m.p.
>
>The other thing he was famous for was getting done for some traffic
>offence. He famously had a car registration plate NAB 1 (and, I think,
>NAB 2, NAB 3 and NAB 4) so he could hardly claim it wasn't his car. So
- oh, yes! and yes, at least a couple more nabs - sir
gerald was multiply nabbed, quite aside of being nabbed
for this.
>he claimed it was his secretary driving, but she didn't have a handlebar
>moustache. As Wikipedia puts it, "Nabarro insisted that his secretary
>had been driving at the time, however, and although subsequently
>acquitted of the driving charge, popular opinion was that he had indeed
>been driving."
- how peculiarly temporally appropriate this item has once
again become: two politicians've just been let out of prison
after serving just one quarter of their sentences, he for
having claimed she was driving to avoid getting the points
for the offence on his licence, and she for having colluded
with him upon this initially successful attempt to pervert
the course of justice.
and for both m.p.'s offences, hers, the wife dumped in the
intervening period's, was iiuc the crucial evidence.
- love, a ppint. as recalls her unsuccessful defence being
the claim that he'd subjected her to duress within marriage
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"never trust a man with shaved buttocks"
- jim darby, 2/9/96 (9/2/96 for merkins)
Dan Goodman
May 16, 2013, 1:34:50 PM5/16/13
to
--
Dan Goodman
David Dyer-Bennet
May 16, 2013, 1:36:34 PM5/16/13
to
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:
> In article <ylfkk3mz...@dd-b.net>,
>> > David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I just bought us a new case of 5000 sheets of paper. But that tends to
>> >> last over a year, anyway (and distributing hardcopy of a manuscript to
>> >> multiple people does give us usage spikes most households don't have).
>> >
>> > how many people in the relevant population, in your experience, prefer
>> > hardcopy to machine readable file? I normally send my betas out as files.
>>
>> This group, 100% hardcopy. They get together in person to go over it.
>
> Even in person, if people have laptops, machine readable has the
> advantage that when someone mentions a passage, other people can quickly
> find it via search. Probably faster than by page numbers, although
> possibly not.
The disadvantage is that, when reading it, they have no place to write
their comments. And it's harder to find the comments.
> It's also easier for the author to take notes on the comments.
>
> But in my case, it isn't a realspace connection except within my family.
> And there I think all of us prefer machine readable, save that my wife
> (who I just asks) says she is neutral on the question.
>
> Incidentally, my wife was impressed at my mentioning who you were
> married to, and said to tell you that our family are fans. I'm not sure
> if I have read any of her books, but Betty and the kids have and like
> them.
Neat; thanks for mentioning it, I'll pass it on.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
> In article <ylfkk3mz...@dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:
>>
>> > In article <ylfk8v3g...@dd-b.net>,
>
>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:
>>
>> > David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I just bought us a new case of 5000 sheets of paper. But that tends to
>> >> last over a year, anyway (and distributing hardcopy of a manuscript to
>> >> multiple people does give us usage spikes most households don't have).
>> >
>> > how many people in the relevant population, in your experience, prefer
>> > hardcopy to machine readable file? I normally send my betas out as files.
>>
>> This group, 100% hardcopy. They get together in person to go over it.
>
> Even in person, if people have laptops, machine readable has the
> advantage that when someone mentions a passage, other people can quickly
> find it via search. Probably faster than by page numbers, although
> possibly not.
The disadvantage is that, when reading it, they have no place to write
their comments. And it's harder to find the comments.
> It's also easier for the author to take notes on the comments.
>
> But in my case, it isn't a realspace connection except within my family.
> And there I think all of us prefer machine readable, save that my wife
> (who I just asks) says she is neutral on the question.
>
> Incidentally, my wife was impressed at my mentioning who you were
> married to, and said to tell you that our family are fans. I'm not sure
> if I have read any of her books, but Betty and the kids have and like
> them.
Neat; thanks for mentioning it, I'll pass it on.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
Dan Goodman
May 16, 2013, 1:37:46 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:34:17 -0700, David Friedman wrote:
> In article <i1p9p8hs016m4omsm...@4ax.com>,
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> One thing that I am surprised that no one has yet (that I've seen)
>> brought up is that you use low beams when there is approaching traffic
>> or you are overtaking traffic. The highest levels of available light,
>> which would seem to be what Keith is complaining about (what with
>> dazzle and all) are not used when they can blind or dazzle other
>> motorists - it is against the law.
>
> Along similar lines, we know that nobody drives faster than the speed
> limit, that too being against the law?
Americans have a Constitutional right to drive faster than the speed of
> In article <i1p9p8hs016m4omsm...@4ax.com>,
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> One thing that I am surprised that no one has yet (that I've seen)
>> brought up is that you use low beams when there is approaching traffic
>> or you are overtaking traffic. The highest levels of available light,
>> which would seem to be what Keith is complaining about (what with
>> dazzle and all) are not used when they can blind or dazzle other
>> motorists - it is against the law.
>
> Along similar lines, we know that nobody drives faster than the speed
> limit, that too being against the law?
light -- though not at speeds between the legal limit and lightspeed.
The Second and Third Amendments, properly interpreted, guarantee this
right.
--
Dan Goodman
David Dyer-Bennet
May 16, 2013, 1:48:31 PM5/16/13
to
rksh...@rosettacondot.com writes:
>>> Jay E. Morris <mor...@epsilon3.com> wrote:
>>>> As Jeff Cooper said the purpose of a handgun is to fight your way to
>>>> your shotgun whose purpose is to fight your way to your rifle.
>>>
>>> If the intruder is still fighting after you shoot him at short range
>>> with your shotgun, you'd better tell him where Sarah Connor is.
>>
>> Yes. I've occasionally advised people they would have been better off
>> just telling them the location of the rebel base, same idea.
>>
>>>> Since a majority of break-ins take place at night (I believe)
>>>
>>> I don't know. Here in Virginia, breaking into a house at night is a
>>> much more serious crime than breaking into a house in the daytime.
>>> The former will get you life without the possibility of parole --
>>> for a first offense.
>>
>> If you believe you're going to be caught, you're not there in the first
>> place.
>>
>>>> the only thing they'd see is the light in their eyes from the
>>>> attached flashlight.
>>>
>>> But he'd hear the scary unmistakable sound of a shotgun being cocked.
>>
>> The famous sound isn't cocking; it's "racking the slide" of a
>> pump-action shotgun (probably the most common kind for home defense).
>>
>> Tactically, it's sometimes useful to indicate you're *heavily* armed.
>> On the other hand, it's sometimes better to let the very loud bang make
>> that point (i.e. not give them a chance to react earlier).
>
> This is something that gets overlooked frequently. If someone breaks
> into my house at night, they know there's a very good chance someone is
> there. They didn't accidentally drive down a dead-end street, accidentally
> drive up a hundred feet of driveway and then accidentally kick their way
> through multiple panes of glass, break down a door, pick several locks, etc.
> They did this knowing there was likely to be a confrontation and they
> initiated it. I don't owe them a sporting chance, either legally or morally.
> I see no reason to risk my family members or myself. My only concern extends
> to making sure that I don't shoot an innocent bystander. I'm not interested
> in playing quickdraw or taking part in a wild west duel to the death.
> I'm also not interested in showing off...I'm a dedicated coward. I avoid
> confrontation when I can. However I won't sacrifice my friends and family
> to do so.
It's *very* important to be sure the apparent intruder isn't a guest of
another family member, say -- example used in Joel Rosenberg's carry
class is he could be your daughter's boyfriend, using the bathroom at
3am. The fact that you've told her she can't have her boyfriend visit
her at home does NOT give you any legal rights to shoot him. And in
addition to legal troubles, it would complicate your relationship with
your daughter considerably. (I don't have a daughter, but more than one
person lives in this house, so the same principle applies, I have to be
sure I'm not shooting a guest of somebody else who lives here.)
Giving them a chance to behave reasonably makes mistakes along these
lines less likely.
>> Shotguns are also easier to wrestle away from people than handguns;
>> there's something of a diversity of opinion on how good a choice they
>> are for home defense.
>>
>> Also, fewer long guns are drop safe and in other ways safe to tote
>> around loaded. Modern self-defense handguns basically cannot go bang
>> unless the trigger is pulled back (and most negligent discharges while
>> holstering are caused by having your finger inside the trigger guard;
>> it's then forced back by the mouth of the holster, pushing the trigger
>> back, and then BANG!). So if picking a long gun for home defense, look
>> into that.
>
> Beyond toting them around, shotguns are much more difficult to store
> safely in readily-accessible places. There are all sorts of small
> safes of varying design and effectiveness for storing handguns away from
> inquisitive eyes and hands. I probably wouldn't bother with a shotgun
> anyway...it's just as easy (or difficult) to store the AR and with the right
> ammunition it doesn't overpenetrate walls like buckshot or slugs.
Yes, I have push-button lock boxes in a couple of locations in this
house (plus I keep my carry gun on me at home). My Ruger Mini-14 isn't
particularly set up as a combat rifle, I should look at something like
the Kel-Tec SU-16. Also that'd be a great excuse for an EOTech
holographic sight. (I'm left-eyed but right-handed, so rifles are not
my best firearm generally, but for close combat an EOTech would largely
resolve that issue, and it's okay out to a couple of hundred yards on
human-sized targets on something that's never going to be a sniper rifle
anyway.)
>>> Jay E. Morris <mor...@epsilon3.com> wrote:
>>>> As Jeff Cooper said the purpose of a handgun is to fight your way to
>>>> your shotgun whose purpose is to fight your way to your rifle.
>>>
>>> If the intruder is still fighting after you shoot him at short range
>>> with your shotgun, you'd better tell him where Sarah Connor is.
>>
>> Yes. I've occasionally advised people they would have been better off
>> just telling them the location of the rebel base, same idea.
>>
>>>> Since a majority of break-ins take place at night (I believe)
>>>
>>> I don't know. Here in Virginia, breaking into a house at night is a
>>> much more serious crime than breaking into a house in the daytime.
>>> The former will get you life without the possibility of parole --
>>> for a first offense.
>>
>> If you believe you're going to be caught, you're not there in the first
>> place.
>>
>>>> the only thing they'd see is the light in their eyes from the
>>>> attached flashlight.
>>>
>>> But he'd hear the scary unmistakable sound of a shotgun being cocked.
>>
>> The famous sound isn't cocking; it's "racking the slide" of a
>> pump-action shotgun (probably the most common kind for home defense).
>>
>> Tactically, it's sometimes useful to indicate you're *heavily* armed.
>> On the other hand, it's sometimes better to let the very loud bang make
>> that point (i.e. not give them a chance to react earlier).
>
> This is something that gets overlooked frequently. If someone breaks
> into my house at night, they know there's a very good chance someone is
> there. They didn't accidentally drive down a dead-end street, accidentally
> drive up a hundred feet of driveway and then accidentally kick their way
> through multiple panes of glass, break down a door, pick several locks, etc.
> They did this knowing there was likely to be a confrontation and they
> initiated it. I don't owe them a sporting chance, either legally or morally.
> I see no reason to risk my family members or myself. My only concern extends
> to making sure that I don't shoot an innocent bystander. I'm not interested
> in playing quickdraw or taking part in a wild west duel to the death.
> I'm also not interested in showing off...I'm a dedicated coward. I avoid
> confrontation when I can. However I won't sacrifice my friends and family
> to do so.
It's *very* important to be sure the apparent intruder isn't a guest of
another family member, say -- example used in Joel Rosenberg's carry
class is he could be your daughter's boyfriend, using the bathroom at
3am. The fact that you've told her she can't have her boyfriend visit
her at home does NOT give you any legal rights to shoot him. And in
addition to legal troubles, it would complicate your relationship with
your daughter considerably. (I don't have a daughter, but more than one
person lives in this house, so the same principle applies, I have to be
sure I'm not shooting a guest of somebody else who lives here.)
Giving them a chance to behave reasonably makes mistakes along these
lines less likely.
>> Shotguns are also easier to wrestle away from people than handguns;
>> there's something of a diversity of opinion on how good a choice they
>> are for home defense.
>>
>> Also, fewer long guns are drop safe and in other ways safe to tote
>> around loaded. Modern self-defense handguns basically cannot go bang
>> unless the trigger is pulled back (and most negligent discharges while
>> holstering are caused by having your finger inside the trigger guard;
>> it's then forced back by the mouth of the holster, pushing the trigger
>> back, and then BANG!). So if picking a long gun for home defense, look
>> into that.
>
> Beyond toting them around, shotguns are much more difficult to store
> safely in readily-accessible places. There are all sorts of small
> safes of varying design and effectiveness for storing handguns away from
> inquisitive eyes and hands. I probably wouldn't bother with a shotgun
> anyway...it's just as easy (or difficult) to store the AR and with the right
> ammunition it doesn't overpenetrate walls like buckshot or slugs.
Yes, I have push-button lock boxes in a couple of locations in this
house (plus I keep my carry gun on me at home). My Ruger Mini-14 isn't
particularly set up as a combat rifle, I should look at something like
the Kel-Tec SU-16. Also that'd be a great excuse for an EOTech
holographic sight. (I'm left-eyed but right-handed, so rifles are not
my best firearm generally, but for close combat an EOTech would largely
resolve that issue, and it's okay out to a couple of hundred yards on
human-sized targets on something that's never going to be a sniper rifle
anyway.)
David Dyer-Bennet
May 16, 2013, 1:56:01 PM5/16/13
to
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
> <rksh...@rosettacondot.com> wrote:
>> This is something that gets overlooked frequently. If someone
>> breaks into my house at night, they know there's a very good chance
>> someone is there. They didn't accidentally drive down a dead-end
>> street, accidentally drive up a hundred feet of driveway and then
>> accidentally kick their way through multiple panes of glass, break
>> down a door, pick several locks, etc.
>
> I wonder what proportion of midnight armed home invasions are
>> This is something that gets overlooked frequently. If someone
>> breaks into my house at night, they know there's a very good chance
>> someone is there. They didn't accidentally drive down a dead-end
>> street, accidentally drive up a hundred feet of driveway and then
>> accidentally kick their way through multiple panes of glass, break
>> down a door, pick several locks, etc.
>
> SWAT teams.
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/the-agitator frequently posts true
> stories of SWAT team raids gone awry. Wrong house, trivial offense,
> innocent homeowner shot dead by police despite cooperating (and the
> police are *always* exonerated), innocent homeowner shot and killed
> someone on a SWAT team thinking they were robbers or rapists (and
> the innocent homeowner is *never* exonerated), etc.
Here's a blog article by an attorney who got his client acquitted on
shooting at police who broke into his home. It's not actually unheard
of, this is just the first example that came to hand.
<http://schantz-law.blogspot.com/2011/09/closing-argument.html>. (He
also links to at least one news article from when the incident
happened.)
So "never", emphasized, is wrong. There's a STRONG presumption
(unofficial) against the person, I agree, and that's a problem.
Especially when the police are at the wrong address, or are acting on a
single anonymous tip or something at a house with no previous trouble.
> Then there was the recent tragic case where a drunk teenager
> apparently thought he was sneaking into his own house.
I suspect the drunk I had the police remove off my front porch at a
previous address was in that category. He got whacked on a bit, but not
until after he refused to leave quietly and resisted physically when
they started carrying him, so I have no beef with the police there. (He
wouldn't leave when *I* told him, through the door, that this was my
house, had been for years, and he didn't belong there, and should
leave. He didn't leave after I told him the police were on their way,
either. I was never the slightest bit tempted to shoot him through the
door -- but if he'd broken the door in and come in, it would have been a
different story.)
