skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's easier to manufacture magazines using regular metalworking process, though. I'd possibly 3d print the follower, but buy great CS springs (potentially scavenge them from 10rd magazines, potentially also with the followers), and then either fix 10rd magazine bodies or just bend some sheet aluminum into the right shape.

The big problem for common weapons like the AR-15 using STANAG 20/30rd magazines is "real" USGI aluminum magazines are still widely available, and cost about $8/ea usually (they just spiked, but a lot of people have tens or hundreds already). The best magazines, Magpul's PMags, are $125 for $10. By the time you 3d print, add springs, etc., it's not worth it.

There's not a whole lot of stress on a magazine (certainly compared to a barrel), but they are subjected to wear, and need to smoothly insert. There are some highly dimensionally sensitive areas as well as flexibility sensitive parts (feed lips) which also change with time. Even the stainless steel magazines basically suck by comparison to Magpul or USGI aluminum, and the Thermold plastic magazines are also lame. The only polymer mags other than pmags that I don't hate are the Lancers.

There probably would be a market in custom or semi-custom manufacture of magazines for more obscure guns, though. Or, if 10rd magazines were completely banned too, and somehow the huge supply of 10-30rd magazines were confiscated.
And here.

Crashed Thread: Unknown

Exception Type: EXC_BAD_ACCESS (SIGSEGV)
Exception Codes: KERN_PROTECTION_FAILURE at 0x00007fff5fc01028
I can kind of see the collapsible stock as a functional thing, as it makes a rifle (more powerful and accurate than a handgun) easier to carry in a concealed way, but if that's the case, you could regulate collapsible stocks separately, as well.
There is a reason we have laws more specific than "anyone who does anything bad shall be punished by a fine of up to one hundred trillion dollars or up to one thousand years in prison."

Damnit man! Don't give them ideas!
You can find the dev branch of the vintage plugin here: https://github.com/sublimehq/Vintage

Also see https://github.com/SublimeText/VintageEx which adds the vim command line.
If he really wants to get serious, look at movie ratings and what is shown on TV not video games. TV pervades more houses and influences from an earlier age than video games. If being exposed to violent media is the hypothesis, limit the amount of violence on television (and from movies).

R and PG-13 movies with lots of violence run all the time on cable television with little to no settings to limit it. Unfortunately, the people who like the status quo for films and television have large amounts of political sway and would rather deflect towards video games instead of revising their beloved MPAA ratings.
Obviously! If I purchased 1 hour of Day Care I would expect to receive 1 hour of day care.

However, if I paid someone to clean my house I would expect it to be clean after they were done. I don't care how long it takes. If it takes 10 hours and the floors a filthy I'm going to be upset. If it takes 1 hour and everything is very clean I'm going to be happy.
> Because the state has the monopoly of violence.

I'm fascinated by this viewpoint, but I'm afraid I've never fully understood it. How many weapons to the population have to have before the state is no longer considered to pose a threat? Do we stop at clubs or knives? Small arms? Assault weapons? Explosives? Armoured vehicles? Missiles?

> How many deaths in 2012 due to complication related to obesity? How many due to guns? How many due to road accidents?

Those three are almost entirely unrelated. Complications related to obesity almost only ever affect the physical wellbeing of the obese person. Road accidents arise from the operation of a useful tool by many millions of people, every day, and generally aren't malicious (and thus are more difficult to prevent). This doesn't make these two causes of death any less tragic, but the sort of gun violence the current US administration wishes to legislate against is wanton slaughter of humans, pure and simple. To paraphrase Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine"[0], assault weapons and armour piercing rounds are not useful for hunting[1].

[0]: Now there's something you could call "propaganda". That movie had a lot of good information, but it was often obscured by horrible misrepresentation and questionable conclusions.

[1]: Contrary to popular belief, gun control does not preclude those who need weapons in their day-to-day lives from purchasing them. Gun control is not a binary.
Thanks for Obama for exhuming the world's most boring debate. Again, evidence will appear inconclusive and even if it does or does not have a warping effect on children, there is already a good regulatory body in check for age classifications.

It is very easy to blame these things, but finding out how parents can be better educated and supported in communicating and dealing with problem children (which does include not buying them violent video games they are too young for) seems to be more of an important question. of course this is always going to be a no-no for conservatives since any solutions are almost certainly going to mean an increase in tax.
It's relative. It's difficult to shield relative to U-235 (for example), which means that handling raw fuel is more difficult. (It requires robotic manipulators -- hot cells, "waldos" [0] -- unlike conventional fuels which can be handled manually [1]). This is barely relevant for MSRs, because there is no fuel fabrication step (no fuel pellets). It is a difficulty for solid-fuelled thorium reactors.

It's of no importance in nuclear reactors, because there there rest vastly greater amounts of vastly more radioactive monsters.

