or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Nightcrawler

Hmm, I thought I read somewhere that Mountain Lion uses a new way to address RAM, ie. that regardless of how many apps are simultaneously open, the RAM gets addressed dynamically and allocated to the processes that need it at that very moment.    So it shouldn't matter anymore how many apps are simultaneously open, the only thing that matters is what processes are running at the moment and how much RAM they need at the moment to get the job done. I think this idea of...
Well, I did it the lazy way and paid some 50€ to a local apple-store-service-technician (if you ask me an overpriced service for a work of 20 minutes) but it was imho definitely worth it, not the paying of 50€, but expanding the 2GB Ram of my late 2009 macmini to 8 GB, the difference is like night and day. It's like I had handbrakes on before.
My experience as an hobby-editor with macmini (late 2009) and Final Cut Pro X are these:   1. You can't have enough HD-space. My macmini has a 160 GB internal HD and I was quickly filling it up, so I bought an external 1TB Firewire 800-HD, and now I feel relieved.Of course an SSD would be snappier, but the prices are at least 3x as high, but if money is no issue, getting a (or two) 500 GB-SSD would be an idea.   2. The most important upgrade I did just a few days...
There's no way around it, if you want to change the constitution regarding such an important aspect that deals with states' citizens having the arms to organize an armed resistance against the federal government's standing army should the need arise, then only a broad and honest discussion within the US-society followed by a general referendum can do the trick.   If the US-society decides in the referendum that the right to have arms in citizen's hands is too...
This is a classic case of safety vs liberty.   As some philosophers concluded, you can't have both to a 100%. You either give up liberty for safety or vice-versa. Some philosopher even made the case that a society that chooses safety and gives up its liberty won't have either in the end.   The thing is guns in the hands of citizens is a way to keep up liberty. Of course you can argue that it's not necessary to be paranoid about the federal government, after all...
I agree that an armed guard won't stop much, the attacker will only make sure to kill him first and then he has free hand. Imho the best solution is to have as many armed and trained adults as possible. That way the attacker doesn't know who is a threat to him.   The other possible solution would be to completely ban weapons, to close down the weapon-shops, the weapon-producing-companies and to forcibly disarm the population. The consequence would be like in the case...
Besides arming and training/certifying adults to carry handguns, how about stopping the mass-media-coverage of these massacres. Through the media these lost souls get turned into antiheroes which motivates others to seek fame that way.
  Because the police can't prevent massacres from happening, they can't be everywhere at the same time. The police also can't prevent a raping of a woman to happen. In these cases they would often come too late. The police is good for capturing criminals after they did their crime.   In that role, the police and courts... act as a deterrance against people thinking about doing crimes who have a problem with being caught and convicted. But people that don't care about what...
What about the alternative? To arm and train all adults with handguns? Of course the handguns and ammunition would have to be registered and the training/certification not only involve the shooting but also the handling of the gun, to keep it protected and controlled...   That would be a major deterrance for anyone wanting to commit massacre, knowing that all adults are armed and trained, don't you think?
  I don't think you get it, the enshrined right to carry weapons in the US-constitution is meant to allow/enable citizens to have the fire-power to stand up against the government should the need arise.   So, yes, for that purpose allowing only handguns won't cut it.   Besides, most massacres were committed using handguns, so a ban on assault rifles won't stop massacres.
New Posts  All Forums: