skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Switzerland is a great example, thanks for bringing it up!

As you point out, Switzerland has an overall rate of violence that is quite low, for example slightly lower than that of Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...).

However, surprise, surprise, it has a "firearm-related" violence level that is 3x that of Germany, and more than 8x the gun-related homicides. Could that have anything to do with the fact that the Swiss have their Army rifles at home?

How again does Switzerland demonstrate that higher gun ownership does not correlate with higher gun mortalities?

And you say "the plural of anecdote is not data", when just before you used a single incident to "demonstrate" that tighter gun control doesn't work. Huh?

Or is this the old straw-man of "if we cannot eliminate gun violence completely, we shouldn't do anything?" Reduction is a good target.

And no, we do not need double-blind controlled experiments to (a) change regulations that affect lives and (b) actually have those regulations have a measurable positive impact.

Aviation regulations are often changed because of single incidents, when careful analysis of the factors that led to the incident leads experts in the field to the conclusion that making the change could prevent that accident.

Take the awful accident that happened in Tenerife (largest civil aviation disaster ever): one of the contributing factors was that one of the pilots heard "take-off" from ATC and thought he was cleared for take-off, when he had been told to stand by for take-off clearance.

Nowadays, the words "take-off" have been eliminated from pilot/ATC communications except for the phrase "you are cleared for take-off".

They didn't wait to have a statistically valid sample of horrendous air-crashes to make this change, a single incident and its subsequent analysis was sufficient. It is this sort of careful analysis and action that has made air-travel as ridiculously safe as it is (in fact so safe that statistical analysis is nigh impossible these days...that's a good thing).
There is STO library: http://github.com/lvv/sto

> E.g.: erase remove idiom

remove sub-string: string("abcd") - "cd"

> specifying begin() and end()

unary '+', '-' overloaded to return to begin()/end()

> when you mean the whole container, ...

Euler example in just one expression (with boost lambda):
range(1000) | (!(_1%3) || !(_1%3)) | add
Murder is banned. He committed more than twenty murders. Why do people think that you can ban mental illness? The focus on guns as opposed to the person is similar to the TSA's focus on weapons vs. terrorists.

As for the cause and effect line you draw, hardly so clear cut. Switzerland has assault rifles in every home and a low crime rate. The UK has an effective gun ban and a very high crime rate.

I know that if a Vancouver or London style riot comes to my town, that I want my Glock handy. There were many videos on Youtube of no-go zones with no police and rampant chaos during those riots. 911 will not be there when everyone needs it at once.
Yeah, you'd have to go to metal shop for some of this. "Download, click, print" model won't work for guns for a bit, but you could get there with some pre-manufactured metal parts, or just manufacture them yourself.
But you're comparing a service in 2012 to one in 2006. That's not really fair. A fair comparison would be against Exchange 2013, which has changed quite a bit since then.

I also don't understand what usability complaints users would have, since for the most part, they access it through a client such as Outlook. Are you talking about the web app? If so, then it's been updated quite a bit since then. There's still a preview site available here http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/en/try-more-products which has a trial of the hosted version. Is it the connectivity or some feature?
First, thank you for the stat. But do you really think someone as disturbed as this person could not just use basic fire arms or knives to do as much devastation? A bag full of shells with the blocks removed from a pump shotgun? The kid had what he had.. and just ran with it.
People who do "life enhancement" being against murder. How strange.
The odds of dying in one of these mass shooting incidents in the US are infinitesimally small. These incidents are the price of freedom, and I'm sad to hear the Aussies are no longer willing to pay it.
It says it's a 5160 on the back by the power supply. The HD is, in fact, internal. And there's a phone jack on a card in back that looks newer than the rest, so it might have some kind of modem, though I have no idea how fast that is.

I also have no idea if it still works. It was covered in quite a bit of dust and I wonder if the HD won't be stuck after all this time.
Logging in as root from a virtual console (ie, a login prompt spawned directly from init) shouldn't give away the root password, even with something like this in place. Someone would have needed root access already to interfere with that since init (getty, etc) and X all run as root. Of course, the moral is still to use root as little as possible...
But it's more administrable (sp?) than Gmail is. It has a lot more options for configurations, and a lot more precise settings control for admins. Gmail doesn't come close because, quite simply, it's a consumer service. It's built for consumers first, companies second. It has a great experience for the end-user, I don't disagree even slightly, but it's a lot less customizable and accessible for administrators than Exchange.
Something that I recently started to do that seemed to help me it to point downloads of FF and Chrome to /tmp. So if I downloaded something important I immediately moved it to where it belonged.

On reboot all the stuff you didn't care about is gone.
Well, let's take an example.

Breivik built a bomb, which killed 8. Awful.
Because he was dissatisfied with the result, he went on a shooting spree that killed 69.