The reason people talk about U-232 is this confusing debate about nuclear weapons -- there's a weak (I think spurious) argument that thorium is weapons-resistant, because the U-232 gamma radiation makes it difficult to machine/work with weapons cores. It's really not relevant to molten-salt reactors.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_manipulator

[1] proof by photo: https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=514&objI...
I like this idea, if it's done right. The device could run Android or Chrome OS, and use something like XenApp to provide virtual applications. Most consumers need only a web browser 95% of the time, so Chrome OS is perfect, for the other 5% they can use virtual applications. Citrix already has a client called "Citrix Receiver" for Android and Chrome OS that allows Windows apps to "run" on the platforms: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So4UPP3K93g
Not to be rude, but he may be living in a country where it isn't exactly safe to be carrying around something like that without having it stolen.
The problem is that the politically viable alternatives are about as ineffective.

Restricting the sale of things doesn't do anything about their installed base. Gun owners already own guns. They can currently do or obtain the thing you want to ban -- and every time you even mention banning something, the sales go through the roof. So, as a gun control advocate, you might want to stop doing that unless you're sufficiently positive both that you'll succeed and that your success will outweigh the instantaneous increase it causes in the installed base of the bad thing. Which is a hard calculus to accept, because of the installed base, which makes any dividends that come from a ban only accrue very slowly over a long period of time. You aren't causing certain classes of firearms to not exist anymore, or taking them away from the classes of people who already have them, you're only causing there not to be a single digit percentage more of them next year. Which is pretty weak consolation if the discussion of the ban caused there to be a large multiple of that increase this year, and most of the money that would have gone to the increase in future years just goes to the nearest analog or a purchase by proxy in the future years.

Moreover, you can't identify any subset of guns that can be used to kill people and ban only those. You can kill someone just as dead just as fast with a revolver as with an AR15, and the differences between an AR15 and a hunting rifle are entirely cosmetic.

And prohibiting high capacity magazines is only even theoretically productive if your sole concern is mass shootings, which are such a small percentage of gun violence that it's very hard to take seriously as a meaningful reform.

The problem is that real gun control, i.e. going into peoples homes and taking away all their existing firearms, is comprehensively politically infeasible even regardless of the constitutionality.

So we get half measures that are at best ineffective. Bans on guns that look scary. "Background checks" even though first time criminals won't be flagged and hardened criminals are more than willing to steal or pass a false ID or use an accomplice with a clean record. They're all just security theater to satisfy the need for something to be done.

And though I am not a fan of guns, I find myself quite sympathetic to the argument that the proper solution is to go to the root cause and do what is necessary to reduce the number of people who come to find murder as an acceptable solution to their problems, rather than going out and trying to prohibit every dangerous thing an already-malicious actor could use to harm another living soul.
Mag limits would also have a terrific political cost.

Not noticed by many outside the community is that most handguns for self-defense, and many if not most that are used for concealed carry, have standard magazine capacities of > 10 rounds (and almost all > 7 rounds).

De jure or de facto shall issue concealed carry regimes are now in place in 42 states, and scholar Clayton Cramer and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) independently estimated this summer that there are between 7.5 and 8 million licenses outstanding (and more every day, especially as the US population ages). Screwing with these people, who tend to vote (older demographic, after all) ... is not wise. Just threatening them, as is being done now, will have costs in the coming elections.
well, that's one statement from the PM. it hasn't got through parliament yet, and this highly controversial proposal will face stiff opposition. Successive polls have shown that most australians are opposed to exporting our uranium to nuclear weapons states (tho I'll admit most respondants probably haven't connected the dots, since one major customer is us[a]).

In the case of India, these concerns are magnified by the ongoing regional arms race and the recent violent suppression (including murder) of Indian opponents to the industry.
Spend some budget on marketing. Or find free distribution channels. What worked best for me was to create a channel on Playboard (http://playboard.me) and add my app. Or just ask one of the more popular editors to add it to their channels.
Seems like a better rule than "has a collapsible stock" would just be "is shorter than [whatever a reasonable length is]", since the problem is less what the stock can and cannot do, and more how long or short the gun can be.
They wouldn't. The drone comment, and protect ourselves comment were separate ideas. I think he's trying to bring to light that our country completely stopped for a month after Sandy Hook, but we ignore all of the innocent lives(including children) that get taken by drone strikes.

Assault weapons don't stand a chance against drones, but I'm willing to bet they out number them and have a lot more trained operators.

My AR-15 was around $900 when I bought it(~2 years ago). Now the same gun is going for $1000+, and there's not even new legislation yet. If these weapons get banned, the criminals that all ready own them will see a gain in their net worth.

I don't see how raising the value of 'criminal' assets is going to help anyone.