>> I don't owe them a sporting chance, either legally or morally.
>
> Especially since the police certainly wouldn't allow me to clean
> it up promptly.
I don't want to kill somebody. I'm pretty confident I would try, if the
situation actually required it, but I really don't want to.
David Dyer-Bennet
May 16, 2013, 1:59:19 PM5/16/13
to
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>> Likewise. They also check my iron level.
>
>> Yes, that too. But I've never been anywhere near iron deficient,
>> and I'm not worrying about the other end. (Although I do plan to
>> look up the range next time, and see where I am relative to the
>> other end, now.)
>
>
>> Yes, that too. But I've never been anywhere near iron deficient,
>> and I'm not worrying about the other end. (Although I do plan to
>> look up the range next time, and see where I am relative to the
>> other end, now.)
>
> Do they actually check for a number? Around here, they check to see
> how long it takes a drop of blood to sink to the bottom of a tube of
> some liquid. Only if it takes too long do they do a test with the
> how long it takes a drop of blood to sink to the bottom of a tube of
> machine that gives a number. (Well, the time to sink is a number,
> but not on the same scale.)
They used to use the sinking drop here, but now they take blood into a
> but not on the same scale.)
clear plastic doohickey which goes into a machine which reports a
number. (Memorial Blood Center, St. Paul, both in their bloodmobiles
and at their St. Paul center.)
> As I've mentioned, one of my goals in frequently donating, and in
> avoiding red meat and iron-enriched foods, is to keep my iron levels
> toward the low end of normal, since I believe that to be healthier.
>
> My low-normal iron level did once get me the hairy eyeball during an
> insurance physical. Not because it's inherently bad, but because an
> *unexplained* low iron level can mean there's a serious problem.
Abnormalities are abnormal, yes. And some sometimes associate with big
> insurance physical. Not because it's inherently bad, but because an
> *unexplained* low iron level can mean there's a serious problem.
problems.
> Suppose one's goal was to flunk a physical, perhaps to avoid being
> drafted. Or just to give weird results on medical tests. What would
> be some ineresting (but harmless) ways?
would think; there was enough organized resistance that most
possibilities would have been investigated and spread around some.
David Dyer-Bennet
May 16, 2013, 2:00:09 PM5/16/13
to
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>> What's the point in a detector so sensitive that it always goes
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>> off? If that set it off, then so did your zipper. Did they make
>>> you strip naked? Then what about your tooth fillings?
>
>> Maybe that's the point?
>
> An alarm that always goes off is as useless as an alarm that never
> goes off. In both cases it gives no information.
It lets them choose what degree of extra search to give each person.
David Dyer-Bennet
May 16, 2013, 2:01:44 PM5/16/13
to
>> Whereas a laser printer cartridge would be good for a few thousand.
>
> If it lasts that long. I'm a low-volume user.
Yes, your situation is considerably more complicated than mine, in that
any possible age expiration on the conumables has to be considered. It
may be that, even if the cartridge dries out before it's used up, it's
actually cheaper to replace a B&W inkjet cartridge more often than a
toner cartridge less often.
>
> If it lasts that long. I'm a low-volume user.
Yes, your situation is considerably more complicated than mine, in that
any possible age expiration on the conumables has to be considered. It
may be that, even if the cartridge dries out before it's used up, it's
actually cheaper to replace a B&W inkjet cartridge more often than a
toner cartridge less often.
Ben Yalow
May 16, 2013, 2:01:59 PM5/16/13
to
In <kn18fk$f35$1...@reader1.panix.com> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Horn & Hardart was a chain of self-service restaurants (called
>> automats), mostly in New York and Philadelphia.
>Was there ever one anywhere else?
I never saw them elsewhere, but I don't know that they might not have
tried opening one someplace else (note that I mean metro areas, not just
inside city limits).
Ben
--
Ben Yalow yb...@panix.com
Not speaking for anybody
>Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Horn & Hardart was a chain of self-service restaurants (called
>> automats), mostly in New York and Philadelphia.
I never saw them elsewhere, but I don't know that they might not have
tried opening one someplace else (note that I mean metro areas, not just
inside city limits).
Ben
--
Ben Yalow yb...@panix.com
Not speaking for anybody
David Dyer-Bennet
May 16, 2013, 2:07:31 PM5/16/13
to
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> The famous sound isn't cocking; it's "racking the slide" of a
>> pump-action shotgun (probably the most common kind for home
>> defense).
>
> Thanks.
>> The famous sound isn't cocking; it's "racking the slide" of a
>> pump-action shotgun (probably the most common kind for home
>> defense).
>
>
>> Tactically, it's sometimes useful to indicate you're *heavily*
>> armed. On the other hand, it's sometimes better to let the very
>> loud bang make that point (i.e. not give them a chance to react
>> earlier).
>
> It's easier to clean urine (from the frightened home invader pissing
>> Tactically, it's sometimes useful to indicate you're *heavily*
>> armed. On the other hand, it's sometimes better to let the very
>> loud bang make that point (i.e. not give them a chance to react
>> earlier).
>
> himself) off the rug than to clean blood and gore and brains off the
> rug and walls.
If the situation actually justifies use of deadly force, I would suggest
that these should not be high on the list of important considerations.
>> Shotguns are also easier to wrestle away from people than handguns;
>> there's something of a diversity of opinion on how good a choice
>> they are for home defense.
>
> that to be an issue.
You're not, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.
>> Also, fewer long guns are drop safe and in other ways safe to tote
>> around loaded. Modern self-defense handguns basically cannot go
>
> As the SWAT team moved through the house, screaming at everyone
> to get on the floor, Officer Paul Duncan approached 68-year-old
> Eurie Stamps. ... Stamps, who was not suspected of any crime, was
> watching a basketball game in his pajamas when the police came in.
> By the time Duncan got to him in a hallway, he was lying face-down
> on the floor with his arms over his head, as per police instructions.
>
> Duncan would later tell investigators that for his own safety,
> he decided to restrain Stamps, even though he was following
> instructions, and wasn't the suspect. ...
>
> As Duncan moved to pull Stamps' arms behind him, he says he fell
> backwards, somehow causing his gun to discharge, shooting Stamps.
> The grandfather of 12 was shot dead in his own home, while fully
> complying with police orders during a raid over crimes in which he
> had no involvement. ...
If he's holding it, nearly certainly it was a "finger in trigger guard"
error. The mechanisms involved in these safety interlocks are very
robust, on the order of a metal bar that covers the end of the firing
pin, and moves aside when the trigger is pulled. On a gun with an
external hammer, people have demonstrated beating on the hammer with a
real hammer without being able to set off the round in the chamber. (Or
the other variant, where the hammer simply can't *reach* the firing pin,
and a metal bar is moved into place to transfer the impulse when the
trigger is pulled.)
> Leone ruled the shooting an accident, and found no fault with
> the way Duncan or the SWAT team performed. While it's true that
> criminal charges against Duncan were probably unwarranted, it's also
> true that citizens who mistakenly shoot police officer during drug
> raids aren't afforded the same sort of consideration. The double
> standard is particularly bothersome when you consider that police
> get training on how to handle these situations, citizens don't; that
> police have the advantage of knowing what's about to happen; and
> that the tactics used in these raids, by their very design, are
> intended to confuse and disorient their targets.
>
> Posted yesterday at
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/raid-of-the-day-eurie-sta_n_3273127.html
Yes, it gets to be a mess in this kind of situation. There's also the
factor of people knowing they have NOT in fact done anything even
slightly questionable making them less prepared to accept the invasion.
Ben Yalow
May 16, 2013, 2:08:37 PM5/16/13
to
In <kn18sm$f35$2...@reader1.panix.com> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>Michael Benveniste <m...@murkyether.com> wrote:
>> Ben Yalow wrote:
>>> Very few printer cartridges are small and expensive -- the small
>>> ones are usually cheap.
>> My inkjet printer takes 7 cartridges, each of which holds 14ml and
>> sells at retail for over $14 per. Did I mention that if you don't
>> use the thing for a while, you end up wasting more ink on cleaning?
>Maybe by Ben's standards that isn't expensive.
>As for size, today I carried a lawnmower a few miles to my brother's
>house. Last year I carried a 39 inch flatscreen TV there from even
>further away. So by my standards, anything for which a hand truck is
>superfluous is small. A whole lot of printer cartridges can fit in
>the space taken up by one lawnmower or one TV set. Per unit volume,
>the printer cartridges are much more expensive than either. Or than
>almost anything else except currency, gold, jewelry, or drugs.
An inkjet cartridge, in its box, is about comparable in size to an Intel
Core i7 chip, in its box. And the chip costs something in the $200-1000
range. And is sold at the same computer stores where you could get a
printer cartridge (but probably not at an office supply store, or a drug
store, both of which are likely to sell commonly used cartridges). But
price/volume isn't close to higher than that for almost anything except
the exceptions you list.
>Michael Benveniste <m...@murkyether.com> wrote:
>> Ben Yalow wrote:
>>> Very few printer cartridges are small and expensive -- the small
>>> ones are usually cheap.
>> My inkjet printer takes 7 cartridges, each of which holds 14ml and
>> sells at retail for over $14 per. Did I mention that if you don't
>> use the thing for a while, you end up wasting more ink on cleaning?
>As for size, today I carried a lawnmower a few miles to my brother's
>house. Last year I carried a 39 inch flatscreen TV there from even
>further away. So by my standards, anything for which a hand truck is
>superfluous is small. A whole lot of printer cartridges can fit in
>the space taken up by one lawnmower or one TV set. Per unit volume,
>the printer cartridges are much more expensive than either. Or than
>almost anything else except currency, gold, jewelry, or drugs.
An inkjet cartridge, in its box, is about comparable in size to an Intel
Core i7 chip, in its box. And the chip costs something in the $200-1000
range. And is sold at the same computer stores where you could get a
printer cartridge (but probably not at an office supply store, or a drug
store, both of which are likely to sell commonly used cartridges). But
price/volume isn't close to higher than that for almost anything except
the exceptions you list.
David Loewe, Jr.
May 16, 2013, 2:08:58 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:34:17, David Friedman
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> One thing that I am surprised that no one has yet (that I've seen)
>> brought up is that you use low beams when there is approaching traffic
>> or you are overtaking traffic. The highest levels of available light,
>> which would seem to be what Keith is complaining about (what with dazzle
>> and all) are not used when they can blind or dazzle other motorists - it
>> is against the law.
>
>Along similar lines, we know that nobody drives faster than the speed
>limit, that too being against the law?
We're going to add all of these filters to car windshields and what not
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> One thing that I am surprised that no one has yet (that I've seen)
>> brought up is that you use low beams when there is approaching traffic
>> or you are overtaking traffic. The highest levels of available light,
>> which would seem to be what Keith is complaining about (what with dazzle
>> and all) are not used when they can blind or dazzle other motorists - it
>> is against the law.
>
>Along similar lines, we know that nobody drives faster than the speed
>limit, that too being against the law?
because some minority of people violate the law?
--
"Soldiers, when I give the command to fire, fire straight at my heart.
Wait for the order. It will be my last to you. I protest against my
condemnation. I have fought a hundred battles for France, and not
one against her ... Soldiers, Fire!"
- the Last Words of Michel Ney
David Dyer-Bennet
May 16, 2013, 2:12:38 PM5/16/13
to
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> ... the person keeping a gun for self defense probably carries it
>> (should carry it) *all the time*.
>
> That's hardly practical, given how many places guns are forbidden.
I haven't been in one yet this month. I'm trying to think of cases. If
I'd gone to the state Capitol to push (or celebrate) the gay marriage
bill -- I could still have carried there (I'm required to give notice to
the security unit that I plan to do so, but I did that years ago and
they keep the notification letters on file); I've carried there before.
The post office (the law says I'm allowed, actually, but the post office
doesn't believe it and I'm not interested in being a test case; they
have a poster up saying one can't carry there listing conditions a-c
from the law, and not listing d, which says something like "except for
people carrying on a valid state carry permit"). Schools, in Minnesota.
There are a few business who choose to post, but damned few these days.
Court houses (judges have issued orders, possibly illegal, overriding
what the law inteded to have happen there). State mental hospitals.
The secure zone at the airport. That's about it, here (it's all state
law, of course, so there are 51 variants of it or more, sometimes states
define special zones.)
David Friedman
May 16, 2013, 2:12:39 PM5/16/13
to
In article <628ap857536ul65q2...@4ax.com>,
requires and what people actually do.
By casual observation, a sizable majority of people violate the law in
the context of speed limits. I'm not sure whether a majority or minority
obey the rules on high beams--my guess is that a majority often obey
them, but a minority always obey them--I've certainly observed people
not doing so often enough.
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:34:17, David Friedman
> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> > "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >> One thing that I am surprised that no one has yet (that I've seen)
> >> brought up is that you use low beams when there is approaching traffic
> >> or you are overtaking traffic. The highest levels of available light,
> >> which would seem to be what Keith is complaining about (what with dazzle
> >> and all) are not used when they can blind or dazzle other motorists - it
> >> is against the law.
> >
> >Along similar lines, we know that nobody drives faster than the speed
> >limit, that too being against the law?
>
> We're going to add all of these filters to car windshields and what not
> because some minority of people violate the law?
We are, or at least I am, going to distinguish between what the law
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:34:17, David Friedman
> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> > "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >> One thing that I am surprised that no one has yet (that I've seen)
> >> brought up is that you use low beams when there is approaching traffic
> >> or you are overtaking traffic. The highest levels of available light,
> >> which would seem to be what Keith is complaining about (what with dazzle
> >> and all) are not used when they can blind or dazzle other motorists - it
> >> is against the law.
> >
> >Along similar lines, we know that nobody drives faster than the speed
> >limit, that too being against the law?
>
> We're going to add all of these filters to car windshields and what not
> because some minority of people violate the law?
requires and what people actually do.
By casual observation, a sizable majority of people violate the law in
the context of speed limits. I'm not sure whether a majority or minority
obey the rules on high beams--my guess is that a majority often obey
them, but a minority always obey them--I've certainly observed people
not doing so often enough.
David Dyer-Bennet
May 16, 2013, 2:15:08 PM5/16/13
to
>> I sometimes "turn up" the air conditioning at night ("turn down" the
>> thermostat on the air conditioner) -- because the side of the room I
>> sit on in the day is right in the air stream, whereas at night I'm
>> on the other side of the room.
>
> Annoyingly, the discount DVD bin at the local Best Buy is right in a
> blast of very cold air from a ceiling vent. I'm puzzled as to how
> the air fails to spread out before reaching me, given how high the
> ceiling is.
>
> I'm reminded that when I was a child, air conditioners in stores that
> sold them were often displayed operating, aimed straight up, with big
> colorful beach balls moving wildly in the air stream but somehow never
> blowing to one side and hitting the floor. I haven't seen a display
> like that in decades. Does anyone else remember such a display? Has
> anyone seen anything like it recently?
I've seen fountains with a ball in the water stream; same physics keeps
the ball there.
>> AND because I sleep much better when covered (I'm used to the weight
>> on me; I don't sleep well with even just a sheet).
>
> Through long habit, I'm now the other way around. That's one of
> several reasons I don't get a hotel room at cons. (The expense is
> the main reason, though.)
In the winter here covers are really pretty important, so I would never
get as much as a year to get used to the other.