I think I see your point...
Planet Emacsen is a good aggregator of all things Emacs, lots of neat tips: http://planet.emacsen.org/
So the tech community believes that "frictionless sharing" is a thing, but that the converse isn't?

It's fine if guns are legal. But it should be way more inconvenient to kill a lot of people. I want it to require a great deal of skill and/or planning to start a massacre.

It's just too convenient for people to cause mass murder right now.
I'm afraid I don't see that working out very well right now. Illegal search and seizure is common. The president can do just about anything he chooses through executive orders. The number of ways to be arrested and tried as a criminal means it is up to the police and prosecutors whether you are in or out of prison.

All of these things exist like this today. Now give them nearly unlimited information about the citizenry. I find it hard to fathom, when the government has done so poorly with what it's been given today, that they will suddenly turn around and become true protectors of the people once they have that kind of information.
Check out binfire.com . It has instant updates, interactive Gantt and a lot more
Let me point out some interesting issues that are related to this, just so that we can have something beyond the normal gun/anti-gun rhetoric:

1. If we legislate 3D printing to prevent weapon manufacture, we run directly counter to the idea of "Print anything you need at home!". How do we reconcile these two ideas?

2. If we want to fingerprint, say, a lower receiver and identify which machine made it, how would we do so? (My hunch would be looking for misalignments in the fill pattern, but that's just a first guess).

3. What sort of technology would be required to automatically detect the production of a weapon? Could we identify a pressure container, for example, for use in holding a shotgun shell for firing? Could we distinguish that from something else?

4. Taking (3) a step further--this technology could obviously also have applications in preventing patent infringement. Is it desirable to require that 3D printers can recognize infringing mechanisms? Why or why not?
What would be an alternative to having said god object?
Well, it's hard for me to feel much sympathy for him. They didn't ask if he was convicted, right? They asked if he'd been arrested. And he lied.
FWIW, Xero is great. ("Sixi ez, bro").

We've been trying to push Russell onto the yanks. Not much luck so far.
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html
"Lesser" crimes increased during the banning yet decreased overtime, but influences on burglary are not readily available.

Unfortunately I wrote a paper in high school detailing a 300% increase in burglary and violence during the ban period, which came from the US DoJ, and I have not been able to find the source since (10 years or so).
I am not sure if I am. Are you talking about someone as described by the Daily WTF's "Complicator's gloves" http://us.thedailywtf.com/Articles/The_Complicator_0x27_s_Gl...

If so, I generally keep my more insane idea's to unpaid pet projects and hugely resent dealing with code where it becomes apparent that the developer was bored out of their mind OR was trying to add some new tech to their resume bullet list.

Also, if I am just not the right fit for this company, how would I go about finding a company that fits me better? I am in my 30's and while I've done well ( with positive post 6 month reviews by client's and their engineers ) I've never really found an ideal company to stick with. Job adverts seem kind of useless as almost every company is "New", "Exciting", and or "Fast paced". On the positive software engineers are a rare commodity but on the downside it's like the real estate market where you're unlikely to just "find" good opportunities by accident.
It relates indirectly.

Two things were necessary for the latest school tragedy to occur: The shooter had to be mentally ill, and he had to have access to the gun(s) he used.

Let's suppose a significant fraction of gun-related crimes contain these two elements, and it would be worthwhile to make a political push for the prevention of this specific subset. (Not to imply that any other subset of gun-related crimes is unworthy of attention.)

The obvious way to attack this class of crimes would be to remove either mental illness or access to weapons from the equation.

The article seems to be saying that denying people access to guns will become much more difficult in the next few years as new technology will make it much easier to people to manufacture them privately and inexpensively.

This implies that policy efforts in that direction will likely end up wasted, and we should instead focus on removing mental illness from the equation (presumably by increasing research to create new treatments, improving access to mental health services to do a better job of bringing existing treatments to people who need them, and reducing bureaucracy and waste).
Why is it not being downvoted? Evidence of mental health bias of "suck it up" re: HN culture?
I really love seeing innovation and attention to detail in native Windows API code like this. Storing the 64-bit executable inside the 32-bit executable is a great idea for the reasons you stated. Also it's so rare to see different icons for the different DPI settings in Windows.
A treasure trove of errors
>Prohibition: Noun
The action of forbidding something, esp. by law.
A law or regulation forbidding something.

I don't see how it isn't prohibition. What differentiates it from any other prescription drug, especially those with recreational uses? Would you apply the word to marijuana, but not to OxyContin?

Regarding your last point: If there were a massive outbreak of something best treated by Vancomycin, I'm sure we would see arguments that it should be available over the counter to anyone who wants some. And that would be a terrible idea because of people who would buy a bunch and take it constantly, figuring it would keep them safe. And maybe it would, but at the cost of Vancomycin becoming a less effective treatment, and overall a lot more people dying.

That's one aspect of the argument that does fit pretty well with the debate on firearms.
One way I can think of would be with a 2-factor authentication, such as:
http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Google_Authenticator
This is actually an effective argument for comprehensive gun control. An assault weapons ban would not prevent those two mass killings you cite. But, however, having a comprehensive system where, for example, mental health records are tied to gun purchase background checks would have prevented Seung-Hui Cho from purchasing handguns.

Gun control is not just one policy. It's a broad policy with many possible facets: an assault weapons ban, federal standards for background checks, cracking down on sales at gun shows, eliminating loopholes, tying mental health records to background checks, the list goes on.

EDITS (reply to below, additional things constantly added):

I'm not naive enough to say that comprehensive gun control is going to eliminate all gun violence. I'm saying that it's a step forwards towards reducing gun violence.

>We arguably have comprehensive drug control. How well does that work?

This is a non sequitur. Just because the drug war has failed and the phrase "comprehensive drug control" shares two words with the phrase "comprehensive gun control" is not enough to logically lead to the conclusion that gun control is/will be a failure. The comparison needs to be elaborated. Let me elaborate on a few differences: people don't get addicted to guns like they do with drugs, someone using a drug can not directly physically injure someone else, drugs are much smaller and easier to hide (EDIT: for smuggling on an individual basis, not for a cartel), guns are hard to mass produce without people noticing. Drunk driving is not really relevant unless there is a large trend of accidents caused by cocaine/heroin/marijuana (rather than just alcohol). Guns are much less profitable for cartels than drugs are (for reasons of addiction).

I think nitpicking over the specifics of an assault weapons ban does not really counter my point. I meant semi-automatic weapons with magazines/cartridges (and automatic weapons). Even if my definition misses something, I'd be willing to just concede that and expand my definition. Yes, it's obvious that a ban implemented today would not stop Adam Lanza, because the guns are already bought. It might reduce the number of deaths of an Adam Lanza 5 years from now (I'm acknowledging of course that he also had two handguns with him).

To be clear, I don't propose that we should have a blanket handgun ban. It's simply not a realistic goal (politically and in terms of all the guns already out there). There are ways to improve gun control without banning all handguns.

I also think that the mental health system in America is broken and needs fixing. The two things are not mutually exclusive.
I presume after the economy of scale kicks in, we'll be able to buy our own planets and suns from Walmart for next to nothing. A sun in every home. In all seriousness though, being able to print planets and suns, that is one of the craziest things I have ever heard.
They have always had the ability to do that if you work in any job that requires a security clearance. Sexual orientation, affairs, drugs, politics... they have the right to look at anything that points to behavior which could make you a target for blackmail.
This is entirely plausible. Mass shootings aren't carried out by a random sampling of gun owners -- they're carried out by exactly the people who would be prohibited from owning guns if we tightened the laws around gun ownership a bit.

The best example of this is Seung-Hui Cho, aka the Virginia Tech shooter, who was able to buy handguns completely legally despite being involuntarily detained at a mental hospital less than two years beforehand. He then went on to kill 32 people.
He did. Six shots is merely an unreliable gun, not, fundamentally, a non-functional gun (see also the point about 6-vs-100 shots and 0-vs-1 shot), and frankly, an AR-15 seems unnecessarily ambitious for a proof-of-concept. They probably would have gotten better results with something better suited for printing; I bet AK's print better. AFAICT, it's just a matter of sufficient precision with sufficiently strong materials.
To be frank, this isn't a startup. This is a weekend project.

Also, the generic random background photos on the homepage just don't make sense.
Show HN: See what people are wishing for on Twitter
And by the same token, the TSA has reduced the number of US airline hijackings by 100%.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, indeed.
"It's just too convenient for people to cause mass murder right now."

We've had repeating firearms for more than a century--this is not a new thing to be afraid of.

We've been killing each other on much larger scales much more inefficiently and painfully than that--try millenia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots ).
Image Copy Protection: Copy Protect Images/Photos/Pictures on Windows
USB Copy Protection is a copy protection software designed for copy protecting a wide range of main media formats including images and pictures Windows.
Success by selective education
Also, drugs are designed and sold for personal pleasure. Guns are designed and sold for killing. The comparison between the two doesn't hold.
Here are a few simple methods to make working guns with 3D printers.