Paranoid is an easy answer. A much more difficult answer is that our country has used it's excessive force on the unarmed before. What's to stop them once their governing body(the citizens) is unarmed?
This is from 2010. Let me offer one counterpoint to this, from my own experience:

Hiring is way easier when you allow your team to be distributed.

I need a developer -- I go on oDesk.com, and together with one of my developers who will be his future partner, we go through profiles and "hunt" for a good fit. Once you remove the geographic restriction, you will find SO much talent. And for the payroll and staffing issues we literally pay 10% to odesk. Compare that with how much staffing agencies would charge on top of the salary (I know, I've been placed many times as a consultant where the agency would take 50-90% on top of the hourly salary I wound up being paid).

Remote workers can work part time. They don't have to commute 2 hours a day. Remote workers are more OK with having odesk take screenshots of their desktop so I know they are working for the time I paid them. Remote workers often have lower cost of living and a startup can't really afford to pay local developers a competitive salary unless they are well funded.

I think Linux and other open source projects show just how effective distributed development can be. Github and other tools are being used by local teams, blurring the line between local and distributed. And also, I've found that the more asynchronous communication we have, the more disciplined we are. For example, if you have an issue, put it in the project tracker instead of talking about it.

Basically, I think that for something as virtual as software development, being distributed can be a real plus, and people can really be more free. This has also become the case with music production and voiceovers, as a friend of mine who owns a major sound studio recently told me.
One way it's not reasonable is that pure collectors should be able to own weapons without necessarily being competent in their use, provided they're stored safely. (I mean, I'd love to own antique Japanese swords, but my knife/sword fighting knowledge is essentially prison style -- just get in close and stab-stab-stab as long as you can. There are presumably people who are the same way with guns.)
Same here. Wondering if it will throw up a notice when a particular tax reaches it's end point or if that is also broken.
For hiring Excellent Programmer, it is true. For hiring Average Programmer, experience matters a lot - average programmers become proficient slower than excellent ones, so it is better to hire somebody that has already passed most of the learning curve. OTOH, hiring by tool usually doesn't make any sense unless this tool has really steep learning curve (in which case why use it anyway? yes, I know there are exceptions, but generally it's true).
Friendly advice: You obviously know your stuff and you make really interesting points, but use of the incendiary and cartoonish term "gun grabbers" makes it hard to take you seriously.
the US is not a democracy; it is a constitutional republic. Some states have more of a democratic bent to them with initiatives, but you will never see the federal government institute initiatives. As we all know: we do not vote for president, we vote for representatives to vote for president. We also do not make laws: we vote for representatives to make our laws.
Yes, yes. We've seen this before...
Well, if you buy instead of rent, especially used car, that's what 99.99% of salesmen would do. "How much is that car?" - "well, how much can you pay?" They have sometimes prices posted but everybody knows these have little meaning except generic signal of "we consider it an expensive car" or "this one is cheap".
Design has always been important, but what has changed on the web is the technologies for creating designs on the web. They are continuing to evolve, but changes thus far in Javascript, AJAX, Flash, HTML5, CSS, and other technologies has enabled website creators to push the boundaries of design online.
Seems like enough of an edge-case to make exceptions for. Antique cars have different rules for safety too, so that seems reasonable.
> Have a licensing scheme for purchase and possession, but not registry of individual weapons within that class.

I wouldn't care nearly as much about Obama's background check talk if we just exempted anyone with a state-issued CHL license. Maybe add a new class of license, which is optional: run the background check once + training + pay $200, receive a "here's your buy a gun card", or you can just run the background check every time like we do now.

I don't mind that the government does a sanity check on whether a given citizen should own a gun; but if they've decided I'm responsible enough to own a gun I don't really think it's any of their business if I own 2 guns or 12, any more than it's any of their business knowing I own a MacBook, read /. over morning coffee, or bought Star Wars on blu-ray from Amazon 3 weeks ago.

Just like we have state-issued licenses for driving cars, but we don't run federal background checks every time I go test-drive a new ride at the Chevy dealership.

It's trivial to run a SQL query to the effect of "how many times did citizen #12784728 request a background check and when", so if you hear somebody complaining about background checks in the coming weeks, it's probably not because they think crazy people should buy guns, it's because they just want the government to leave them the hell alone.
Ah, thanks. I found that also in a German article.
I'm looking forward to giving this a go at work tomorrow!
Its true. I expect and would pay around 50 USD again for it, though.
Example #1 is actually a bad thing to do. This creates a new array every time you want to do the comparison. I've fixed multiple open-source libraries who abused this exact method, refactored them into the chained "and" statements, and seen a hefty performance increase as a result (MongoMapper and Haml come to mind)

Example #3 suffers from unbalanced returns and is less clear in its intent than the original (albeit difficult to read) example. Instead, I'd propose:

def my_method
@blah == foo && :foo_matches || :no_match
end

This eliminates the visual problem of adjacent semicolons, while still being clear and concise.