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> I know that cold doesn't really radiate, but it sure *feels* like
>>> it does. When it's below freezing I can feel the cold radiating
>>> from my walls.
>
>> My architect uncle and I had an argument about that once. When it's
>> very cold out, the walls are colder than usual. I thik perhaps
>> the radiation *balance*, me radiating to the walls and the walls
>> radiating to me, is considerably different than on a warmer day.
>> While cold doesn't radiate, and while my radiation rate doesn't
>> depend on wall temperature, the net difference *does* depend on
>> wall temperature.
>
> That was my first thought too. But then the night sky ought to feel
> even colder, even on a warm day. And the warmer I am, the colder it
> ought to feel, since radiation goes up with the fourth power of the
> temperature.
There will be convective air currents involved as well, in the wall case
(and the sky case, though on a larger scale, so they'll feel different),
that might be a factor.
>> thermostat on the air conditioner) -- because the side of the room I
>> sit on in the day is right in the air stream, whereas at night I'm
>> on the other side of the room.
>
> Annoyingly, the discount DVD bin at the local Best Buy is right in a
> blast of very cold air from a ceiling vent. I'm puzzled as to how
> the air fails to spread out before reaching me, given how high the
> ceiling is.
>
> I'm reminded that when I was a child, air conditioners in stores that
> sold them were often displayed operating, aimed straight up, with big
> colorful beach balls moving wildly in the air stream but somehow never
> blowing to one side and hitting the floor. I haven't seen a display
> like that in decades. Does anyone else remember such a display? Has
> anyone seen anything like it recently?
I've seen fountains with a ball in the water stream; same physics keeps
the ball there.
>> AND because I sleep much better when covered (I'm used to the weight
>> on me; I don't sleep well with even just a sheet).
>
> Through long habit, I'm now the other way around. That's one of
> several reasons I don't get a hotel room at cons. (The expense is
> the main reason, though.)
In the winter here covers are really pretty important, so I would never
get as much as a year to get used to the other.
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> it does. When it's below freezing I can feel the cold radiating
>>> from my walls.
>
>> My architect uncle and I had an argument about that once. When it's
>> very cold out, the walls are colder than usual. I thik perhaps
>> the radiation *balance*, me radiating to the walls and the walls
>> radiating to me, is considerably different than on a warmer day.
>> While cold doesn't radiate, and while my radiation rate doesn't
>> depend on wall temperature, the net difference *does* depend on
>> wall temperature.
>
> That was my first thought too. But then the night sky ought to feel
> even colder, even on a warm day. And the warmer I am, the colder it
> ought to feel, since radiation goes up with the fourth power of the
> temperature.
There will be convective air currents involved as well, in the wall case
(and the sky case, though on a larger scale, so they'll feel different),
that might be a factor.
David Dyer-Bennet
May 16, 2013, 2:18:33 PM5/16/13
to
>> If you're shooting, quite legally, at a range, and it jams and you
>> can't clear it, there's actually a legal course of action!
>
> What happens in other states?
51 or so answers :-). Sometimes, the owner just ignores the law, and
very rarely gets caught, and if they're a white man with no record, may
not be prosecuted even if caught.
>> The original proposal had a requirement that anyplace that barred
>> you from carrying had to provide secure storage for your gun. But
>> that was apparently a little *too* good.
>
> It would have been very bad for anyone forbidden to possess guns,
> since then they couldn't work at such places. (I'm thinking mostly
> of small single-employee stores such as 7-11s.)
They wouldn't have to handle it, and with the right kind of locking
system it would be clear they weren't in possession.
Alternately, they could work at ones that didn't try to ban guns :-).
>> However, that does mean people in cars get a big advantage over
>> people using public transit who want to carry.
>
> Indeed. The same in Virginia. Carrying is absolutely prohibited on
> all mass transit here. Why are transit users second-class citizens?
There's some reason to differentiate mass behavior from individual
behavior, which could play a small part. But to a large degree it's a
proxy for class, of course. Keep guns out of the hands of the lower
classes! Laws against cheap guns ("Saturday night special") serve the
same purpose. That's been most of the history of gun control in the
USA, starting with disarming the recently-freed blacks.
>> can't clear it, there's actually a legal course of action!
>
> What happens in other states?
51 or so answers :-). Sometimes, the owner just ignores the law, and
very rarely gets caught, and if they're a white man with no record, may
not be prosecuted even if caught.
>> The original proposal had a requirement that anyplace that barred
>> you from carrying had to provide secure storage for your gun. But
>> that was apparently a little *too* good.
>
> It would have been very bad for anyone forbidden to possess guns,
> since then they couldn't work at such places. (I'm thinking mostly
> of small single-employee stores such as 7-11s.)
They wouldn't have to handle it, and with the right kind of locking
system it would be clear they weren't in possession.
Alternately, they could work at ones that didn't try to ban guns :-).
>> However, that does mean people in cars get a big advantage over
>> people using public transit who want to carry.
>
> Indeed. The same in Virginia. Carrying is absolutely prohibited on
> all mass transit here. Why are transit users second-class citizens?
There's some reason to differentiate mass behavior from individual
behavior, which could play a small part. But to a large degree it's a
proxy for class, of course. Keep guns out of the hands of the lower
classes! Laws against cheap guns ("Saturday night special") serve the
same purpose. That's been most of the history of gun control in the
USA, starting with disarming the recently-freed blacks.
David Dyer-Bennet
May 16, 2013, 2:22:38 PM5/16/13
to
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:
> In article <pv6dnUdj5IFebwnM...@earthlink.com>,
> David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 00:50:36 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, David
>> Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote,
>> >Also, a "prefect" was a student position of some importance at some
>> >British schools, whereas the name is just a strange-sounding word in
>> >America (looks like a mis-spelling of "perfect" as much as anything).
>>
>> But known to any American who has read Harry Potter.
>
> Or _Stalky and Company_.
>
> Or quite a lot of other books.
Yes, familiar to me. But then I have relatives in England, even still.
> In article <pv6dnUdj5IFebwnM...@earthlink.com>,
> David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 00:50:36 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, David
>> Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote,
>> >Also, a "prefect" was a student position of some importance at some
>> >British schools, whereas the name is just a strange-sounding word in
>> >America (looks like a mis-spelling of "perfect" as much as anything).
>>
>> But known to any American who has read Harry Potter.
>
> Or _Stalky and Company_.
>
> Or quite a lot of other books.
David Dyer-Bennet
May 16, 2013, 2:25:28 PM5/16/13
to
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
> There have long been eyeglasses that darken in response to bright
> light. Is it possible to have eyeglasses that darken in response to
> bright light in just one direction, and which do so very quickly?
At least most of the current ones are UV-triggered, and don't work in
cars at all. I've heard there are some new ones that claim some
response in cars (to sunlight), but I've never owned those and don't
remember the specs.
David Dyer-Bennet
May 16, 2013, 2:26:44 PM5/16/13
to
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
> <rksh...@rosettacondot.com> wrote:
>> Haven't done much night driving have you?
>
> I've done plenty of night bicycling.
Overdriving your headlights is less of a problem on bicycles, in my
exprience; in particular, the headlight isn't your primary light source
at night in the first place. Never did night bicycling out in the
country, that sounds like kind of an unpleasant idea.
David Friedman
May 16, 2013, 2:27:29 PM5/16/13
to
In article <ylfkk3my...@dd-b.net>,
Two points on that (very interesting) story:
1. He didn't kill either policeman, so it doesn't contradict Keith's
statement.
2. There is no evidence, at least in what I read, that any of the
policemen were charged with anything, although they fired a large number
of rounds, pretty clearly mostly with no good reason, where they were
quite likely to kill innocent people.
...
1. He didn't kill either policeman, so it doesn't contradict Keith's
statement.
2. There is no evidence, at least in what I read, that any of the
policemen were charged with anything, although they fired a large number
of rounds, pretty clearly mostly with no good reason, where they were
quite likely to kill innocent people.
...
rksh...@rosettacondot.com
May 16, 2013, 2:30:12 PM5/16/13
to
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> In article <628ap857536ul65q2...@4ax.com>,
> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:34:17, David Friedman
>> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> One thing that I am surprised that no one has yet (that I've seen)
>> >> brought up is that you use low beams when there is approaching traffic
>> >> or you are overtaking traffic. The highest levels of available light,
>> >> which would seem to be what Keith is complaining about (what with dazzle
>> >> and all) are not used when they can blind or dazzle other motorists - it
>> >> is against the law.
>> >
>> >Along similar lines, we know that nobody drives faster than the speed
>> >limit, that too being against the law?
>>
>> We're going to add all of these filters to car windshields and what not
>> because some minority of people violate the law?
>
> We are, or at least I am, going to distinguish between what the law
> requires and what people actually do.
>
> By casual observation, a sizable majority of people violate the law in
> the context of speed limits. I'm not sure whether a majority or minority
> obey the rules on high beams--my guess is that a majority often obey
> them, but a minority always obey them--I've certainly observed people
> not doing so often enough.
I suspect that most of them are being forgetful...I've done so myself
> In article <628ap857536ul65q2...@4ax.com>,
> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:34:17, David Friedman
>> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> One thing that I am surprised that no one has yet (that I've seen)
>> >> brought up is that you use low beams when there is approaching traffic
>> >> or you are overtaking traffic. The highest levels of available light,
>> >> which would seem to be what Keith is complaining about (what with dazzle
>> >> and all) are not used when they can blind or dazzle other motorists - it
>> >> is against the law.
>> >
>> >Along similar lines, we know that nobody drives faster than the speed
>> >limit, that too being against the law?
>>
>> We're going to add all of these filters to car windshields and what not
>> because some minority of people violate the law?
>
> We are, or at least I am, going to distinguish between what the law
> requires and what people actually do.
>
> By casual observation, a sizable majority of people violate the law in
> the context of speed limits. I'm not sure whether a majority or minority
> obey the rules on high beams--my guess is that a majority often obey
> them, but a minority always obey them--I've certainly observed people
> not doing so often enough.
when there are long periods between oncoming vehicles. The other car
usually "flashes" their high beams momentarily to remind the other driver.
I'm not sure I've ever had another driver ignore such a "flash" when I've
been the one doing it.
Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com
David Friedman
May 16, 2013, 2:34:05 PM5/16/13
to
In article <ylfkobca...@dd-b.net>,
I own several firearms, don't have any of them placed where I could
rapidly get at it. There is, however, a sword--a burmese Dha as it
happens--conveniently available in the dining room.
Given that, while I know how to shoot, I have done so rarely and never
taken a firearms self-defense course, I suspect that's the right
decision for my case. And I don't think that, where I now live, the
chance of having to defend against an armed intruder is large enough to
make it worth the effort of switching to your approach, although I
concede that it is almost certainly more effective than mine.
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> Yes, I have push-button lock boxes in a couple of locations in this
> house (plus I keep my carry gun on me at home). My Ruger Mini-14 isn't
> particularly set up as a combat rifle, I should look at something like
> the Kel-Tec SU-16. Also that'd be a great excuse for an EOTech
> holographic sight. (I'm left-eyed but right-handed, so rifles are not
> my best firearm generally, but for close combat an EOTech would largely
> resolve that issue, and it's okay out to a couple of hundred yards on
> human-sized targets on something that's never going to be a sniper rifle
> anyway.)
Interesting contrast.
> Yes, I have push-button lock boxes in a couple of locations in this
> house (plus I keep my carry gun on me at home). My Ruger Mini-14 isn't
> particularly set up as a combat rifle, I should look at something like
> the Kel-Tec SU-16. Also that'd be a great excuse for an EOTech
> holographic sight. (I'm left-eyed but right-handed, so rifles are not
> my best firearm generally, but for close combat an EOTech would largely
> resolve that issue, and it's okay out to a couple of hundred yards on
> human-sized targets on something that's never going to be a sniper rifle
> anyway.)
I own several firearms, don't have any of them placed where I could
rapidly get at it. There is, however, a sword--a burmese Dha as it
happens--conveniently available in the dining room.
Given that, while I know how to shoot, I have done so rarely and never
taken a firearms self-defense course, I suspect that's the right
decision for my case. And I don't think that, where I now live, the
chance of having to defend against an armed intruder is large enough to
make it worth the effort of switching to your approach, although I
concede that it is almost certainly more effective than mine.
David Friedman
May 16, 2013, 2:39:23 PM5/16/13
to
In article <ylfk38tm...@dd-b.net>,
Surely the other way around. They type the comments into the word
processor document of the manuscript, preferably coloring them.
And the comments are more legible than if scribbled.
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:
>
> > In article <ylfkk3mz...@dd-b.net>,
> > David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >
> >> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > In article <ylfk8v3g...@dd-b.net>,
> >> > David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I just bought us a new case of 5000 sheets of paper. But that tends to
> >> >> last over a year, anyway (and distributing hardcopy of a manuscript to
> >> >> multiple people does give us usage spikes most households don't have).
> >> >
> >> > how many people in the relevant population, in your experience, prefer
> >> > hardcopy to machine readable file? I normally send my betas out as files.
> >>
> >> This group, 100% hardcopy. They get together in person to go over it.
> >
> > Even in person, if people have laptops, machine readable has the
> > advantage that when someone mentions a passage, other people can quickly
> > find it via search. Probably faster than by page numbers, although
> > possibly not.
>
> The disadvantage is that, when reading it, they have no place to write
> their comments. And it's harder to find the comments.
???
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:
>
> > In article <ylfkk3mz...@dd-b.net>,
> > David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >
> >> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > In article <ylfk8v3g...@dd-b.net>,
> >> > David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I just bought us a new case of 5000 sheets of paper. But that tends to
> >> >> last over a year, anyway (and distributing hardcopy of a manuscript to
> >> >> multiple people does give us usage spikes most households don't have).
> >> >
> >> > how many people in the relevant population, in your experience, prefer
> >> > hardcopy to machine readable file? I normally send my betas out as files.
> >>
> >> This group, 100% hardcopy. They get together in person to go over it.
> >
> > Even in person, if people have laptops, machine readable has the
> > advantage that when someone mentions a passage, other people can quickly
> > find it via search. Probably faster than by page numbers, although
> > possibly not.
>
> The disadvantage is that, when reading it, they have no place to write
> their comments. And it's harder to find the comments.
Surely the other way around. They type the comments into the word
processor document of the manuscript, preferably coloring them.
And the comments are more legible than if scribbled.
Alan Woodford
May 16, 2013, 2:55:11 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 13:30:12 -0500 (CDT), rksh...@rosettacondot.com
wrote:
That's generally what happens over here.
You'll occasionaly get an idiot flashing his lights when you are
-already- on dipped beam, because they haven't seen your lights change
so you must still be on main, but generally it works as well as any
system with large numbers of random people is likely to...
Alan Woodford
The Greying Lensman
wrote:
You'll occasionaly get an idiot flashing his lights when you are
-already- on dipped beam, because they haven't seen your lights change
so you must still be on main, but generally it works as well as any
system with large numbers of random people is likely to...
Alan Woodford
The Greying Lensman
Jette Goldie
May 16, 2013, 3:11:33 PM5/16/13
to
On 16/05/2013 00:21, Ben Yalow wrote:
> Horn & Hardart was a chain of self-service restaurants (called automats),
> mostly in New York and Philadelphia. You had a wall of rectangular boxes
> Horn & Hardart was a chain of self-service restaurants (called automats),
> with a dish of food in each, and a coin operation so that you deposited
> money and could open the door and get the plate of food. They were very
> popular when I was growing up in the 50s/60s (which is when the piece was
> written), but lost out to fast-food restaurants where you ordered food
> from a human server (McDonalds, etc.), and were gone by the 90s.
