"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Sep 21, 12:37 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"TopBassDog" wrote in message

...



On Sep 20, 10:03 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Harry ?" wrote in
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 12:04:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:41:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Reducing the number of guns is one way to try and fix the ever
growing
gun
problem we have in this country.

The real question is how you would actually do that.

Education, regulation, biometric trigger locks...

That wouldn't reduce the number of guns and trigger locks are a
stupid
idea. It doesn't keep the gun from being stolen. a thief can
defeat
it
easily and it only gives a kid a puzzle.
Education is probably the best solution.
That used to be what the NRA did. I was an instructor for a while
myself, before it all became a "them vs us" thing.

A biometric trigger lock is not easy to defeat. Please tell us how.
I'd
be
curious to know.

Education and regulation would reduce the number of guns. People
should
be
required to take a class before purchasing a gun. Regulations
should
be
enforced and expanded to improve gun quality/safety, and special
permits
should be required for certain types of weapons (some are already).

Can you share some information on these biometrics trigger locks.
I found something on fingerprint gun safes but that's not what you
are
talking about

http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/13/t...ks-unsafe-at-a...

That's correct. That's not what I'm talking about. There are
inventions
in
the works, and I don't have the details.

Yes, D'Plume. There are always inventions in the works that you arn't
privy of, however your statement at face value appears that you don't
have much of a clue about anything, which is also compatible with
your nature.

I said I didn't have the details, not that I wasn't "privy" to them.
Sorry,
but I don'tdanceto your tune.

But... you just did!

You're tone deaf.

On Sep 21, 9:22*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"TopBassDog" wrote in message

...



On Sep 21, 12:37 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"TopBassDog" wrote in message

....

On Sep 20, 10:03 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Harry * ?" wrote in
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 12:04:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:41:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Reducing the number of guns is one way to try and fix the ever
growing
gun
problem we have in this country.

The real question is how you would actually do that.

Education, regulation, biometric trigger locks...

That wouldn't reduce the number of guns and trigger locks are a
stupid
idea. It doesn't keep the gun from being stolen. a thief can
defeat
it
easily and it only gives a kid a puzzle.
Education is probably the best solution.
That used to be what the NRA did. I was an instructor for a while
myself, before it all became a "them vs us" thing.

A biometric trigger lock is not easy to defeat. Please tell us how.
I'd
be
curious to know.

Education and regulation would reduce the number of guns. People
should
be
required to take a class before purchasing a gun. Regulations
should
be
enforced and expanded to improve gun quality/safety, and special
permits
should be required for certain types of weapons (some are already).

Can you share some information on these biometrics trigger locks.
I found something on fingerprint gun safes but that's not what you
are
talking about

http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/13/t...ks-unsafe-at-a...

That's correct. That's not what I'm talking about. There are
inventions
in
the works, and I don't have the details.

Yes, D'Plume. There are always inventions in the works that you arn't
privy of, however your statement at face value appears that you don't
have much of a clue about anything, which is also *compatible with
your nature.

I said I didn't have the details, not that I wasn't "privy" to them.
Sorry,
but I don'tdanceto your tune.

But... you just did!

You're tone deaf.

As far as dancing to my tune D'Plume. it seems you still are!

In article , says...

On 9/21/2010 1:17 PM, Secular Humorist wrote:
In , says...

On 9/21/2010 11:13 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
On Sep 21, 11:12 am, "Harry wrote:
"Secular wrote in ...
On 9/21/10 10:59 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
On Sep 21, 10:59 am, "Harry wrote:
"I am wrote in l-september.org...

In ,
says...

wrote in ...

wrote in message
...
On Sep 20, 10:03 pm, wrote:
"Harry wrote in
...

wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 12:04:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:41:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Reducing the number of guns is one way to try and fix the ever
growing
gun
problem we have in this country.

The real question is how you would actually do that.

Education, regulation, biometric trigger locks...

That wouldn't reduce the number of guns and trigger locks are a
stupid
idea. It doesn't keep the gun from being stolen. a thief can defeat
it
easily and it only gives a kid a puzzle.
Education is probably the best solution.
That used to be what the NRA did. I was an instructor for a while
myself, before it all became a "them vs us" thing.

A biometric trigger lock is not easy to defeat. Please tell us how.
I'd
be
curious to know.

Education and regulation would reduce the number of guns. People
should
be
required to take a class before purchasing a gun. Regulations should
be
enforced and expanded to improve gun quality/safety, and special
permits
should be required for certain types of weapons (some are already).