1. Print plastic shaped like gun
2. Load bullet.
3. Fire bullet with now destroyed gun.

1. Model gun
2. Print wax cast
3. Make cast
4. Melt and pour steel into cast.

1. Buy everything except a upper receiver without a gun permit.
2. 3D print an upper receiver and attach to normal gun parts.
3. Use like normal gun (for a little bit)
... all or nothing, huh?
False, you are going to be comfy enough to not start a civil war. Civil wars only start when a government abuse its own people; the American government tries to avoid this but is not very good at it. The abused are usually foreign countries and America have invested way too much money and people in military to be defeated by any other.
If you fancy some backend stuff for social games, send an email to j.verschoor@bloomsix.com
I'm generally in favor of freedom, but you can't assume it's always a good, at any cost. If (and I don't really believe this) frequent mass murders were the cost of freedom, we would have to seriously consider whether it was worth it.
I'm having a hard time finding good comparable numbers, but you can see that total homicides (1993-2007) went from ~300 to ~260 in Australia

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

whereas the (per 100,000) homicide rate in the US went from 9.5 to 5.7

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html

...if someone else wants to look up the population numbers and do the division, ok. But it's clear that the US's rate improved similarly or better than Australia's. Please try to keep in mind that the nytime's has a strident agenda.

ED: I didn't read the .AU text. Their numbers went from 1.9 per to 1.3 per.
How would you deal with the stockpiles built up by career criminals and people who actually believe in the Constitution? (Of course, comprehensive gun control would legislatively unify these two categories.)

We arguably have comprehensive drug control. How well does that work?
Additionally, there is a very good argument for being free to take substances which release/alter your voluntary control of self. What are the arguments to own any gun? Imaginary civil war, fantasy home defense, pride of ownership, and practicing marksmanship? For this, we have to suffer the fact that any crazy can buy push-button killing machines, or that any sane owner thereof can subsequently lose his shit and kill the rest of us?

There doesn't seem to be much of an upside for the rest of us.
Similarly to how strong password policies are no match for good hackers, but make compromising many accounts expensive or prohibitive, an armed populace cannot defeat a trained army, but can make "martial law" and other military actions against civilians risky and expensive -- and that is enough. It is the same principle as the older threat of a mob or peasant revolt.

The United States is a strange country because it encourages armed rebellion in any second- and third-world country but tries not to follow its own law that gives its civilians and states the same option. This is partly a result of the American civil war but the civil war does not excuse any weakening of civilians, especially considering the special provision for them that is in the US Constitution.

Note that nowhere do I or the parent post of yours say a civil war is necessary or even a good idea. I would like you to agree that it is possible to advocate for the option to do something without actually wanting that thing to happen.
Neat Infographic Demonstrating Timeline of Technology
I think the realization of it is likely to be much simpler: I expect widespread 3d printing (if it ever really becomes a common in-the-home thing, as opposed to stores printing stuff on demand) to be a curated, extremely simple experience, along the app store model.

Though I'm not sure that the economics/frequency of use would make it make sense to have one in every home, at all. Being able to get whatever replacement part or tool I might need fabricated on demand at Home Depot would be extremely cool to me; having to purchase all the equipment and consumables to do it in my own home appeals much less.

So I don't know that it would really derail a policy designed to greatly reduce the frequency of mass shooting events by making gun acquisition much more difficult. (Focusing strictly on the feasibility of that, and leaving aside for now any questions of whether private citizens need to have the right to have guns for other purposes.)
60% of People Find Technology Stressful Infographic
Texas School District will let Teachers carry Guns
I'm not a fan either. I couldn't care less about the visual design, its that every interaction feels clunky and badly thought out.
This is the entire purpose of the second amendment, like it or not. The people who wrote it knew that the first 5 amendments were protections against what they thought was tyranny. The ability to have the ability to wage civil war is an inherent right of any United States citizen, regardless of the non-existent right to actually wage it.
I see (1) as being the only feasible scenario. The problem you identify is only an issue for purists -- most people will be fine with "print anything you want, within reasonable limits."
CAN SOMONE PLEASE KILL-OFF THIS THREAD BEFORE HN BECOMES ANOTHER HOME FOR LOONIES? JUST MAKE IT GO AWAY.

I am an American. I don't own any guns. I have lived in other parts of the world, sometimes under military regimes. I have never --EVER-- felt the need to own firearms in order to feel secure, protect my family or defend myself from a rogue government.

I do enjoy an occasional trip to the shooting range where we rent the weapons and have a good time shooting at metal targets or clay pigeons. Then I go home and that crap stays behind. I don't need it. I know with 100% certainty that none of my kids will ever have an accident in my home with a firearm 'cause there isn't one to be found.

I don't have any particular issue with the idea of people owning guns. Artillery and mass-killing weapons are a different story. There have to be sensible limits and strict rules. I don't know what these limits and rules might be. There are experts who have studied this far and deep. I'll defer to them.

To be sure, there's a mental health issue that must be dealt with as well. Don't know the answers.

Still, I think this thread needs to be shut-down before the nut-cases who think they are going to have to defend their homes from hordes of their own neighbors after each power outage take over.