>
There are quite a few like that in Amsterdam (Netherlands) but obviously
not that chain.
--
Jette Goldie
jgold...@btinternet.com
Living in the Future!
Cryptoengineer
May 16, 2013, 3:15:30 PM5/16/13
to
On May 16, 2:55 pm, Alan Woodford <al...@bortas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 13:30:12 -0500 (CDT), rkshul...@rosettacondot.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> >> In article <628ap857536ul65q2dfi8iibk64um4k...@4ax.com>,
You also occasionally see cars with maladjusted headlights, or ones
ones with a heavy load in the trunk. Either can lead to the beams
shining higher than intended. But most cars and drivers, most of the
time, use their dimmers properly.
Certainly the problem is minor enough that the dangerous and expensive
refit Keith suggests is unwarranted.
pt
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 13:30:12 -0500 (CDT), rkshul...@rosettacondot.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> >> In article <628ap857536ul65q2dfi8iibk64um4k...@4ax.com>,
> >> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:34:17, David Friedman
> >>> <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:34:17, David Friedman
> >>> <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
ones with a heavy load in the trunk. Either can lead to the beams
shining higher than intended. But most cars and drivers, most of the
time, use their dimmers properly.
Certainly the problem is minor enough that the dangerous and expensive
refit Keith suggests is unwarranted.
pt
David Friedman
May 16, 2013, 3:18:56 PM5/16/13
to
In article <ylfkli7e...@dd-b.net>,
But I suspect that many educated people of our generation grew up
reading fiction much of it written by English authors and set in England.
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:
>
> > In article <pv6dnUdj5IFebwnM...@earthlink.com>,
> > David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 15 May 2013 00:50:36 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, David
> >> Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote,
> >> >Also, a "prefect" was a student position of some importance at some
> >> >British schools, whereas the name is just a strange-sounding word in
> >> >America (looks like a mis-spelling of "perfect" as much as anything).
> >>
> >> But known to any American who has read Harry Potter.
> >
> > Or _Stalky and Company_.
> >
> > Or quite a lot of other books.
>
> Yes, familiar to me. But then I have relatives in England, even still.
I don't, so far as I know.
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:
>
> > In article <pv6dnUdj5IFebwnM...@earthlink.com>,
> > David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 15 May 2013 00:50:36 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, David
> >> Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote,
> >> >Also, a "prefect" was a student position of some importance at some
> >> >British schools, whereas the name is just a strange-sounding word in
> >> >America (looks like a mis-spelling of "perfect" as much as anything).
> >>
> >> But known to any American who has read Harry Potter.
> >
> > Or _Stalky and Company_.
> >
> > Or quite a lot of other books.
>
> Yes, familiar to me. But then I have relatives in England, even still.
But I suspect that many educated people of our generation grew up
reading fiction much of it written by English authors and set in England.
David Friedman
May 16, 2013, 3:25:56 PM5/16/13
to
In article <ylfky5be...@dd-b.net>,
Minnesota, as I think you have commented, has a history of generally
left of center politics--I believe it's one of the few places in the
U.S. where candidates running as socialists got elected to positions of
some importance in the past. I generally associate gun rights support in
general and support for concealed carry in particular with right of
center people and states.
So how does Minnesota happen to have such tolerant gun regulations? Is
your position--left of center on most issues, strongly supportive of gun
rights--common there?
Also, at a tangent, do you live in a relatively high crime area?
Routinely carrying a concealed handgun seems like a lot of trouble if
you don't.
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>
> > David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >> ... the person keeping a gun for self defense probably carries it
> >> (should carry it) *all the time*.
> >
> > That's hardly practical, given how many places guns are forbidden.
>
> I haven't been in one yet this month. I'm trying to think of cases. If
> I'd gone to the state Capitol to push (or celebrate) the gay marriage
> bill -- I could still have carried there (I'm required to give notice to
> the security unit that I plan to do so, but I did that years ago and
> they keep the notification letters on file); I've carried there before.
> The post office (the law says I'm allowed, actually, but the post office
> doesn't believe it and I'm not interested in being a test case; they
> have a poster up saying one can't carry there listing conditions a-c
> from the law, and not listing d, which says something like "except for
> people carrying on a valid state carry permit"). Schools, in Minnesota.
> There are a few business who choose to post, but damned few these days.
> Court houses (judges have issued orders, possibly illegal, overriding
> what the law inteded to have happen there). State mental hospitals.
> The secure zone at the airport. That's about it, here (it's all state
> law, of course, so there are 51 variants of it or more, sometimes states
> define special zones.)
I'm curious.
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>
> > David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >> ... the person keeping a gun for self defense probably carries it
> >> (should carry it) *all the time*.
> >
> > That's hardly practical, given how many places guns are forbidden.
>
> I haven't been in one yet this month. I'm trying to think of cases. If
> I'd gone to the state Capitol to push (or celebrate) the gay marriage
> bill -- I could still have carried there (I'm required to give notice to
> the security unit that I plan to do so, but I did that years ago and
> they keep the notification letters on file); I've carried there before.
> The post office (the law says I'm allowed, actually, but the post office
> doesn't believe it and I'm not interested in being a test case; they
> have a poster up saying one can't carry there listing conditions a-c
> from the law, and not listing d, which says something like "except for
> people carrying on a valid state carry permit"). Schools, in Minnesota.
> There are a few business who choose to post, but damned few these days.
> Court houses (judges have issued orders, possibly illegal, overriding
> what the law inteded to have happen there). State mental hospitals.
> The secure zone at the airport. That's about it, here (it's all state
> law, of course, so there are 51 variants of it or more, sometimes states
> define special zones.)
Minnesota, as I think you have commented, has a history of generally
left of center politics--I believe it's one of the few places in the
U.S. where candidates running as socialists got elected to positions of
some importance in the past. I generally associate gun rights support in
general and support for concealed carry in particular with right of
center people and states.
So how does Minnesota happen to have such tolerant gun regulations? Is
your position--left of center on most issues, strongly supportive of gun
rights--common there?
Also, at a tangent, do you live in a relatively high crime area?
Routinely carrying a concealed handgun seems like a lot of trouble if
you don't.
Philip Chee
May 16, 2013, 3:52:01 PM5/16/13
to
document, but everyone can do and it happens in real time so you can see
what other people are typing.
<http://etherpad.org/>
Phil
--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
David V. Loewe, Jr
May 16, 2013, 3:58:36 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 11:12:39, David Friedman
>By casual observation, a sizable majority of people violate the law in
>the context of speed limits. I'm not sure whether a majority or minority
>obey the rules on high beams--my guess is that a majority often obey
>them, but a minority always obey them--I've certainly observed people
>not doing so often enough.
My observation from hundreds of thousands of miles of driving (I used to
be a truck driver and racked up 100,000 miles in a single year as a
matter of course) is that the number who do not is vanishingly small
compared to the number that speed.
Moreover Alan tells us that there are cars that dim said lights
automatically.
--
"Leave your worries behind...
'Cause rain, shine don't mind
We're ridin' on the Groove Line tonight."
Rod Temperton
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:34:17, David Friedman
>> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> > "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> One thing that I am surprised that no one has yet (that I've seen)
>> >> brought up is that you use low beams when there is approaching traffic
>> >> or you are overtaking traffic. The highest levels of available light,
>> >> which would seem to be what Keith is complaining about (what with dazzle
>> >> and all) are not used when they can blind or dazzle other motorists - it
>> >> is against the law.
>> >
>> >Along similar lines, we know that nobody drives faster than the speed
>> >limit, that too being against the law?
>>
>> We're going to add all of these filters to car windshields and what not
>> because some minority of people violate the law?
>
>We are, or at least I am, going to distinguish between what the law
>requires and what people actually do.
Context. Context. Context.
> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:34:17, David Friedman
>> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> > "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> One thing that I am surprised that no one has yet (that I've seen)
>> >> brought up is that you use low beams when there is approaching traffic
>> >> or you are overtaking traffic. The highest levels of available light,
>> >> which would seem to be what Keith is complaining about (what with dazzle
>> >> and all) are not used when they can blind or dazzle other motorists - it
>> >> is against the law.
>> >
>> >Along similar lines, we know that nobody drives faster than the speed
>> >limit, that too being against the law?
>>
>> We're going to add all of these filters to car windshields and what not
>> because some minority of people violate the law?
>
>We are, or at least I am, going to distinguish between what the law
>requires and what people actually do.
>By casual observation, a sizable majority of people violate the law in
>the context of speed limits. I'm not sure whether a majority or minority
>obey the rules on high beams--my guess is that a majority often obey
>them, but a minority always obey them--I've certainly observed people
>not doing so often enough.
be a truck driver and racked up 100,000 miles in a single year as a
matter of course) is that the number who do not is vanishingly small
compared to the number that speed.
Moreover Alan tells us that there are cars that dim said lights
automatically.
--
"Leave your worries behind...
'Cause rain, shine don't mind
We're ridin' on the Groove Line tonight."
Rod Temperton
David V. Loewe, Jr
May 16, 2013, 4:03:34 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 13:18:33, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>> However, that does mean people in cars get a big advantage over
>>> people using public transit who want to carry.
>>
>> Indeed. The same in Virginia. Carrying is absolutely prohibited on
>> all mass transit here. Why are transit users second-class citizens?
>
>There's some reason to differentiate mass behavior from individual
>behavior, which could play a small part. But to a large degree it's a
>proxy for class, of course. Keep guns out of the hands of the lower
>classes! Laws against cheap guns ("Saturday night special") serve the
>same purpose. That's been most of the history of gun control in the
>USA, starting with disarming the recently-freed blacks.
Speaking of, your comment reminded of something I read on a blog today.
>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>> However, that does mean people in cars get a big advantage over
>>> people using public transit who want to carry.
>>
>> Indeed. The same in Virginia. Carrying is absolutely prohibited on
>> all mass transit here. Why are transit users second-class citizens?
>
>There's some reason to differentiate mass behavior from individual
>behavior, which could play a small part. But to a large degree it's a
>proxy for class, of course. Keep guns out of the hands of the lower
>classes! Laws against cheap guns ("Saturday night special") serve the
>same purpose. That's been most of the history of gun control in the
>USA, starting with disarming the recently-freed blacks.
<http://claytonecramer.blogspot.com/2013/05/robert-sherrills-saturday-night-special.html>
"I agree with Professor Johnson's take on Sherrill's book: it is
profoundly hostile to gun ownership and gun culture, but honest enough
to recognize that gun control is fundamentally impossible in a free
society. Sherrill is also honest enough to admit that the Gun Control
Act of 1968 wasn't passed to disarm criminals, but to disarm poor black
people -- and as a result, managed to accomplish neither."
--
"Tax the rich, feed the poor
till there are no rich no more."
Alvin Lee
David Loewe, Jr.
May 16, 2013, 4:09:02 PM5/16/13
to
heat sink (meaning it was a retail version) and said box was about twice
the size of most inkjet cartridge boxes.
--
"And so it was that later
As the Miller told his tale
That her face, at first just ghostly
Turned a whiter shade of pale"
Keith Reid & Gary Brooker
rksh...@rosettacondot.com
May 16, 2013, 4:08:04 PM5/16/13
to
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> rksh...@rosettacondot.com writes:
>>>>> As Jeff Cooper said the purpose of a handgun is to fight your way to
>>>>> your shotgun whose purpose is to fight your way to your rifle.
>>>>
>>>> If the intruder is still fighting after you shoot him at short range
>>>> with your shotgun, you'd better tell him where Sarah Connor is.
>>>
>>> Yes. I've occasionally advised people they would have been better off
>>> just telling them the location of the rebel base, same idea.
>>>
>>>>> Since a majority of break-ins take place at night (I believe)
>>>>
>>>> I don't know. Here in Virginia, breaking into a house at night is a
>>>> much more serious crime than breaking into a house in the daytime.
>>>> The former will get you life without the possibility of parole --
>>>> for a first offense.
>>>
>>> If you believe you're going to be caught, you're not there in the first
>>> place.
>>>
>>>>> the only thing they'd see is the light in their eyes from the
>>>>> attached flashlight.
>>>>
>>>> But he'd hear the scary unmistakable sound of a shotgun being cocked.
>> initiated it. I don't owe them a sporting chance, either legally or morally.
>> I see no reason to risk my family members or myself. My only concern extends
>> to making sure that I don't shoot an innocent bystander. I'm not interested
>> in playing quickdraw or taking part in a wild west duel to the death.
>> I'm also not interested in showing off...I'm a dedicated coward. I avoid
>> confrontation when I can. However I won't sacrifice my friends and family
>> to do so.
>
> It's *very* important to be sure the apparent intruder isn't a guest of
> another family member, say -- example used in Joel Rosenberg's carry
> class is he could be your daughter's boyfriend, using the bathroom at
> 3am. The fact that you've told her she can't have her boyfriend visit
> her at home does NOT give you any legal rights to shoot him. And in
> addition to legal troubles, it would complicate your relationship with
> your daughter considerably. (I don't have a daughter, but more than one
> person lives in this house, so the same principle applies, I have to be
> sure I'm not shooting a guest of somebody else who lives here.)
>
> Giving them a chance to behave reasonably makes mistakes along these
> lines less likely.
It's always critical to make sure of what/who you're shooting at, and also
what's behind them.
I'm thinking more of the "drop your gun" scenario of a thousand TV
shows, where the intruder is obviously that and also obviously armed.
> rksh...@rosettacondot.com writes:
>
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> Jay E. Morris <mor...@epsilon3.com> wrote:
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>> As Jeff Cooper said the purpose of a handgun is to fight your way to
>>>>> your shotgun whose purpose is to fight your way to your rifle.
>>>>
>>>> If the intruder is still fighting after you shoot him at short range
>>>> with your shotgun, you'd better tell him where Sarah Connor is.
>>>
>>> Yes. I've occasionally advised people they would have been better off
>>> just telling them the location of the rebel base, same idea.
>>>
>>>>> Since a majority of break-ins take place at night (I believe)
>>>>
>>>> I don't know. Here in Virginia, breaking into a house at night is a
>>>> much more serious crime than breaking into a house in the daytime.
>>>> The former will get you life without the possibility of parole --
>>>> for a first offense.
>>>
>>> If you believe you're going to be caught, you're not there in the first
>>> place.
>>>
>>>>> the only thing they'd see is the light in their eyes from the
>>>>> attached flashlight.
>>>>
>>>> But he'd hear the scary unmistakable sound of a shotgun being cocked.
>>>
>>> The famous sound isn't cocking; it's "racking the slide" of a
>>> pump-action shotgun (probably the most common kind for home defense).
>>>
>>> The famous sound isn't cocking; it's "racking the slide" of a
>>> pump-action shotgun (probably the most common kind for home defense).
>>>
>>> Tactically, it's sometimes useful to indicate you're *heavily* armed.
>>> On the other hand, it's sometimes better to let the very loud bang make
>>> that point (i.e. not give them a chance to react earlier).
>>
>>> On the other hand, it's sometimes better to let the very loud bang make
>>> that point (i.e. not give them a chance to react earlier).
>>
>> This is something that gets overlooked frequently. If someone breaks
>> into my house at night, they know there's a very good chance someone is
>> there. They didn't accidentally drive down a dead-end street, accidentally
>> drive up a hundred feet of driveway and then accidentally kick their way
>> through multiple panes of glass, break down a door, pick several locks, etc.
