Semi-retired pro inventor, now working on fusion and metrology. Master coder and hardware designer, ex-ceo, general tech wiz. Opinionated, off the power grid, homesteader who actually does things, rather than just talk.
Run a sci/tech forum myself - find my email and you could join - that's my captcha, a turing test.
I live nearby, and have employed techies from there from time to time in the past. The place has a midsized power plant for educational and co-generation for the campus and surrounding town. Not a gigawatt class thing, but pretty large - the townies paid lower prices for power than most on the grid. I assume at least monitoring is on their LAN, if not more, as part of the program.
I have not been real impressed with Tech's tech, FYI. Sure they have a few brilliant people, but the average?
A professor of mech engineering pulled his wife's Volvo in half while towing it up the hill in the snow with his tractor. They stopped in front of my house, he let the tractor roll back a bit while they discussed, and when he got back on, he forgot about slack in the chain, popped the clutch, and bang - while we watched through our greenhouse window. They were even more upset at hearing us laughing maniacally.
Some of us who use real traceable nicks or ID wonder how much Soros and pals are paying you to shill gun fear. If you're not responsible to have firearm access, fine (please!), don't - but keep that to yourself.
Those of us who are responsible don't like having our freedoms taken because you can't imagine anything but the lowest common denominator. Projection much?
The best way to not be a victim - and this is taught by gun groups as well as others, is situational awareness. If it feels wrong, it might be time to get outa there - but most are too lazy to keep paying attention, so they want some magic bubble wrap world that will never exist.
Leaving before the bad stuff can happen is the most desirable option. Guns are at most, a pretty crappy last resort. And best used when not fired, but just to make the bad guy give up and leave. Again, something the media doesn't even find out about, much less report.
Yes, I'm white, kind of. I look more or less like an old homeless hippie-bum, though. Took awhile before the "really white" people figured out I'm OK.
Sorry, most mass shootings are in gun-free zones. Fact. It's much safer for the shooter, as guys like myself won't have a gun there - I'm law abiding.
The rare case where a would-be mass shooting was stopped by someone with a gun - it has happened - is suppressed by the mainstream media. It happened at George Mason University in the last decade. One short blurb. Then crickets. You'd think that with all the people with guns it would happen more often. Maybe it does and isn't reported, or maybe we respect the "no guns" zones and can't. I'd hoped that people on this otherwise-intelligent and questioning site would do basic fact-checking and have a little skepticism about the media that brings us all the propaganda Mike and others here resist. You think copyright, TPP, TTIP, NDAA and so on are the only lies they tell? Really?
Most mass shootings in the last decade are indeed done by people who are (or were prescribed) SSRI meds - I hear some people get pretty nuts when they stop taking them for whatever reason. Just saying otherwise or finding it said on some site that helps your confirmation bias doesn't make it so. They put people on those meds for some perceived reason (which of course, might be wrong, doctors aren't perfect), and IMO it should be on the form you fill out to get a gun legally, as one of the questions.
Sorry if people fall for the hoplophobe propaganda, it's not my or any other reliable source's data or experience. Believe what you want - I'll defend you and hope it makes you happy - but it won't make it the truth.
Some people obviously haven't read John Lott's "More guns, less crime" - he started out anti-gun, but the data (he's a careful statistician) - do show otherwise.
As we all know, the internet won't take the bits if they aren't true, right?
I suggest reading up on the truth track record of some of the anti-gun groups if you're not afraid of having your confirmation bias blown. It's about as good as say, Exxon's on global warming. Not something you'd brag on.
Hey, I'm a "gun guy" - NRA lifer, win shooting competitions; I don't hunt and am disgusted at killing in general, no matter the tool used. Rarely, I might have to whack a varmint that's hurting my pets, but I can usually just chase them off. Or I can shoot and miss on purpose, the bang and flying dirt gets the message across really well to your basic possum, racoon, deer, etc.
For all the reasons above, this is just a really bad idea.
I do carry some, sometimes open, sometimes concealed - far from impossible to conceal a "real" gun that will actually hit what it's aimed at. This thing...maybe not so good and one would worry about collateral damage even more.
Open carry does attract attention, and can be very dumb. In VA, you can open carry in a bar (can only conceal if you'e a lawmaker - the "just us" system). I find that ignorant and the last place I'd ever show a gun - around a bunch of drunks, you gotta be kidding me. BTW, this stupidity applies to concealed permit holders as well (I help teach the course around here and help cops re-qualify). We all think that's pretty dumb. Remove your gun in the parking lot where everyone sees you do it, then go where you can't see the car? Just as dumb.
It can also be fun. My bank, the local liquor store - no reaction at all, to the point I asked. They said "We know you and know we're safer this way than not - please ignore the signs and do open-carry here". But go near a city where there's been one of those mass shootings (always in gun free zones and usually by SSRI med takers) and people will actually come up and pick fights. Not pleasant. So I don't do that. Simple enough. In those situations, conceal or don't carry.