Can you share some information on these biometrics trigger locks.
I found something on fingerprint gun safes but that's not what you are
talking about

http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/13/t...ks-unsafe-at-a...

That's correct. That's not what I'm talking about. There are inventions
in
the works, and I don't have the details.

Yes, D'Plume. There are always inventions in the works that you arn't
privy of, however your statement at face value appears that you don't
have much of a clue about anything, which is also compatible with
your nature.

I said I didn't have the details, not that I wasn't "privy" to them. Sorry,
but I don't dance to your tune.

That makes you clueless, doesn't it.
Speaking of dancing. Did you catch Palin's daughter on Dancing with The Stars last night? Doesn't she have great legs? Too bad she can't dance well. Do you think she has enough fan base to keep her around for a few weeks?

Saw a clip of it this morning on the news. She really does suck at
dancing, the dude that got stuck with her must be ****ed And in my
opinion, her legs ain't that great either..

--
OH, I could do the 105 footer, but I would hate to waste the last few
seconds of my life with my eyes closed, screaming like a little
girl...

Quit chewing on someone else's bait. :-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OK dad...

I wonder...when Palin's next daughter gets pregnant, will sarah invite
the young man to move into her daughter's bedroom, as she did with
Sprocket or whatever her name is?

You gotta get over this fixation you have with Palin. She wouldn't give you the time of day, if she knew you existed.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's his fixation with little kids having sex that would bother me if
I were more local...

No one seems to spoof you. You're not working hard enough.

No one would spoof you, either Hertvik, after what you did to John's
wife.


Sorry little spoofer but I have had no contact with the wife of anyone
who posts here. You must have me confused with one of your trashy ID
stealing buddies here.

Of all the assholes who have ever posted here, you ID stealers probably
are the worst. Obviously it is your intent to muck up what little bit of
a news posting group remains here.

Why not just admit it and be a man for once in your life?

Would you like me to post the phone number you called her from, asshole?

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:52:03 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:51:22 -0400, "Harry ?"
wrote:

I'm not familiar with thievery of cell phone equipment and services.

What does Jailbreaking, rooting, and bricking mean?

I am not sure about all of the new phone contracts but there are some
companies that give you a free phone that is locked to their service
if you sign up for a long term contract.
People unlock them and go to another, cheaper service, leaving the
original contractor holding the bag for that phone he expected to
amortize over several years.
Now that money is harder to borrow, these plans may be more
restrictive because this is basically a loan but they used to be real
easy to qualify for.. They loan you the money to buy the phone and you
pay them back a few bucks a month in your phone bill. The locked phone
is the collateral, theoretically useless if you breach the contract.
Of course if they are lost or stolen, unlocking them makes them a
phone again, for drug dealers or anyone else who wants a throwaway
phone.
Back in the analog days, the trick was just cloning the ESN so you
could use a phone on someone elses dime. That got a lot harder to do
on a digital phone but I bet someone has figured it out. I lost
interest when my Moto bag phones stopped working (two with one ESN).

Which has nothing to do with the legality of doing this to a phone...
seems
like you've changed the subject.


No the original subject was just whether these people had the ability
to alter things.

The original subject included a false comparison between people altering
their phone vs. modifying guns by common criminals, most of whom are not too
bright.

wrote in message ...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:55:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

No the original subject was just whether these people had the ability
to alter things.

The original subject included a false comparison between people altering
their phone vs. modifying guns by common criminals, most of whom are not too
bright.

It doesn't take that much intelligence to work on guns, just some
basic mechanical skill. All of that "smart gun" stuff is just added to
a regular gun action and it is not that hard to take it away. In the
end it will always just be pulling in a coil after it does all of
it;'s electronic magic. You just need to find another way to move that
armature or operate that sear and rip all of those electronics out.

Again I will point out, the technology was invented for people who
lose a gun in a fight and don't want to be shot with it right then.
This was coopted by people who did not understand the technology or
the intent.


You might have seen this video before but it seems appropriate to show it when we have a discussion about guns.
Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpURk1E3Q9c

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:55:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

No the original subject was just whether these people had the ability
to alter things.

The original subject included a false comparison between people altering
their phone vs. modifying guns by common criminals, most of whom are not
too
bright.

It doesn't take that much intelligence to work on guns, just some
basic mechanical skill. All of that "smart gun" stuff is just added to
a regular gun action and it is not that hard to take it away. In the
end it will always just be pulling in a coil after it does all of
it;'s electronic magic. You just need to find another way to move that
armature or operate that sear and rip all of those electronics out.