>> They did this knowing there was likely to be a confrontation and they
>> into my house at night, they know there's a very good chance someone is
>> there. They didn't accidentally drive down a dead-end street, accidentally
>> drive up a hundred feet of driveway and then accidentally kick their way
>> through multiple panes of glass, break down a door, pick several locks, etc.
>> initiated it. I don't owe them a sporting chance, either legally or morally.
>> I see no reason to risk my family members or myself. My only concern extends
>> to making sure that I don't shoot an innocent bystander. I'm not interested
>> in playing quickdraw or taking part in a wild west duel to the death.
>> I'm also not interested in showing off...I'm a dedicated coward. I avoid
>> confrontation when I can. However I won't sacrifice my friends and family
>> to do so.
>
> It's *very* important to be sure the apparent intruder isn't a guest of
> another family member, say -- example used in Joel Rosenberg's carry
> class is he could be your daughter's boyfriend, using the bathroom at
> 3am. The fact that you've told her she can't have her boyfriend visit
> her at home does NOT give you any legal rights to shoot him. And in
> addition to legal troubles, it would complicate your relationship with
> your daughter considerably. (I don't have a daughter, but more than one
> person lives in this house, so the same principle applies, I have to be
> sure I'm not shooting a guest of somebody else who lives here.)
>
> Giving them a chance to behave reasonably makes mistakes along these
> lines less likely.
It's always critical to make sure of what/who you're shooting at, and also
what's behind them.
I'm thinking more of the "drop your gun" scenario of a thousand TV
shows, where the intruder is obviously that and also obviously armed.
Jette Goldie
May 16, 2013, 4:21:03 PM5/16/13
to
On 16/05/2013 06:01, Alan Woodford wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 20:55:36 -0700 (PDT), Cryptoengineer
> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 15, 9:50 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>>>> Likewise. They also check my iron level.
>>>> Yes, that too. But I've never been anywhere near iron deficient,
>>>> and I'm not worrying about the other end. (Although I do plan to
>>>> look up the range next time, and see where I am relative to the
>>>> other end, now.)
>>>
>>> Do they actually check for a number? Around here, they check to see
>>> how long it takes a drop of blood to sink to the bottom of a tube of
>>> some liquid. Only if it takes too long do they do a test with the
>>> machine that gives a number. (Well, the time to sink is a number,
>>> but not on the same scale.)
>>>
>>> As I've mentioned, one of my goals in frequently donating, and in
>>> avoiding red meat and iron-enriched foods, is to keep my iron levels
>>> toward the low end of normal, since I believe that to be healthier.
>>>
>>> My low-normal iron level did once get me the hairy eyeball during an
>>> insurance physical. Not because it's inherently bad, but because an
>>> *unexplained* low iron level can mean there's a serious problem.
>>>
>>> Suppose one's goal was to flunk a physical, perhaps to avoid being
>>> drafted. Or just to give weird results on medical tests. What would
>>> be some ineresting (but harmless) ways?
>>>
>>> I've discovered that it's possible to fill my bladder with air using
>>> an aquarium pump.
>>
>> I know you like to experiment, but this tells me things about you that
>> I Did Not Want To Know. :-)
>>
>> TMI TMI TMI
>>
>
> AOL!
>
>
AOL indeed. :-)
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 20:55:36 -0700 (PDT), Cryptoengineer
> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 15, 9:50 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>>>> Likewise. They also check my iron level.
>>>> Yes, that too. But I've never been anywhere near iron deficient,
>>>> and I'm not worrying about the other end. (Although I do plan to
>>>> look up the range next time, and see where I am relative to the
>>>> other end, now.)
>>>
>>> Do they actually check for a number? Around here, they check to see
>>> how long it takes a drop of blood to sink to the bottom of a tube of
>>> some liquid. Only if it takes too long do they do a test with the
>>> machine that gives a number. (Well, the time to sink is a number,
>>> but not on the same scale.)
>>>
>>> As I've mentioned, one of my goals in frequently donating, and in
>>> avoiding red meat and iron-enriched foods, is to keep my iron levels
>>> toward the low end of normal, since I believe that to be healthier.
>>>
>>> My low-normal iron level did once get me the hairy eyeball during an
>>> insurance physical. Not because it's inherently bad, but because an
>>> *unexplained* low iron level can mean there's a serious problem.
>>>
>>> Suppose one's goal was to flunk a physical, perhaps to avoid being
>>> drafted. Or just to give weird results on medical tests. What would
>>> be some ineresting (but harmless) ways?
>>>
>>> I've discovered that it's possible to fill my bladder with air using
>>> an aquarium pump.
>>
>> I know you like to experiment, but this tells me things about you that
>> I Did Not Want To Know. :-)
>>
>> TMI TMI TMI
>>
>
> AOL!
>
>
AOL indeed. :-)
rksh...@rosettacondot.com
May 16, 2013, 4:22:14 PM5/16/13
to
area, but also one in which response times are fairly high. We have no
police...law enforcement is provided by the county sheriff and they have a
lot of area to cover. It's pretty much assumed that any trouble will be
over by the time the authorities arrive.
I practice frequently, although not as frequently as I'd like because of
the current ammo shortage, because I enjoy shooting.
Maintaining the license is only a minor incovenience and expense and has
benefits beyond the ability to carry.
Carrying the pistol itself is a negligible inconvenience. The weapon and
holster go from the lockbox into my pocket every morning and from my pocket
into the lockbox every evening. If I go anywhere that carry is prohibited
the pistol and holster go into the glove compartment of the car, which I
lock before leaving. The car itself is locked and has an alarm (not to
mention that it's not an attractive target for theft).
If I'm travelling on transit I would have to make sure before I left that
I'm wasn't going any place carry is prohibited since I would't have storage
available. That's never come up so far.
The pistol I normally carry is light and small (around a pound) so it's
not really an extra burden given the wallet, phone, keys, change, etc.
that I'm already carring.
I do carry a considerably heavier pistol when we're out on our property,
but that's more to protect against four-legged threats and, in any case,
doesn't need to be concealed.
rksh...@rosettacondot.com
May 16, 2013, 4:23:56 PM5/16/13
to
Usually one of them is aimed correctly and the other one is pointed
straight out or even upward.
rksh...@rosettacondot.com
May 16, 2013, 4:30:37 PM5/16/13
to
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> In article <ylfkobca...@dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I have push-button lock boxes in a couple of locations in this
>> house (plus I keep my carry gun on me at home). My Ruger Mini-14 isn't
>> particularly set up as a combat rifle, I should look at something like
>> the Kel-Tec SU-16. Also that'd be a great excuse for an EOTech
>> holographic sight. (I'm left-eyed but right-handed, so rifles are not
>> my best firearm generally, but for close combat an EOTech would largely
>> resolve that issue, and it's okay out to a couple of hundred yards on
>> human-sized targets on something that's never going to be a sniper rifle
>> anyway.)
>
> Interesting contrast.
>
> I own several firearms, don't have any of them placed where I could
> rapidly get at it. There is, however, a sword--a burmese Dha as it
> happens--conveniently available in the dining room.
>
> Given that, while I know how to shoot, I have done so rarely and never
> taken a firearms self-defense course, I suspect that's the right
> decision for my case. And I don't think that, where I now live, the
> chance of having to defend against an armed intruder is large enough to
> make it worth the effort of switching to your approach, although I
> concede that it is almost certainly more effective than mine.
To contrast, I have a sword as well (English longsword) but no training
> In article <ylfkobca...@dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I have push-button lock boxes in a couple of locations in this
>> house (plus I keep my carry gun on me at home). My Ruger Mini-14 isn't
>> particularly set up as a combat rifle, I should look at something like
>> the Kel-Tec SU-16. Also that'd be a great excuse for an EOTech
>> holographic sight. (I'm left-eyed but right-handed, so rifles are not
>> my best firearm generally, but for close combat an EOTech would largely
>> resolve that issue, and it's okay out to a couple of hundred yards on
>> human-sized targets on something that's never going to be a sniper rifle
>> anyway.)
>
> Interesting contrast.
>
> I own several firearms, don't have any of them placed where I could
> rapidly get at it. There is, however, a sword--a burmese Dha as it
> happens--conveniently available in the dining room.
>
> Given that, while I know how to shoot, I have done so rarely and never
> taken a firearms self-defense course, I suspect that's the right
> decision for my case. And I don't think that, where I now live, the
> chance of having to defend against an armed intruder is large enough to
> make it worth the effort of switching to your approach, although I
> concede that it is almost certainly more effective than mine.
with it. It's stored safely away until I come up with a good place to
display it.
OTOH I've fired thousands, or more probably tens of thousands, of
rounds through various handguns. The probability of me ever having to
use one to defend myself against another person is small, but not
negligible, so I consider keeping one available as the equivalent of
insurance.
rksh...@rosettacondot.com
May 16, 2013, 4:50:25 PM5/16/13
to
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>> ... the person keeping a gun for self defense probably carries it
>>> (should carry it) *all the time*.
>>
>> That's hardly practical, given how many places guns are forbidden.
>
> I haven't been in one yet this month. I'm trying to think of cases. If
> I'd gone to the state Capitol to push (or celebrate) the gay marriage
> bill -- I could still have carried there (I'm required to give notice to
> the security unit that I plan to do so, but I did that years ago and
> they keep the notification letters on file); I've carried there before.
> The post office (the law says I'm allowed, actually, but the post office
> doesn't believe it and I'm not interested in being a test case; they
> have a poster up saying one can't carry there listing conditions a-c
> from the law, and not listing d, which says something like "except for
> people carrying on a valid state carry permit"). Schools, in Minnesota.
> There are a few business who choose to post, but damned few these days.
> Court houses (judges have issued orders, possibly illegal, overriding
> what the law inteded to have happen there). State mental hospitals.
> The secure zone at the airport. That's about it, here (it's all state
> law, of course, so there are 51 variants of it or more, sometimes states
> define special zones.)
Texas is not too different, I think. School buildings, "true" bars (as
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>> ... the person keeping a gun for self defense probably carries it
>>> (should carry it) *all the time*.
>>
>> That's hardly practical, given how many places guns are forbidden.
>
> I haven't been in one yet this month. I'm trying to think of cases. If
> I'd gone to the state Capitol to push (or celebrate) the gay marriage
> bill -- I could still have carried there (I'm required to give notice to
> the security unit that I plan to do so, but I did that years ago and
> they keep the notification letters on file); I've carried there before.
> The post office (the law says I'm allowed, actually, but the post office
> doesn't believe it and I'm not interested in being a test case; they
> have a poster up saying one can't carry there listing conditions a-c
> from the law, and not listing d, which says something like "except for
> people carrying on a valid state carry permit"). Schools, in Minnesota.
> There are a few business who choose to post, but damned few these days.
> Court houses (judges have issued orders, possibly illegal, overriding
> what the law inteded to have happen there). State mental hospitals.
> The secure zone at the airport. That's about it, here (it's all state
> law, of course, so there are 51 variants of it or more, sometimes states
> define special zones.)
opposed to restaurants that serve liquor), courthouses, voting places on
the day of voting, gambling establishments, sporting events, airport secure
areas, correctional facilities and places of execution. Other places if
"proper notice" is given, which means some very specific signage (minimum
1" lettering size and exact wording in both English and Spanish.)
In general, except for sporting events where the term "grounds" is
specifically used, the prohibition is against carry inside the buildings,
not in parking lots, garages, on sidewalks, etc.
Any place that that's not off-limits by statute and wants to prohibit
carry has to put the signs at every public entrance. Some businesses
reported being pressured by their insurance companies to prohibit carry
for (theoretical) liability reasons. They usually responded by putting a
"gun with slashed circle" sign at the entrance, which got the insurance
company off their backs but had no legal meaning. Even those are now
vanishingly rare...they tend to cost too much business and cause the owner
to find a new insurance company.
I think this came up before and we discussed the "why I'm not spending
my money here" cards that one can hand out as needed.
David Friedman
May 16, 2013, 4:55:12 PM5/16/13
to
In article <kn3fld$l2j$1...@memoryalpha.rosettacon.com>,
I suppose I have fired a few hundred rounds through handguns over the
course of my life. But I did SCA combat for about forty years, so have
spent a very large number of hours using a sword.
Not, of course, a steel sword, and there would be differences--but I
suspect smaller than the differences between shooting a handgun at a
range and using one in self defense.
I'm not sure of your definition of "longsword," but for use inside a
house I would consider what I think of as a standard size broadsword,
say 40" overall, as on the long side.
course of my life. But I did SCA combat for about forty years, so have
spent a very large number of hours using a sword.
Not, of course, a steel sword, and there would be differences--but I
suspect smaller than the differences between shooting a handgun at a
range and using one in self defense.
I'm not sure of your definition of "longsword," but for use inside a
house I would consider what I think of as a standard size broadsword,
say 40" overall, as on the long side.
David Friedman
May 16, 2013, 4:59:44 PM5/16/13
to
In article <kn3f5m$kps$1...@memoryalpha.rosettacon.com>,
Thanks.
If I lived in an area where casual plinking was a practical option, I
might be tempted--my experience with that kind of shooting is pretty
much limited to a BB gun during the summer when I was growing up. Or if
I happened to have friends who liked to go out to a shooting range.
I have occasionally made comments about the possibility of using my air
rifle to deal with squirrels who steal fruit from my back yard fruit
trees, but I don't think that's a very practical option inside San Jose
city limits. And using firearms for that purpose would be not merely
illegal but clearly irresponsible.
If I lived in an area where casual plinking was a practical option, I
might be tempted--my experience with that kind of shooting is pretty
much limited to a BB gun during the summer when I was growing up. Or if
I happened to have friends who liked to go out to a shooting range.
I have occasionally made comments about the possibility of using my air
rifle to deal with squirrels who steal fruit from my back yard fruit
trees, but I don't think that's a very practical option inside San Jose
city limits. And using firearms for that purpose would be not merely
illegal but clearly irresponsible.
ppint. at pplay
May 16, 2013, 3:07:40 PM5/16/13
to
- hi; in article, <8fu9p8pskfa3dj2fg...@4ax.com>,
al...@bortas.demon.co.uk "Alan Woodford" luciferated:
> <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com>>wrote:
>>>This post of Keith's deserves to be preserved, along with the complete
>>>version of the one it replies to, in the Keith Hall of Folly. It
>>>displays so many of his flaws.
>>>>
>>>> > - this is enough to make the transition effectively impossible, even
>>>> > if the glare problems of non-car and lorry road-users are ignored.
>>>> > the glare drivers using the ultra-bright, blue-white halogen
>>>> > headlamps cause other users (and themselves in heavy snow and fog)
>>>> > is bad enough, the dazzle temporarily blinding drivers of oncoming
>>>> > vehicles ...
>>>>
>>>> I'm not convinced. �Headlights are as bright as they are today mainly
>>>> to compensate for the dazzle from oncoming headlights. �It's an arms
>>>> race, one that nobody can win. �Remove the dazzle, and headlights can
>>>> all get a lot dimmer and yet serve their purpose better than ever
>>>> before.
>>>
>>>Here's something Keith should know better than to do. He makes a flat
>>>assertion on a subject in which he has very little experience (driving
>>>cars at night) to an audience full of people well experienced in the
>>>subject.
>>>
>>>How many drivers here were aware that there was a was an arms race
>>>between ourselves to put in brighter headlights? None? I thought so.
>>>Only in Keithworld is this true. I use my headlights to see the road,
>>>often in conditions where there are no other cars. Dazzle from
>>>oncoming cars simply isn't a factor. It's annoying when it happens,
>>>but almost never a serious problem.