While the NRA might object to this comment, I basically avoid places where I think I might need a gun to defend myself. (Duh!) Since I'm not always right, I sometimes carry anyway, and thankfully, haven't needed to use a gun that way, ever. I suspect the blinding laser on my main carry piece might even help me avoid needing the trigger - the object is to make the bad guy stop or run away, not kill him - that can be someone else's job if necessary.
And that's another hit on this idea. It isn't obviously a gun, so lacks deterrent value. Staring down the bore of my "obviously and seriously the real deal" will make any even partially sane person re-think very quickly.
Some people might say "I can't avoid those places". I call bull. Pull up stakes and move. Yes, it's hard, it's expensive. Is your life worthless, then? It's a question of balance. If you're nice people, go live with we other ones. You're welcome. I'm a refugee from DC myself...
Where I live - very rural - everyone has guns - a farmer might need to defend his crops or livestock - and we know how to shoot (A pretty big deal, look at all the cops who can't hit anything they intend without emptying a few mags). There is zero crime, no murders, no killings. There is the odd crook, but they go a county or two over (less rural) where plying their trade is a lot safer. I like it like this, personally. "An armed society is a polite one". Even with the huge egos on display at competitions, you bet everyone is very polite...we are all armed to the teeth and very good at what we do there.
I'm sure we have some enemies (forn) - we earned them fair and square with our military keeping the oil subsidy flowing...pay attention to which countries in MENA declared they don't want the petrodollar just before we put them back into the stone age. I rest my case. It's not about what you think it is.
Some of our enemies work for the government already, some would say the most dangerous ones.
How about some facts about which ones are the enemies (who decides?), and how this pervasive surveillance has caught and convicted even a single one, you know, to justify spending enough money to feed half the starving world...
Yes, I used to work in national security, so I know a thing or a few about how they work. I quit while the current programs were barely a glint in someone's eye, but I believe Snowden, as I'm pretty familiar with the "corporate culture" and how slowly that changes there.
It's more like - we now own the news, the politicians, as this surveillance program now has all the dirt on them all, and they are just about the only people who care if we know. So if any of them (elected officials or MSM) step out of line, they get that tap on the shoulder...and you never hear the truth - unless you go find it on your own.
No, it's not a level playing field. Most of the money made by algos is by doing huge volumes for a fraction of a penny a share, faster than you can. To do that, takes a colo and more money than most will ever have. It's fairly easy to see it going on with either nanex or level II trade data. They can only pull that stuff off with very liquid stocks, which I tend not to trade when I see the algo's signatures.
They tend to "cheat" - if you can get in and out of a trade faster than your funding source can react, you might not actually have had the money. They cheat by bid/ask flooding, canceling orders so fast no one can bite - while watching to see if anyone tries and so on. They can create such a flood of such fake "order stuffing" that the exchanges barf - what amounts to a DOS.
But they are just there, and there appears to be nothing that can be done about them, other than work with a longer attention span than they do. They get fooled by fake tweets and headlines frequently, and some have mastered faking them out that way - just another form of cheating, this time by humans.
What was really hilarious was the day Knight trading accidentally put their test harness (a fake stock market designed to test algos on and be crushed by them) online instead of their new version algos, and lost 444 million in about 45 min, buying high and selling low as fast as it could. Made a few month's income that morning, just knowing that stuff doesn't really double or half in such a short time with no news, and using my judgment on some quick trades.
Nice try at what, AC? So brave to insult behind no name, eh? Just saying what I know and about something I do all day every day. If you have a different, knowledge/fact based take, lets hear it.
Yup, the bots are there, and sometimes they screw up mightily and I take advantage of them - human judgment still rules over an algo written by some guy who graduated but couldn't get a real job in physics. Check out nanex, who track this sort of thing. You can often make money off the noise the algos generate.
They've only discovered a couple of the basics of DSP. They know the step function. They know how to run stops, and take out a bid or ask stack to manipulate. So did open-cry traders in the day. You win by using a different attention span than they do, ride the moves they create for the middle part - greed kills, but smart makes money.
I've seen the algos in action - I would trust those guys to write a program or build an audio amp that wouldn't oscillate all by itself. Hook 10 or 1000 together and the chaos is fun to watch sometimes. Not that they should be there, but you gotta live with what is if you can't change it.
Even a brain dead NSA bureaucrat would instantly figure to get the dirt on the easiest to blackmail group on the planet if that's where their purse strings come from and they had those powers. Explains quite a lot of the cheer-leading. FWIW, they're not all brain-dead.
Feinstein, for example, has access to insider information and is married to a stock trader...I leave the rest as an exercise for the student.