Again I will point out, the technology was invented for people who
lose a gun in a fight and don't want to be shot with it right then.
This was coopted by people who did not understand the technology or
the intent.

I'm sure we'll see those brilliant, average criminals hunkering down in
their fully equipped workshop churning them out by the 1000s.

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ...

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:55:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

No the original subject was just whether these people had the ability
to alter things.

The original subject included a false comparison between people altering
their phone vs. modifying guns by common criminals, most of whom are not
too
bright.

It doesn't take that much intelligence to work on guns, just some
basic mechanical skill. All of that "smart gun" stuff is just added to
a regular gun action and it is not that hard to take it away. In the
end it will always just be pulling in a coil after it does all of
it;'s electronic magic. You just need to find another way to move that
armature or operate that sear and rip all of those electronics out.

Again I will point out, the technology was invented for people who
lose a gun in a fight and don't want to be shot with it right then.
This was coopted by people who did not understand the technology or
the intent.

I'm sure we'll see those brilliant, average criminals hunkering down in
their fully equipped workshop churning them out by the 1000s.



Again you amaze me with your incoherency.

"Harry ?" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:55:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

No the original subject was just whether these people had the ability
to alter things.

The original subject included a false comparison between people altering
their phone vs. modifying guns by common criminals, most of whom are not
too
bright.

It doesn't take that much intelligence to work on guns, just some
basic mechanical skill. All of that "smart gun" stuff is just added to
a regular gun action and it is not that hard to take it away. In the
end it will always just be pulling in a coil after it does all of
it;'s electronic magic. You just need to find another way to move that
armature or operate that sear and rip all of those electronics out.

Again I will point out, the technology was invented for people who
lose a gun in a fight and don't want to be shot with it right then.
This was coopted by people who did not understand the technology or
the intent.

I'm sure we'll see those brilliant, average criminals hunkering down in
their fully equipped workshop churning them out by the 1000s.



Again you amaze me with your incoherency.

Shut up loser. The adults are talking.

On Sep 22, 10:43*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Harry * ?" wrote in ...



"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:55:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

No the original subject was just whether these people had the ability
to alter things.

The original subject included a false comparison between people altering
their phone vs. modifying guns by common criminals, most of whom are not
too
bright.

It doesn't take that much intelligence to work on guns, just some
basic mechanical skill. All of that "smart gun" stuff is just added to
a regular gun action and it is not that hard to take it away. In the
end it will always just be pulling in a coil after it does all of
it;'s electronic magic. You just need to find another way to move that
armature or operate that sear and rip all of those electronics out.

Again I will point out, the technology was invented for people who
lose a gun in a fight and don't want to be shot with it right then.
This was coopted by people who did not understand the technology or
the intent.

I'm sure we'll see those brilliant, average criminals hunkering down in
their fully equipped workshop churning them out by the 1000s.

Again you amaze me with your incoherency.

Shut up loser. The adults are talking.

Did he strike a nerve with you?

Poor baby!

Here, have a cookie!

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:18:35 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:55:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

No the original subject was just whether these people had the ability
to alter things.

The original subject included a false comparison between people altering
their phone vs. modifying guns by common criminals, most of whom are not
too
bright.

It doesn't take that much intelligence to work on guns, just some
basic mechanical skill. All of that "smart gun" stuff is just added to
a regular gun action and it is not that hard to take it away. In the
end it will always just be pulling in a coil after it does all of
it;'s electronic magic. You just need to find another way to move that
armature or operate that sear and rip all of those electronics out.

Again I will point out, the technology was invented for people who
lose a gun in a fight and don't want to be shot with it right then.
This was coopted by people who did not understand the technology or
the intent.

I'm sure we'll see those brilliant, average criminals hunkering down in
their fully equipped workshop churning them out by the 1000s.


I doubt there will be thousands of smart guns sold the be disabled.
Who would actually pay an extra couple hundred dollars for a gun that
might not work when they need them? Police departments, the target
market, has no interest unless the gun fails"on" so all the crook has
to do is take the battery out and the gun goes hot.
The cop on the beat still has no real interest in the technology, it
is just the political bosses.

I believe pretty much the same thing was said of things like computers and
cell phones.

I can't speak for every cop on the beat, but I'm betting most would be
interested in a weapon that can only be fired by the owner.