>
>well yeah, but if you actually drive anywhere where you need high
>beam, the fact that there is a dip option is so glaringly obvious
>that most drivers don't even think about it...
- indeed, some don't think about using it *at all*
>Although on my motor, which has the ultra bright blue-white lights
>Keith objects to (OK they are Xenons rather than halogens, but that
>only makes them brighter and bluer...), I don't have to think about
>it most of the time, they dip automatically if there are lights in
>the field of view of the gubbins in the centre of the windscreen.
- it's myself, as is unhappy with the use of the blue-
white dazzlers - though keith may be, also - as they
destroy the night vision of oncoming drivers for maybe
fifteen to thirty seconds after they've passed - it
takes that long for one's nighttime acclimatisation to
be restored, and this is decidedly unsafe.
>Street lights, headlights, tail lights, pedestrians with torches, the
>only thing it doesn't spot is pedestrians without lights, so I have to
>stay awake to do that :-)
- i've a sneaking suspicion these may often be set to
return to high beam before the lamps are actually past
the drivers of oncoming traffic, if they are reacting
to the drop in incident light on the windscreen from
oncoming dipped headlights that've been properly set.
- love, ppint.
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"sunspots are important because scientists now know
they can affect the british climate."
- horizon: global weirding, bbc4, 20:35 bst (19:35 gmt) 2/4/13
al...@bortas.demon.co.uk "Alan Woodford" luciferated:
> <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com>>wrote:
>>>This post of Keith's deserves to be preserved, along with the complete
>>>version of the one it replies to, in the Keith Hall of Folly. It
>>>displays so many of his flaws.
>>>
>>>Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>>>ppint. at pplay <v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > - this is enough to make the transition effectively impossible, even
>>>> > if the glare problems of non-car and lorry road-users are ignored.
>>>> > the glare drivers using the ultra-bright, blue-white halogen
>>>> > headlamps cause other users (and themselves in heavy snow and fog)
>>>> > is bad enough, the dazzle temporarily blinding drivers of oncoming
>>>> > vehicles ...
>>>>
>>>> I'm not convinced. �Headlights are as bright as they are today mainly
>>>> to compensate for the dazzle from oncoming headlights. �It's an arms
>>>> race, one that nobody can win. �Remove the dazzle, and headlights can
>>>> all get a lot dimmer and yet serve their purpose better than ever
>>>> before.
>>>
>>>Here's something Keith should know better than to do. He makes a flat
>>>assertion on a subject in which he has very little experience (driving
>>>cars at night) to an audience full of people well experienced in the
>>>subject.
>>>
>>>How many drivers here were aware that there was a was an arms race
>>>between ourselves to put in brighter headlights? None? I thought so.
>>>Only in Keithworld is this true. I use my headlights to see the road,
>>>often in conditions where there are no other cars. Dazzle from
>>>oncoming cars simply isn't a factor. It's annoying when it happens,
>>>but almost never a serious problem.
>>
>>One thing that I am surprised that no one has yet (that I've seen)
>>brought up is that you use low beams when there is approaching traffic
>>or you are overtaking traffic. The highest levels of available light,
>>which would seem to be what Keith is complaining about (what with dazzle
>>and all) are not used when they can blind or dazzle other motorists - it
>>is against the law. <http://www.ehow.com/about_6628368_high-beams-law.html>
>>One thing that I am surprised that no one has yet (that I've seen)
>>brought up is that you use low beams when there is approaching traffic
>>or you are overtaking traffic. The highest levels of available light,
>>which would seem to be what Keith is complaining about (what with dazzle
>>and all) are not used when they can blind or dazzle other motorists - it
>
>well yeah, but if you actually drive anywhere where you need high
>beam, the fact that there is a dip option is so glaringly obvious
>that most drivers don't even think about it...
- indeed, some don't think about using it *at all*
>Although on my motor, which has the ultra bright blue-white lights
>Keith objects to (OK they are Xenons rather than halogens, but that
>only makes them brighter and bluer...), I don't have to think about
>it most of the time, they dip automatically if there are lights in
>the field of view of the gubbins in the centre of the windscreen.
- it's myself, as is unhappy with the use of the blue-
white dazzlers - though keith may be, also - as they
destroy the night vision of oncoming drivers for maybe
fifteen to thirty seconds after they've passed - it
takes that long for one's nighttime acclimatisation to
be restored, and this is decidedly unsafe.
>Street lights, headlights, tail lights, pedestrians with torches, the
>only thing it doesn't spot is pedestrians without lights, so I have to
>stay awake to do that :-)
- i've a sneaking suspicion these may often be set to
return to high beam before the lamps are actually past
the drivers of oncoming traffic, if they are reacting
to the drop in incident light on the windscreen from
oncoming dipped headlights that've been properly set.
- love, ppint.
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"sunspots are important because scientists now know
they can affect the british climate."
- horizon: global weirding, bbc4, 20:35 bst (19:35 gmt) 2/4/13
rksh...@rosettacondot.com
May 16, 2013, 6:04:14 PM5/16/13
to
length. The blade is 34", slightly tapered and 2" wide at the hilt,
double-edged full length with an overall length of 44". Cruciform hilt
with a grip allowing two-handed use.
We have a couple of others, but they're designed as display/costume
weapons only. Might be useful for scaring the heck out of someone.
ppint. at pplay
May 16, 2013, 5:54:04 PM5/16/13
to
- hi; in article, <kn3es2$7ov$1...@dont-email.me>,
jgold...@btinternet.com "Jette Goldie" aoelled:
> Alan Woodford wrote:
>> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
- love, ppint.
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"should placenta pie be baked in a baby belling ?"
- yr hmbl srppnt. 2/2/98 (2/2/98 for merkins)
jgold...@btinternet.com "Jette Goldie" aoelled:
> Alan Woodford wrote:
>> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>>> I've discovered that it's possible to fill my bladder with air using
>>>> an aquarium pump.
>>> I know you like to experiment, but this tells me things about you that
>>> I Did Not Want To Know. :-)
>>> TMI TMI TMI
>>
>> AOL!
>
>AOL indeed. :-)
- i can't help wondering whether the goldfish were warned.
>>>> I've discovered that it's possible to fill my bladder with air using
>>>> an aquarium pump.
>>> I know you like to experiment, but this tells me things about you that
>>> I Did Not Want To Know. :-)
>>> TMI TMI TMI
>>
>> AOL!
>
>AOL indeed. :-)
- love, ppint.
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
- yr hmbl srppnt. 2/2/98 (2/2/98 for merkins)
ppint. at pplay
May 16, 2013, 6:26:57 PM5/16/13
to
- hi; in article, <cmaap8d7a3c3ctrpf...@4ax.com>,
al...@bortas.demon.co.uk "Alan Woodford" opined:
> rksh...@rosettacondot.comwrote:
home from lancaster ~11 pm six times a week, and the only
sensible route north of carnforth is the A6 (the old great
north-wet road): and while _most_ drivers are considerate
enough, they're not exactly selected for @pub closing-time...
mis-aligned, despite the annual m.o.t. being meant to see
to this, inter alia. i suspect quite a few testers just
check all the lights are working, and move quickly onto &
through all the other checks, some of which are absolutely
crucial to safety all of the time, like the brakes & tyres.
- love, ppint.
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"never trust a man with shaved buttocks"
- jim darby, 2/9/96 (9/2/96 for merkins)
al...@bortas.demon.co.uk "Alan Woodford" opined:
> rksh...@rosettacondot.comwrote:
>>I suspect that most of them are being forgetful...I've done so myself
>>when there are long periods between oncoming vehicles. The other car
>>usually "flashes" their high beams momentarily to remind the other driver.
>>I'm not sure I've ever had another driver ignore such a "flash" when I've
>>been the one doing it.
- i have had, and fairly often; but then, i used to drive
>>when there are long periods between oncoming vehicles. The other car
>>usually "flashes" their high beams momentarily to remind the other driver.
>>I'm not sure I've ever had another driver ignore such a "flash" when I've
>>been the one doing it.
home from lancaster ~11 pm six times a week, and the only
sensible route north of carnforth is the A6 (the old great
north-wet road): and while _most_ drivers are considerate
enough, they're not exactly selected for @pub closing-time...
>
>That's generally what happens over here.
>You'll occasionaly get an idiot flashing his lights when you are
>already on dipped beam, because they haven't seen your lights change
>That's generally what happens over here.
>You'll occasionaly get an idiot flashing his lights when you are
>so you must still be on main, but generally it works as well as any
>system with large numbers of random people is likely to...
- an awful lot of car drivers have their cars' headlights
>system with large numbers of random people is likely to...
mis-aligned, despite the annual m.o.t. being meant to see
to this, inter alia. i suspect quite a few testers just
check all the lights are working, and move quickly onto &
through all the other checks, some of which are absolutely
crucial to safety all of the time, like the brakes & tyres.
- love, ppint.
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
- jim darby, 2/9/96 (9/2/96 for merkins)
Paul Dormer
May 16, 2013, 7:47:00 PM5/16/13
to
In article <20130516.141...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk>,
v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint. at pplay") wrote:
> - how peculiarly temporally appropriate this item has once
That thought had occurred to me.
v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint. at pplay") wrote:
> - how peculiarly temporally appropriate this item has once
That thought had occurred to me.
Keith F. Lynch
May 16, 2013, 8:03:13 PM5/16/13
to
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> I have occasionally made comments about the possibility of using my
> air rifle to deal with squirrels who steal fruit from my back yard
> fruit trees, but I don't think that's a very practical option inside
> San Jose city limits. And using firearms for that purpose would be
> not merely illegal but clearly irresponsible.
Lawn darts.
> I have occasionally made comments about the possibility of using my
> air rifle to deal with squirrels who steal fruit from my back yard
> fruit trees, but I don't think that's a very practical option inside
> San Jose city limits. And using firearms for that purpose would be
> not merely illegal but clearly irresponsible.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Keith F. Lynch
May 16, 2013, 8:07:13 PM5/16/13
to
<rksh...@rosettacondot.com> wrote:
> Texas is not too different, I think. School buildings, "true" bars
> (as opposed to restaurants that serve liquor), courthouses, voting
> places on the day of voting, gambling establishments, sporting
> events, airport secure areas, correctional facilities and places
> of execution.
Is Suzanna Hupp still trying to get this changed?
> Texas is not too different, I think. School buildings, "true" bars
> (as opposed to restaurants that serve liquor), courthouses, voting
> places on the day of voting, gambling establishments, sporting
> events, airport secure areas, correctional facilities and places
> of execution.
Keith F. Lynch
May 16, 2013, 8:10:41 PM5/16/13
to
<rksh...@rosettacondot.com> wrote:
headlights are as likely to be angled upwards or downwards as they
are to be level, since the road is as likely to be angled upwards
or downwards as it is to be level.
> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You also occasionally see cars with maladjusted headlights, or ones
>> ones with a heavy load in the trunk. Either can lead to the beams
>> shining higher than intended. But most cars and drivers, most of
>> the time, use their dimmers properly.
> I forgot about the misadjusted headlights...I see those occasionally.
> Usually one of them is aimed correctly and the other one is pointed
> straight out or even upward.
You must live somewhere very flat. I don't. Properly-adjusted
>> You also occasionally see cars with maladjusted headlights, or ones
>> ones with a heavy load in the trunk. Either can lead to the beams
>> shining higher than intended. But most cars and drivers, most of
>> the time, use their dimmers properly.
> I forgot about the misadjusted headlights...I see those occasionally.
> Usually one of them is aimed correctly and the other one is pointed
> straight out or even upward.
headlights are as likely to be angled upwards or downwards as they
are to be level, since the road is as likely to be angled upwards
or downwards as it is to be level.
Keith F. Lynch
May 16, 2013, 8:14:08 PM5/16/13
to
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> Minnesota, as I think you have commented, has a history of generally
> left of center politics--I believe it's one of the few places in the
> U.S. where candidates running as socialists got elected to positions
> of some importance in the past. I generally associate gun rights
> support in general and support for concealed carry in particular
> with right of center people and states.
> So how does Minnesota happen to have such tolerant gun regulations?
> Is your position--left of center on most issues, strongly supportive
> of gun rights--common there?
It is puzzling that 2nd Amendment rights tend to be supported by those
> Minnesota, as I think you have commented, has a history of generally
> left of center politics--I believe it's one of the few places in the
> U.S. where candidates running as socialists got elected to positions
> of some importance in the past. I generally associate gun rights
> support in general and support for concealed carry in particular
> with right of center people and states.
> So how does Minnesota happen to have such tolerant gun regulations?
> Is your position--left of center on most issues, strongly supportive
> of gun rights--common there?
who don't favor the rest of the Bill of Rights, and vice versa. (Of
course there are plenty of exceptions.)
rksh...@rosettacondot.com
May 16, 2013, 8:14:31 PM5/16/13
to
thousand nuisance suits, so I'm limited to pistols on an indoor range
and occasional trips to our property.
My dad was an avid trap shooter and hunter until he became too old to
comfortably fire a shotgun, so I grew up around guns. I used to plink
while he was competing, first with a BB gun around age 6 and later with
a .22.
> I have occasionally made comments about the possibility of using my air
> rifle to deal with squirrels who steal fruit from my back yard fruit
> trees, but I don't think that's a very practical option inside San Jose
> city limits. And using firearms for that purpose would be not merely
> illegal but clearly irresponsible.
exceptions for defense of self, others, livestock and pets. Air rifles are
permitted. Of course the state becomes involved if the use endangers
people or damages property and that could escalate to criminal charges. The
only real protection against squirrels, raccoons, possums, armadillos, etc.
seems to be a large fenced area with no way to get in from above and several
dogs inside.
We occasionally have middle-of-the-night visitors that climb the fence
looking for food and find the dogs instead. At that point it gets very
noisy, we bring the dogs inside for a bit and the visitor tends to depart
rapidly once it's no longer cornered.
Keith F. Lynch
May 16, 2013, 8:19:49 PM5/16/13
to
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> But I suspect that many educated people of our generation grew
> up reading fiction much of it written by English authors and set
> in England.
That doesn't mean we necessarily understood everything we read.
> But I suspect that many educated people of our generation grew
> up reading fiction much of it written by English authors and set
> in England.
Especially since the English often use the same words Americans do,
but with very different meanings. These often give very odd imagery:
Motorists storing things in their footware. Houses surrounded by
flowers or vegetables instead of by grass. Lamps fueled with wax.
Years with duplicated months.
Keith F. Lynch
May 16, 2013, 8:50:25 PM5/16/13
to
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> He didn't kill either policeman, so it doesn't contradict Keith's
> statement.
Right. I'm not aware of anyone who has ever mistakenly shot *and
killed* a policeman who burst into his house, and both survived
immediate retaliation and avoided years in prison.
The closest thing to an exception that I'm aware of Cory Maye.
He killed a policeman he thought was a robber during a midnight
wrong-house SWAT raid. He was sentenced to death. After ten years
in prison, he was granted a new trial. Instead of risking a similar
fate, he signed a plea agreement that sentences him to time served.
So he's technically guilty, and he technically admitted guilt. But
that's very obviously a coerced plea.
Home defense is almost like traditional religion -- you're rewarded or
punished based on guessing right with no evidence. Is the black-clad
midnight home invader a policeman or a rapist? A SWAT team member
or an armed robber? A public servant or an assassin? At least with
religion, you have your whole lifetime to decide which is the one true
religion. At midnight, you have one second the nature of the ninja
in your bedroom. From a sound sleep. In the dark. Without your
glasses. Good luck.