I'd argue that Example #4 is bad because it hides the expectation that nil should be returned in the negative case.
>Currency has no counter party risk, but does have Fiat Risk.

Right, that was your first point about a currency crisis that I acknowledged.

>Your thread on gold not being an asset doesn't make sense for any common definition of asset, so I can't really respond. Gold isn't a currency, it's a commodity.

Gold is only a commodity when you're trading it to then use for industrial purposes. Most of the time gold is traded as a currency, as something to store value that you can later trade. The vault full of gold you mentioned is functionally equivalent to a server holding bank account records. No one is coming to the vault to pick up gold and make audio cables. When I said gold isn't an asset that's what I was referring to. Most of the time it's a currency, not a commodity. It doesn't gain value because people think gold-plated electronics are going to boom, it gains value because people think dollars have been inflated and thus the world ratio of kg of gold to dollars in circulation has shifted and thus the exchange ratio should as well.

>Productive assets (Bonds) have counterparty risk, and stocks quite often have correlative performance to a currency crisis in the country that they exist. I.E. If the US Dollar crashes, odds are the various exchanges will take a beating.

It's exactly the fact that stocks have correlated performance to the currency of their country that doesn't allow you to hold both and have that be differentiation. I was just arguing the same was the case for gold. Holding gold, since it's a currency not an asset doesn't get you any differentiation from the assets you could buy with it.

>Gold is a tool in your portfolio, nothing more. Use it where it makes sense for you.

This I can agree with. My argument would be that in rational world, CAPM would hold and Gold wouldn't be useful as a diversified asset. The real world is surely more complicated than that.
I'm still a little upset with Givewell after what they did over at Metafilter.
http://mssv.net/wiki/index.php/Givewell
Now do it enough to trigger a couple of GC passes, and the #include? version looks even worse.
The Dow Jones index changes over time, so to track the index properly you have to buy and sell stocks all the time, just like index tracking funds do.

As a passive investment locked in a box, you would have had to purchase $35 worth of stock in 1933 and kept the stock certificate(s). Maybe there was a mutual fund around at the time that tracked the Dow Jones.

Opening the box today, most of those companies (or funds) probably don't exist anymore, so you wouldn't actually be able to sell your stocks for cash.
Interestingly, Lessig explicitly dismisses the theory that Swartz was trying to "liberate" the JSTOR archive:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/13/01/aarons-law...
AWB is less effective (and has a far higher cost to legitimate owners) than stuff specifically designed to keep guns out of the hands of felons.

I was surprised, but most gun crimes are committed by a small subset of people, and most multi-offend. I expected them to get their weapons from theft, but there's a surprisingly large (I think majority) which come from private party out of state sales -- at least in LA, a lot come from accomplices buying in AZ and then reselling. (for handguns, which are the vast majority -- there are some more exotic automatic/smg weapons brought from mexico, while US handguns go down to mexico)

There should be a way to catch the out of state buyers. A lot of the associates of criminals are themselves criminals, so NCIC on private party sales would actually push them toward more stolen weapons. If you could additionally increase the odds of catching these straw man purchasers and giving them felony convictions, you'd seriously hurt the supply. Combine that with safe storage and theft reporting, and you'd make a much bigger impact than the AWB, at a much lower cost to legitimate gun owners.
So can any national safety body of any member country of the ICAO ground an airplane model worldwide? Or can the U.S. do so in this case because Boeing is a U.S. company? What's the process a national agency goes through to ground an aircraft worldwide?
Not sure why all the comments here are harping on the "one line" thing.

The point is that you can transfer money with one command and no pre-existing state. That's pretty great.
> Remote workers are more OK with having odesk take screenshots of their desktop so I know they are working for the time I paid them.

Probably not very good remote workers if you have to do that, and if they accept you to do that. (I otherwise agree with most of your points)
I see the tl;dr as a failover to the full story. Those who have time you walk through the journey of discovery. Those who don't you'd rather they could at least see a summary of your conclusion than leave with nothing.
I love video games, both violent and non-violent. I'm not afraid of having rigorous scientific study of any links between video game violence and real violence.

Related: if violence in the real world were caused by popular media, wouldn't we have seen a spike in archery attacks last year? Between Brave and the Hunger Games and the Avengers and Skyrim, bows were everywhere.
Apple, Amazon ordered to powwow before Appstore trademark trial
Last thing I heard this was a battery issue. Have they already narrowed it down to cockpit wiring or are you just speculating based on your knowledge of aeronautics & place circuitry ?
Delivery for Mr. Assange
Japan is a really serious outlier when it comes to not having a "love" of confrontation! I mean, their word for "you're wrong" doesn't even have that semantic content.

I suspect America is a lot closer to the middle than it.