A reasonable person might choose to remain unarmed and take their
chances rather than risking death row if they guess wrong. Many
robbers don't kill their unresisting victims. On the other hand,
many policemen do.
If ours was a government of law and policemen were truly public
servants, warrants would be served in the daytime, with a polite
knock on the door. SWAT teams would be reserved for extraordinary
circumstances such as known hostage situations. There would be fewer
SWAT raids in a year than there are currently *wrong house* SWAT raids,
for victimless alleged crimes, in a single week.
(By "midnight" in the above, I mean very late at night when the
residents are expected to be asleep. I don't necessarily mean
12:00:00.)
> There is no evidence, at least in what I read, that any of the
> policemen were charged with anything, although they fired a large
> number of rounds, pretty clearly mostly with no good reason, where
> they were quite likely to kill innocent people.
Also, it's mentioned that after the innocent defender surrendered and
was disarmed, non-resisting, and face down, he was repeatedly kicked
in the face by the police.
The police have become a rogue occupying army, an enemy force from
which no American is safe.
> He didn't kill either policeman, so it doesn't contradict Keith's
> statement.
Right. I'm not aware of anyone who has ever mistakenly shot *and
killed* a policeman who burst into his house, and both survived
immediate retaliation and avoided years in prison.
The closest thing to an exception that I'm aware of Cory Maye.
He killed a policeman he thought was a robber during a midnight
wrong-house SWAT raid. He was sentenced to death. After ten years
in prison, he was granted a new trial. Instead of risking a similar
fate, he signed a plea agreement that sentences him to time served.
So he's technically guilty, and he technically admitted guilt. But
that's very obviously a coerced plea.
Home defense is almost like traditional religion -- you're rewarded or
punished based on guessing right with no evidence. Is the black-clad
midnight home invader a policeman or a rapist? A SWAT team member
or an armed robber? A public servant or an assassin? At least with
religion, you have your whole lifetime to decide which is the one true
religion. At midnight, you have one second the nature of the ninja
in your bedroom. From a sound sleep. In the dark. Without your
glasses. Good luck.
A reasonable person might choose to remain unarmed and take their
chances rather than risking death row if they guess wrong. Many
robbers don't kill their unresisting victims. On the other hand,
many policemen do.
If ours was a government of law and policemen were truly public
servants, warrants would be served in the daytime, with a polite
knock on the door. SWAT teams would be reserved for extraordinary
circumstances such as known hostage situations. There would be fewer
SWAT raids in a year than there are currently *wrong house* SWAT raids,
for victimless alleged crimes, in a single week.
(By "midnight" in the above, I mean very late at night when the
residents are expected to be asleep. I don't necessarily mean
12:00:00.)
> There is no evidence, at least in what I read, that any of the
> policemen were charged with anything, although they fired a large
> number of rounds, pretty clearly mostly with no good reason, where
> they were quite likely to kill innocent people.
Also, it's mentioned that after the innocent defender surrendered and
was disarmed, non-resisting, and face down, he was repeatedly kicked
in the face by the police.
The police have become a rogue occupying army, an enemy force from
which no American is safe.
rksh...@rosettacondot.com
May 16, 2013, 8:51:16 PM5/16/13
to
Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
> <rksh...@rosettacondot.com> wrote:
>> Texas is not too different, I think. School buildings, "true" bars
>> (as opposed to restaurants that serve liquor), courthouses, voting
>> places on the day of voting, gambling establishments, sporting
>> events, airport secure areas, correctional facilities and places
>> of execution.
>
> Is Suzanna Hupp still trying to get this changed?
She declined to run for a sixth term in 2006, so she'd be doing so from
> <rksh...@rosettacondot.com> wrote:
>> Texas is not too different, I think. School buildings, "true" bars
>> (as opposed to restaurants that serve liquor), courthouses, voting
>> places on the day of voting, gambling establishments, sporting
>> events, airport secure areas, correctional facilities and places
>> of execution.
>
> Is Suzanna Hupp still trying to get this changed?
outside the government. I'm not sure where she stood on the current
restrictions or on changing them while she was still a legislator..
Keith F. Lynch
May 16, 2013, 8:57:13 PM5/16/13
to
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> Overdriving your headlights is less of a problem on bicycles, in my
> exprience; in particular, the headlight isn't your primary light
> source at night in the first place.
Right. Around here, like in most urban and suburban areas, there's
always plenty of light, even on an unlit road, even during a
widespread power outage. Bike headlights, like bike taillights,
are mostly for being seen, not for seeing.
The one time I can't see clearly outdoors at night is when there are
car headlights shining into my eyes. Then, I can't see *anything*
except those lights, and am at risk of riding into the ditch or into
a parked car. Oncoming headlights are a serious hazard for cyclists,
for pedestrians, and for motorists. The last can compensate to some
extent by having their own super-bright headlights, but only by making
the problem even worse for everyone else.
> Overdriving your headlights is less of a problem on bicycles, in my
> exprience; in particular, the headlight isn't your primary light
> source at night in the first place.
Right. Around here, like in most urban and suburban areas, there's
always plenty of light, even on an unlit road, even during a
widespread power outage. Bike headlights, like bike taillights,
are mostly for being seen, not for seeing.
The one time I can't see clearly outdoors at night is when there are
car headlights shining into my eyes. Then, I can't see *anything*
except those lights, and am at risk of riding into the ditch or into
a parked car. Oncoming headlights are a serious hazard for cyclists,
for pedestrians, and for motorists. The last can compensate to some
extent by having their own super-bright headlights, but only by making
the problem even worse for everyone else.
Keith F. Lynch
May 16, 2013, 9:00:32 PM5/16/13
to
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>> There have long been eyeglasses that darken in response to bright
>> light. Is it possible to have eyeglasses that darken in response to
>> bright light in just one direction, and which do so very quickly?
> At least most of the current ones are UV-triggered, and don't work
> in cars at all. I've heard there are some new ones that claim some
> response in cars (to sunlight), but I've never owned those and don't
> remember the specs.
Even if they're very sensitive to visible light and react very
quickly, they're useless unless they react *directionally*, only
blocking the light from the super-bright direction(s).
If someone does invent such glasses, the patent will be worth a
fortune. And they'll have earned every cent.
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>> There have long been eyeglasses that darken in response to bright
>> light. Is it possible to have eyeglasses that darken in response to
>> bright light in just one direction, and which do so very quickly?
> At least most of the current ones are UV-triggered, and don't work
> in cars at all. I've heard there are some new ones that claim some
> response in cars (to sunlight), but I've never owned those and don't
> remember the specs.
Even if they're very sensitive to visible light and react very
quickly, they're useless unless they react *directionally*, only
blocking the light from the super-bright direction(s).
If someone does invent such glasses, the patent will be worth a
fortune. And they'll have earned every cent.
rksh...@rosettacondot.com
May 16, 2013, 8:58:37 PM5/16/13
to
Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
> <rksh...@rosettacondot.com> wrote:
>> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> You also occasionally see cars with maladjusted headlights, or ones
>>> ones with a heavy load in the trunk. Either can lead to the beams
>>> shining higher than intended. But most cars and drivers, most of
>>> the time, use their dimmers properly.
>
>> I forgot about the misadjusted headlights...I see those occasionally.
>> Usually one of them is aimed correctly and the other one is pointed
>> straight out or even upward.
>
> You must live somewhere very flat. I don't. Properly-adjusted
> headlights are as likely to be angled upwards or downwards as they
> are to be level, since the road is as likely to be angled upwards
> or downwards as it is to be level.
I've seen the effect, but only on the crests of hills. The lights sweep
>> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> You also occasionally see cars with maladjusted headlights, or ones
>>> ones with a heavy load in the trunk. Either can lead to the beams
>>> shining higher than intended. But most cars and drivers, most of
>>> the time, use their dimmers properly.
>
>> I forgot about the misadjusted headlights...I see those occasionally.
>> Usually one of them is aimed correctly and the other one is pointed
>> straight out or even upward.
>
> You must live somewhere very flat. I don't. Properly-adjusted
> headlights are as likely to be angled upwards or downwards as they
> are to be level, since the road is as likely to be angled upwards
> or downwards as it is to be level.
from high to low as the oncoming vehicle tops the hill. They end up
pointing back at the road as usual...it's not like the car is on gimbals
and always stays horizontal to the direction of gravity.
I'm still wondering if what you're seeing are high beams...those are
aimed parallel to the road rather than angled down and are only supposed
to be used in empty areas at high speed.
Cryptoengineer
May 16, 2013, 9:17:30 PM5/16/13
to
On May 16, 9:00 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
Cryptoengineer
May 16, 2013, 9:20:38 PM5/16/13
to
On May 16, 9:00 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
> >> There have long been eyeglasses that darken in response to bright
> >> light. Is it possible to have eyeglasses that darken in response to
> >> bright light in just one direction, and which do so very quickly?
> > At least most of the current ones are UV-triggered, and don't work
> > in cars at all. I've heard there are some new ones that claim some
> > response in cars (to sunlight), but I've never owned those and don't
> > remember the specs.
>
> Even if they're very sensitive to visible light and react very
> quickly, they're useless unless they react *directionally*, only
> blocking the light from the super-bright direction(s).
>
> If someone does invent such glasses, the patent will be worth a
> fortune. And they'll have earned every cent.
Reminds me of this:
> > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
> >> There have long been eyeglasses that darken in response to bright
> >> light. Is it possible to have eyeglasses that darken in response to
> >> bright light in just one direction, and which do so very quickly?
> > At least most of the current ones are UV-triggered, and don't work
> > in cars at all. I've heard there are some new ones that claim some
> > response in cars (to sunlight), but I've never owned those and don't
> > remember the specs.
>
> Even if they're very sensitive to visible light and react very
> quickly, they're useless unless they react *directionally*, only
> blocking the light from the super-bright direction(s).
>
> If someone does invent such glasses, the patent will be worth a
> fortune. And they'll have earned every cent.
http://hhgproject.org/entries/perilsensitivesunglasses.html
None of the light-sensitive glasses I've owned take less that several
seconds to darken - and they only react to sunlight, not the far far
smaller amount of light from a headlight.
I have an active rearview mirror in my car, which darkens instantly
when hit by headlights at night. Perhaps something like that would
work for Keith, though I have no idea how light or affordable that
could made to be.
pt
Keith F. Lynch
May 16, 2013, 9:22:11 PM5/16/13
to
>> Indeed. The same in Virginia. Carrying is absolutely prohibited on
>> all mass transit here. Why are transit users second-class citizens?
> There's some reason to differentiate mass behavior from individual
> behavior, which could play a small part.
Are people more of a mass in buses than in cars?
> But to a large degree it's a proxy for class, of course. Keep guns
> out of the hands of the lower classes!
Metrorail is solidly middle class, or (considering the fares) even
upper middle class. I know several people who had to give up Metro
and buy cars because they couldn't afford the Metro fares.
This may be changing, due to Metro's constant breakdowns and delays
over the past few years. Yesterday, for instance, there was a major
electrical fire at Silver Spring. Smoke could be seen for miles.
Nobody was seriously hurt, but an expensive rail car was destroyed
and tens of thousands of commuters were delayed by hours. The sad
thing is that nobody found it the least bit unusual or unexpected. It
was barely even newsworthy. Every Metro rider has long since learned
to always have enough cash on hand for a taxi, and that unless they
have the patience of a saint or the willingness to walk many miles in
all weather, they'll often need it.
> Laws against cheap guns ("Saturday night special") serve the same
> purpose. That's been most of the history of gun control in the USA,
> starting with disarming the recently-freed blacks.
Speaking of which, have you seen _Django Unchained_? Great revenge
film. Almost made me feel guilty for being white.
>> all mass transit here. Why are transit users second-class citizens?
> There's some reason to differentiate mass behavior from individual
> behavior, which could play a small part.
Are people more of a mass in buses than in cars?
> But to a large degree it's a proxy for class, of course. Keep guns
> out of the hands of the lower classes!
Metrorail is solidly middle class, or (considering the fares) even
upper middle class. I know several people who had to give up Metro
and buy cars because they couldn't afford the Metro fares.
This may be changing, due to Metro's constant breakdowns and delays
over the past few years. Yesterday, for instance, there was a major
electrical fire at Silver Spring. Smoke could be seen for miles.
Nobody was seriously hurt, but an expensive rail car was destroyed
and tens of thousands of commuters were delayed by hours. The sad
thing is that nobody found it the least bit unusual or unexpected. It
was barely even newsworthy. Every Metro rider has long since learned
to always have enough cash on hand for a taxi, and that unless they
have the patience of a saint or the willingness to walk many miles in
all weather, they'll often need it.
> Laws against cheap guns ("Saturday night special") serve the same
> purpose. That's been most of the history of gun control in the USA,
> starting with disarming the recently-freed blacks.
Speaking of which, have you seen _Django Unchained_? Great revenge
film. Almost made me feel guilty for being white.
Cryptoengineer
May 16, 2013, 9:25:52 PM5/16/13
to
On May 16, 8:57 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
compensate by having brighter lights, Keith is fantasizing when he
claims there's some kind of arms race going on. There isn't.
When I'm faced with an idiot who doesn't dim his lights when there are
people looking in their direction, if I'm driving I look down and to
the right, and concentrate keeping a safe track by watching the edge
of the road. If I'm walking, I'll shade my eyes with a hand, or
looking down to put a hat brim in the way. Those two also work for
cycling.
pt
> David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> > Overdriving your headlights is less of a problem on bicycles, in my
> > exprience; in particular, the headlight isn't your primary light
> > source at night in the first place.
>
> Right. Around here, like in most urban and suburban areas, there's
> always plenty of light, even on an unlit road, even during a
> widespread power outage. Bike headlights, like bike taillights,
> are mostly for being seen, not for seeing.
>
> The one time I can't see clearly outdoors at night is when there are
> car headlights shining into my eyes. Then, I can't see *anything*
> except those lights, and am at risk of riding into the ditch or into
> a parked car. Oncoming headlights are a serious hazard for cyclists,
> for pedestrians, and for motorists. The last can compensate to some
> extent by having their own super-bright headlights, but only by making
> the problem even worse for everyone else.
Sigh. The drivers here know that that isn't how it works. You can't
> > Overdriving your headlights is less of a problem on bicycles, in my
> > exprience; in particular, the headlight isn't your primary light
> > source at night in the first place.
>
> Right. Around here, like in most urban and suburban areas, there's
> always plenty of light, even on an unlit road, even during a
> widespread power outage. Bike headlights, like bike taillights,
> are mostly for being seen, not for seeing.
>
> The one time I can't see clearly outdoors at night is when there are
> car headlights shining into my eyes. Then, I can't see *anything*
> except those lights, and am at risk of riding into the ditch or into
> a parked car. Oncoming headlights are a serious hazard for cyclists,
> for pedestrians, and for motorists. The last can compensate to some
> extent by having their own super-bright headlights, but only by making
> the problem even worse for everyone else.
compensate by having brighter lights, Keith is fantasizing when he
claims there's some kind of arms race going on. There isn't.
When I'm faced with an idiot who doesn't dim his lights when there are
people looking in their direction, if I'm driving I look down and to
the right, and concentrate keeping a safe track by watching the edge
of the road. If I'm walking, I'll shade my eyes with a hand, or
looking down to put a hat brim in the way. Those two also work for
cycling.
pt
Keith F. Lynch
May 16, 2013, 9:27:28 PM5/16/13
to
<rksh...@rosettacondot.com> wrote:
> The only real protection against squirrels, raccoons, possums,
> armadillos, etc. seems to be a large fenced area with no way
> to get in from above and several dogs inside.
We must be doing something right here in Virginia, as, even without
> The only real protection against squirrels, raccoons, possums,
> armadillos, etc. seems to be a large fenced area with no way
> to get in from above and several dogs inside.
fences or dogs, we're never plagued with armadillos.
Philip Chee
May 16, 2013, 9:29:12 PM5/16/13
to
On 17/05/2013 04:23, rksh...@rosettacondot.com wrote:
> I forgot about the misadjusted headlights...I see those occasionally.
> Usually one of them is aimed correctly and the other one is pointed
> straight out or even upward.
Won't that be spotted on the next MOT (or whatever it's called in your
> I forgot about the misadjusted headlights...I see those occasionally.
> Usually one of them is aimed correctly and the other one is pointed
> straight out or even upward.
neighbourhood)?
Phil
--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
Keith F. Lynch
May 16, 2013, 9:29:56 PM5/16/13
to
Sometimes. But even low beams are dazzlingly bright.
> those are aimed parallel to the road rather than angled down and are
> only supposed to be used in empty areas at high speed.
I find that motorists often switch *on* their high beams as they
approach me. Assholes.
> those are aimed parallel to the road rather than angled down and are
> only supposed to be used in empty areas at high speed.
approach me. Assholes.
rksh...@rosettacondot.com
May 16, 2013, 9:33:24 PM5/16/13
to
Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> Overdriving your headlights is less of a problem on bicycles, in my
>> exprience; in particular, the headlight isn't your primary light
>> source at night in the first place.
>
> Right. Around here, like in most urban and suburban areas, there's
> always plenty of light, even on an unlit road, even during a
> widespread power outage. Bike headlights, like bike taillights,
> are mostly for being seen, not for seeing.
The only thing that lights up the area I'm in is the moon, and I have
>> Overdriving your headlights is less of a problem on bicycles, in my
>> exprience; in particular, the headlight isn't your primary light
>> source at night in the first place.
>
> Right. Around here, like in most urban and suburban areas, there's
> always plenty of light, even on an unlit road, even during a
> widespread power outage. Bike headlights, like bike taillights,
> are mostly for being seen, not for seeing.
absolutely no desire to drive 60 mph by moonlight, even when it's full.
During a power outage, which usually occurs during a storm, I'm lucky if
I can see my hand in front of my face.
> The one time I can't see clearly outdoors at night is when there are
> car headlights shining into my eyes. Then, I can't see *anything*
> except those lights, and am at risk of riding into the ditch or into
> a parked car. Oncoming headlights are a serious hazard for cyclists,
> for pedestrians, and for motorists. The last can compensate to some
> extent by having their own super-bright headlights, but only by making
> the problem even worse for everyone else.
absolutely nothing whatsoever to help against oncoming headlight glare.
Flipping my high beams only encourages the other vehicle to turn their's
off. It doesn't help me see at all. The only thing that helps is to look
at the outer edge of the road to minimize dazzle.
Keith F. Lynch
May 16, 2013, 9:38:22 PM5/16/13
to
>> That's hardly practical, given how many places guns are forbidden.
> I haven't been in one yet this month. I'm trying to think of cases.
The majority of stores around here have a sign posted banning guns,
even though this tends to be a pro-gun state.
And, as I mentioned, they're banned from all buses and trains.
My landlord also bans them from the apartment complex, including one's
own apartment, though I don't think violating that could land you in
jail. Being evicted would be quite bad enough.
(All of the above is ignoring the fact that under both state and
federal law I'm not alowed to possess a gun anywhere any time for
any reason.)
> I haven't been in one yet this month. I'm trying to think of cases.
The majority of stores around here have a sign posted banning guns,
even though this tends to be a pro-gun state.
And, as I mentioned, they're banned from all buses and trains.
My landlord also bans them from the apartment complex, including one's
own apartment, though I don't think violating that could land you in
jail. Being evicted would be quite bad enough.
(All of the above is ignoring the fact that under both state and
federal law I'm not alowed to possess a gun anywhere any time for
any reason.)
Philip Chee
May 16, 2013, 9:38:27 PM5/16/13
to
On 17/05/2013 08:19, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> But I suspect that many educated people of our generation grew
>> up reading fiction much of it written by English authors and set
>> in England.
>
> That doesn't mean we necessarily understood everything we read.
> Especially since the English often use the same words Americans do,
> but with very different meanings. These often give very odd imagery:
> Motorists storing things in their footware. Houses surrounded by
> flowers or vegetables instead of by grass. Lamps fueled with wax.
> Years with duplicated months.
The Chinese calendar uses leap months, so yes duplicated months aren't
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> But I suspect that many educated people of our generation grew
>> up reading fiction much of it written by English authors and set
>> in England.
>
> That doesn't mean we necessarily understood everything we read.
> Especially since the English often use the same words Americans do,
> but with very different meanings. These often give very odd imagery:
> Motorists storing things in their footware. Houses surrounded by
> flowers or vegetables instead of by grass. Lamps fueled with wax.
> Years with duplicated months.
terribly unusual in this part of the world.
rksh...@rosettacondot.com
May 16, 2013, 9:45:51 PM5/16/13
to
Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
> <rksh...@rosettacondot.com> wrote:
>> I'm still wondering if what you're seeing are high beams...
>
> Sometimes. But even low beams are dazzlingly bright.
>
>> those are aimed parallel to the road rather than angled down and are
>> only supposed to be used in empty areas at high speed.
>
> I find that motorists often switch *on* their high beams as they
> approach me. Assholes.
They may think it's necessary to help them see you, in which case
>> I'm still wondering if what you're seeing are high beams...
>
> Sometimes. But even low beams are dazzlingly bright.
>
>> those are aimed parallel to the road rather than angled down and are
>> only supposed to be used in empty areas at high speed.
>
> I find that motorists often switch *on* their high beams as they
> approach me. Assholes.
they're idiots, or they may indeed be assholes.
I'm assuming that you're not wearing extremely dark clothing. I've had at
least one "holy shit" moment as I passed someone dressed in solid black,
including a hoodie, with their back to me and walking about six inches
inside the lane on a 55 mph country road. At about 1 AM. Took me at
least 15 minutes to stop shaking.
rksh...@rosettacondot.com
May 16, 2013, 9:51:19 PM5/16/13
to
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
> On 17/05/2013 04:23, rksh...@rosettacondot.com wrote:
>
>> I forgot about the misadjusted headlights...I see those occasionally.
>> Usually one of them is aimed correctly and the other one is pointed
>> straight out or even upward.
>
> Won't that be spotted on the next MOT (or whatever it's called in your
> neighbourhood)?
They don't check aim, only functionality, at least in the Texas inspection.
> On 17/05/2013 04:23, rksh...@rosettacondot.com wrote:
>
>> I forgot about the misadjusted headlights...I see those occasionally.
>> Usually one of them is aimed correctly and the other one is pointed
>> straight out or even upward.
>
> Won't that be spotted on the next MOT (or whatever it's called in your
> neighbourhood)?
The misaimed light does violate standards so an officer should be able to
stop the vehicle and issue a citation.
David Harmon
May 16, 2013, 9:53:27 PM5/16/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 22:38:40 +0000 (UTC) in rec.arts.sf.fandom, Ben
Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote,
>Low end 3D printers are down to $1000,
Or half that for the real low end.
Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote,
>Low end 3D printers are down to $1000,
Or half that for the real low end.
Keith F. Lynch
May 16, 2013, 10:01:15 PM5/16/13
to
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> If he's holding it, nearly certainly it was a "finger in trigger
> guard" error. The mechanisms involved in these safety interlocks
> are very robust, ...
All the article says is:
Leone's report never explains how the gun fired -- if Duncan
improperly had his finger on the trigger, if he inadvertently
latched on to the trigger as he fell, or if the gun somehow
fired on its own.
No doubt the passive voice was used in the report. "The gun fired."
In any case, per Leone's account, the bulky equipment Duncan was
wearing to protect himself may have contributed to his killing of
Stamps.
"Rule #1 of policing: Go home safely to your family." Even if this
requires the policeman making everyone else much less safe. Police
no longer (if they ever did) put themselves at risk to protect the
innocent. Instead they put the innocent at risk to protect themselves.
> There's also the factor of people knowing they have NOT in fact done
> anything even slightly questionable making them less prepared to
> accept the invasion.
Perhaps all these news stories will make law-abiding people more aware
that when a black-clad armed stranger smashes their bedroom door
down at 3 am, they shouldn't assume it's a robber. Very likely
it's a policeman who got the wrong address, or who relied on snitch
testimony. (If a snitch has no real information to trade for
charges against him being dropped, he'll often make something up.)
I wish law-abiding people were also aware how how interrogation
works. For instance I just read the following about FBI bad-faith
interrogations:
The one doing the writing puts on paper the things he decides he
wants to put on paper. It goes something like this:
Q: We found files on your computer showing that you went to a
website with instructions on how to make a bomb, so we know you did
it. When did you first go to the bomb website?
A: I surf the web constantly and go through, like, a million pages.
I have no idea what pages I searched or when. How could I possibly
know?
Notated in 302: D cannot recall when he first went to bomb website.
Went "constantly."
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/05/15/the-fbi-hates-the-on-button.aspx
The FBI, like most police departments, never audio- or video-records
interrogations, and won't allow the suspect or his lawyer to make
a recording either.
> If he's holding it, nearly certainly it was a "finger in trigger
> guard" error. The mechanisms involved in these safety interlocks
> are very robust, ...
All the article says is:
Leone's report never explains how the gun fired -- if Duncan
improperly had his finger on the trigger, if he inadvertently
latched on to the trigger as he fell, or if the gun somehow
fired on its own.
No doubt the passive voice was used in the report. "The gun fired."
In any case, per Leone's account, the bulky equipment Duncan was
wearing to protect himself may have contributed to his killing of
Stamps.
"Rule #1 of policing: Go home safely to your family." Even if this
requires the policeman making everyone else much less safe. Police
no longer (if they ever did) put themselves at risk to protect the
innocent. Instead they put the innocent at risk to protect themselves.
> There's also the factor of people knowing they have NOT in fact done
> anything even slightly questionable making them less prepared to
> accept the invasion.
Perhaps all these news stories will make law-abiding people more aware
that when a black-clad armed stranger smashes their bedroom door
down at 3 am, they shouldn't assume it's a robber. Very likely
it's a policeman who got the wrong address, or who relied on snitch
testimony. (If a snitch has no real information to trade for
charges against him being dropped, he'll often make something up.)
I wish law-abiding people were also aware how how interrogation
works. For instance I just read the following about FBI bad-faith
interrogations:
The one doing the writing puts on paper the things he decides he
wants to put on paper. It goes something like this:
Q: We found files on your computer showing that you went to a
website with instructions on how to make a bomb, so we know you did
it. When did you first go to the bomb website?
A: I surf the web constantly and go through, like, a million pages.
I have no idea what pages I searched or when. How could I possibly
know?
Notated in 302: D cannot recall when he first went to bomb website.
Went "constantly."
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/05/15/the-fbi-hates-the-on-button.aspx
The FBI, like most police departments, never audio- or video-records
interrogations, and won't allow the suspect or his lawyer to make
a recording either.
rksh...@rosettacondot.com
May 16, 2013, 9:56:01 PM5/16/13
to
Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
> <rksh...@rosettacondot.com> wrote:
>> The only real protection against squirrels, raccoons, possums,
>> armadillos, etc. seems to be a large fenced area with no way
>> to get in from above and several dogs inside.
>
> We must be doing something right here in Virginia, as, even without
> fences or dogs, we're never plagued with armadillos.
They'll be there eventually. They just move very slowly, don't swim
>> The only real protection against squirrels, raccoons, possums,
>> armadillos, etc. seems to be a large fenced area with no way
>> to get in from above and several dogs inside.
>
> We must be doing something right here in Virginia, as, even without
> fences or dogs, we're never plagued with armadillos.
exceptionally well and tend to get squished crossing bridges.
Don't let displaced Texans convince you they're a delicacy.
David Harmon
May 16, 2013, 10:05:17 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 14:58:36 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David V.
Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,
>
>Moreover Alan tells us that there are cars that dim said lights
>automatically.
But not for Keith walking.
Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,
>
>Moreover Alan tells us that there are cars that dim said lights
>automatically.
But not for Keith walking.
Keith F. Lynch
May 16, 2013, 10:06:06 PM5/16/13
to
>> Suppose one's goal was to flunk a physical, perhaps to avoid being
>> drafted. Or just to give weird results on medical tests. What
>> would be some ineresting (but harmless) ways?
> Interesting. There must be prior art on this from the Vietnam era,
> I would think; there was enough organized resistance that most
> possibilities would have been investigated and spread around some.
I've heard plenty of stories, but most are on the level of urban
legends. Many are stories of attempts that killed the person.
>> drafted. Or just to give weird results on medical tests. What
>> would be some ineresting (but harmless) ways?
> Interesting. There must be prior art on this from the Vietnam era,
> I would think; there was enough organized resistance that most
> possibilities would have been investigated and spread around some.
I've heard plenty of stories, but most are on the level of urban
legends. Many are stories of attempts that killed the person.
David Harmon
May 16, 2013, 10:06:59 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 18:20:38 -0700 (PDT) in rec.arts.sf.fandom,
Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote,
Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote,
>I have an active rearview mirror in my car, which darkens instantly
>when hit by headlights at night. Perhaps something like that would
>work for Keith, though I have no idea how light or affordable that
>could made to be.
Maybe he could wear a modified welding helmet.
>when hit by headlights at night. Perhaps something like that would
>work for Keith, though I have no idea how light or affordable that
>could made to be.
David Harmon
May 16, 2013, 10:09:26 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 00:25:03 +0000 (UTC) in rec.arts.sf.fandom,
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,
>
>If you only ever print one page, I'd think going to a store to do it
>would be cheapest. Or asking a friend to do it.
In my area Staples has credit card operated copiers. Stick your
card in the slot, put your USB stick in the slot and print one page.
It charges 10 cents to your card.
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,
>
>If you only ever print one page, I'd think going to a store to do it
>would be cheapest. Or asking a friend to do it.
In my area Staples has credit card operated copiers. Stick your
card in the slot, put your USB stick in the slot and print one page.
It charges 10 cents to your card.
Keith F. Lynch
May 16, 2013, 10:09:53 PM5/16/13
to
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> I don't want to kill somebody. I'm pretty confident I would try, if
> the situation actually required it, but I really don't want to.
Me neither. At least not strangers, as there may be some reasonable
explanation for their behavior, however outrageous it may appear, and
they should be given a chance to give that explanation.
(There are a handful of non-strangers whom I know well enough to be
certain that the world would be a far better place without them. Not
that I would take the law into my own hands, but I wouldn't mourn if
someone else did, and might even celebrate.)
> I don't want to kill somebody. I'm pretty confident I would try, if
> the situation actually required it, but I really don't want to.
Me neither. At least not strangers, as there may be some reasonable
explanation for their behavior, however outrageous it may appear, and
they should be given a chance to give that explanation.
(There are a handful of non-strangers whom I know well enough to be
certain that the world would be a far better place without them. Not
that I would take the law into my own hands, but I wouldn't mourn if
someone else did, and might even celebrate.)
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages