Lord Blackadder
Aug 6, 05:10 PM
If GM had listed the Volt for a good price they'd have a major hit on their hands. This way, it's just gonna die quietly, and then they'll complain about the world not being ready for hybrids. :rolleyes:
I doubt GM could have made the Volt much cheaper. Hybrids are as yet nowhere near as cheap as regular autos, and never will be, since they are inherently more complex. I hybrid requires between 1 and 4 electric motors plus the internal combustion engine. It requires both a fuel tank and a battery pack. It also requires a transmission that connects the electric motors to the wheels as well as the internal combustion engine (except in series hybrids of course). A regular ol' gas or diesel engined car needs only engine, transmission and fuel tank.
I doubt GM could have made the Volt much cheaper. Hybrids are as yet nowhere near as cheap as regular autos, and never will be, since they are inherently more complex. I hybrid requires between 1 and 4 electric motors plus the internal combustion engine. It requires both a fuel tank and a battery pack. It also requires a transmission that connects the electric motors to the wheels as well as the internal combustion engine (except in series hybrids of course). A regular ol' gas or diesel engined car needs only engine, transmission and fuel tank.
ThePoach
Jul 21, 04:21 PM
So if another car company was hiding the same problem Toyota had, and Toyota pointed it out, that would be wrong? Why are the other companies denying it?
Yes it would.. maybe that is why Toyota was able to surpass all these claims, assuming most of them were real since everyone is trying to make a quick buck these days lol. They dealt with their own problems and I would buy a Toyota any day:)
Question for you Hovey.. Are you working for Apple????
Is that you Mr. Jobs, answering questions again? lol
Yes it would.. maybe that is why Toyota was able to surpass all these claims, assuming most of them were real since everyone is trying to make a quick buck these days lol. They dealt with their own problems and I would buy a Toyota any day:)
Question for you Hovey.. Are you working for Apple????
Is that you Mr. Jobs, answering questions again? lol
macnews
May 4, 12:49 AM
Read the contract you signed... you aren't paying for "a chunk of data".
You are paying for access to data via an approved device and method.
That access has limitations and restrictions.
Don't like the restrictions, choose another provider.
Your gas analogy is not relevant. The gas you buy has no such restrictions, so you are free to use it in whatever vehicle you choose.
You are correct that the way it is setup we pay for access and it has limitations and restrictions. I think the point is this just feels wrong. We have to accept it in the USA because we don't have a lot of choice/options. But in general if I am paying for data then why can't I just use it on what ever device I want? It doesn't make sense from a consumer stand point aside from the fact if you want data (which you are forced to pay for if you get a smart phone) then you have to agree to the wireless company terms.
From their stand point, I think it is done to limit access while they build out the system. Watch though, once things get built out competition will come in and you will see data $$$ and limitations drop like minutes.
You are paying for access to data via an approved device and method.
That access has limitations and restrictions.
Don't like the restrictions, choose another provider.
Your gas analogy is not relevant. The gas you buy has no such restrictions, so you are free to use it in whatever vehicle you choose.
You are correct that the way it is setup we pay for access and it has limitations and restrictions. I think the point is this just feels wrong. We have to accept it in the USA because we don't have a lot of choice/options. But in general if I am paying for data then why can't I just use it on what ever device I want? It doesn't make sense from a consumer stand point aside from the fact if you want data (which you are forced to pay for if you get a smart phone) then you have to agree to the wireless company terms.
From their stand point, I think it is done to limit access while they build out the system. Watch though, once things get built out competition will come in and you will see data $$$ and limitations drop like minutes.
puuukeey
Jan 9, 01:26 PM
someone posted the whole thing on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDfRvcjBQlM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDfRvcjBQlM
ddrueckhammer
Sep 12, 08:41 AM
I can't imagine why Apple would have an event like this if there was going to be only Disney content available.
Especially, if they don't have better prices or selection than the Amazon store released last week. Also, if they don't offer renting they are crazy. Who will buy a movie for $14.99 off of the internet without the media? I have actually rented a movie from the Unbox store and despite a crappy UI, problems starting the download, and having to use an S-video cable to connect my laptop to the TV, I found the experience better than expected. 90minutes downloaded in 1.5 hours and available to stream in 25 minutes is more than acceptable for me.
Especially, if they don't have better prices or selection than the Amazon store released last week. Also, if they don't offer renting they are crazy. Who will buy a movie for $14.99 off of the internet without the media? I have actually rented a movie from the Unbox store and despite a crappy UI, problems starting the download, and having to use an S-video cable to connect my laptop to the TV, I found the experience better than expected. 90minutes downloaded in 1.5 hours and available to stream in 25 minutes is more than acceptable for me.
scottsjack
Mar 28, 06:38 PM
Respectfully, I think you're missing the point. In its totality, installing an app is more like:
1) Google or otherwise search for an app. Make sure its the Mac version, compatible with your OS version, processor, etc. There probably won't be any reviews, more like select quotes from people who liked it.
2) IF you trust that website, fill out your credit card information, PayPal account, etc.
3) Download it and do the process you described for installing.
4) If you need to re-install the app, buy a new computer, etc. hope that the company allows you to re-download it.
5) If you have a good/bad experience, good luck reviewing it or rating it.
I'm a pretty tech-savvy guy and I still appreciate the ease of the Mac App Store.
Oh my gosh, the terrible amount of work you have to go through just to buy and install an application. Put convenience as your first priority and Steve will make many things "easier" for you. . .
1) Google or otherwise search for an app. Make sure its the Mac version, compatible with your OS version, processor, etc. There probably won't be any reviews, more like select quotes from people who liked it.
2) IF you trust that website, fill out your credit card information, PayPal account, etc.
3) Download it and do the process you described for installing.
4) If you need to re-install the app, buy a new computer, etc. hope that the company allows you to re-download it.
5) If you have a good/bad experience, good luck reviewing it or rating it.
I'm a pretty tech-savvy guy and I still appreciate the ease of the Mac App Store.
Oh my gosh, the terrible amount of work you have to go through just to buy and install an application. Put convenience as your first priority and Steve will make many things "easier" for you. . .
Renverse
Apr 17, 12:59 PM
Google needs to get their **** together if they want to keep competing. Everyone I know that has an Android carries around an iPod too.
Microsoft has Zune, and it's WP7 phones and Apple has iTunes. Google has to rely on Amazon, and even then the Android MP3 App is by far the worst of the 3.
Microsoft has Zune, and it's WP7 phones and Apple has iTunes. Google has to rely on Amazon, and even then the Android MP3 App is by far the worst of the 3.
iCrizzo
May 3, 01:50 PM
I use the jailbroken app for free tethering on my iPhone.
Snowy_River
Nov 17, 03:45 PM
Apple did not have a version of OS X running in it's labs. Intel has had every version running on their chips since the early 1990s when they first entered into discussions about using Intel chips. Intel some of the best software programmers in the world, wrt making an OS work on Intel chips. Apple got the OS X port from Intel to speed up the process of introducing the chips.
Link?
This is the first I've heard the story put that way. I've many times heard it said that Apple has kept versions of the Mac OS running on different CPUs in their labs, especially since the switch to OS X. Do you have any evidence to back up your supposition?
Link?
This is the first I've heard the story put that way. I've many times heard it said that Apple has kept versions of the Mac OS running on different CPUs in their labs, especially since the switch to OS X. Do you have any evidence to back up your supposition?
maflynn
Apr 18, 05:41 AM
You mean like how Finder is finally adding cut and paste?
Wow, so the finder is finally giving us, what other OS' had for years. I wonder what the fanboys will say now, after defending this lack of a feature for years.
I suspect along the lines that apple innovates again and creates a brand new feature :p
Wow, so the finder is finally giving us, what other OS' had for years. I wonder what the fanboys will say now, after defending this lack of a feature for years.
I suspect along the lines that apple innovates again and creates a brand new feature :p
macingman
Mar 17, 01:24 AM
If i was you I'd donate the extra few hundred to a charity, perhaps the Japanese earthquake appeal. Just some friendly advise, it is always good to help people.
fivepoint
May 5, 01:48 PM
That would be neat, rat- if any of the examples you gave were health hazards. They aren't. Guns can be. And your health is your doctor's business. My doctor asks me about all kinds of things I do and activities I engage in to give me advice regarding them. Health is your doctor's business.
I don't know, being a farmer/rancher is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. Certainly living on a farm makes you considerably more likely to sustain injury or death during every day interaction on the farm. Kids get run over by tractors, wound up in PTO shafts, etc. all the time. As with anything in life, reward often brings risk. I'd say asking about living on a farm is very similar to asking about guns in the house. Both should be perfectly legal for the physician to ask about, but common sense and general courtesy would suggest that the physician should stick to more physiology related questioning.
I don't know, being a farmer/rancher is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. Certainly living on a farm makes you considerably more likely to sustain injury or death during every day interaction on the farm. Kids get run over by tractors, wound up in PTO shafts, etc. all the time. As with anything in life, reward often brings risk. I'd say asking about living on a farm is very similar to asking about guns in the house. Both should be perfectly legal for the physician to ask about, but common sense and general courtesy would suggest that the physician should stick to more physiology related questioning.
dalvin200
Sep 12, 05:15 AM
6pm BST, on what channel? :p
BBC TWELVE :P
BBC TWELVE :P
AppliedVisual
Oct 17, 02:33 PM
Tape!?! :confused: who on earth uses tape anymore? This is.. 2006. And I was always under the impression that a medium with moving parts would be more prone to failure than one without. Certainly my VHS and cassette library have had their share of tapes being chewed up by the machine or worn out from use.
Tape is still the most reliable, long-term archival media available. Newer tape systems can transfer over 150MB/sec. to and from the tape and store several hundred GB on a single tape. Cost-wise, tape is expensive to buy into, but if you have sufficeint archival needs, it pays for itself over time. Many tape solutions once they reach their ROI point afer a year or two, often are cheaper than HDD storage by half or more. Sounds weird, I know, but that's the way it still is.
Most large data centers covering everything from web storage, insurance databases, financial institutions etc... Have mostly converted over to large-scale redundant servers and storage networks using RAID subsystems. This serves all their immediate storage and backup needs on site and is very reliable if managed properly. But nearly all of them still use an additional tape archival workflow for off-site data storage. There really is no other way right now... Wish there was. Hence the reason tape systems also keep evolving and pretty much match HDD capacity with tape capacity in most cases and transfer rates continue to improve. Comparing tape archival systems to VHS or miniDV tape is not a good comparison, data tapes (or at least the good ones) are very robust and actually very hard to damage. Short of placing them in a magnetic field for a period of time, they're mostly indestructable. They do have moving parts, but hardly any compared to a hard drive.
Using hard drives as an archival solution is a bad idea... Hard drives are not designed for this and can corrupt data over time. Not to mention, the platter system and motors are not designed to sit stationary for years at a time for long-term storage. Optical media isn't too bad, but most photo-sensitive dyes and films used in optical media will decay over time. CD-R media was originally claimed to have a lifespan of 30 to 100 years. Now that it's been around for 30+ years, we're finding out that claim was somewhat exaggerated. Recordable DVD media and HD-DVD and BD are no different, just higher data density on the discs. And also not anywhere near practical for large-scale solutions. Just how do you archive and manage 300 petabytes per year to DVD-R???
For small business type users and home users though, DVD-R media in addition to a good redundant RAID setup probably makes the most sense. Unless they're pushing lots of data doing HD video editing or something like that. In which case, it may still make sense to give tape a consideration as the long-term archive solution. Prosumer level tape archive systems exist and are not that expensive and much more reliable than shelved hard drives and much easier to manage than optical media. The VXA2 format can afford someone an external Firewire tape system w/2 tapes for < $1K. Tapes hold up to 160GB each and factoring in the cost of the drive plus enough tapes to back up about 3 terrabytes of data, the cost becomes cheaper than individual hard drives. So a few terrabytes down the road and you could be wishing you had considered tape if you're still using DVD-R. OTOH, DVD-R is just fine and dandy if a terrabyte or two is all you need. Because you can fit a lot of discs in a shoebox and sharpie pen to label them is pretty cheap too.
External drives are *not* long term archiving solutions. They are useful for storing vast amounts of data that presumably you want to actually access and use (and possibly modify) on a regular basis; also, they are good for the kind of incremental backups you refer to, Time Machine, Retrospect, other 3rd party backup tools can be used for this. But if you have important files you know aren't going to change, while having them on HDD is useful for instant access, that's not where they should be permanently archived -- they should be burned to a permanent medium, preferably more than one copy, and stored in a safe place (or places). If your drive fails and you still need the data to be on that drive, you can then restore from the permanent medium.
Um... I guess I got carried away and didn't mean to elaborate on what you already said. But, er... um.. Yep, I agree.
Tape is still the most reliable, long-term archival media available. Newer tape systems can transfer over 150MB/sec. to and from the tape and store several hundred GB on a single tape. Cost-wise, tape is expensive to buy into, but if you have sufficeint archival needs, it pays for itself over time. Many tape solutions once they reach their ROI point afer a year or two, often are cheaper than HDD storage by half or more. Sounds weird, I know, but that's the way it still is.
Most large data centers covering everything from web storage, insurance databases, financial institutions etc... Have mostly converted over to large-scale redundant servers and storage networks using RAID subsystems. This serves all their immediate storage and backup needs on site and is very reliable if managed properly. But nearly all of them still use an additional tape archival workflow for off-site data storage. There really is no other way right now... Wish there was. Hence the reason tape systems also keep evolving and pretty much match HDD capacity with tape capacity in most cases and transfer rates continue to improve. Comparing tape archival systems to VHS or miniDV tape is not a good comparison, data tapes (or at least the good ones) are very robust and actually very hard to damage. Short of placing them in a magnetic field for a period of time, they're mostly indestructable. They do have moving parts, but hardly any compared to a hard drive.
Using hard drives as an archival solution is a bad idea... Hard drives are not designed for this and can corrupt data over time. Not to mention, the platter system and motors are not designed to sit stationary for years at a time for long-term storage. Optical media isn't too bad, but most photo-sensitive dyes and films used in optical media will decay over time. CD-R media was originally claimed to have a lifespan of 30 to 100 years. Now that it's been around for 30+ years, we're finding out that claim was somewhat exaggerated. Recordable DVD media and HD-DVD and BD are no different, just higher data density on the discs. And also not anywhere near practical for large-scale solutions. Just how do you archive and manage 300 petabytes per year to DVD-R???
For small business type users and home users though, DVD-R media in addition to a good redundant RAID setup probably makes the most sense. Unless they're pushing lots of data doing HD video editing or something like that. In which case, it may still make sense to give tape a consideration as the long-term archive solution. Prosumer level tape archive systems exist and are not that expensive and much more reliable than shelved hard drives and much easier to manage than optical media. The VXA2 format can afford someone an external Firewire tape system w/2 tapes for < $1K. Tapes hold up to 160GB each and factoring in the cost of the drive plus enough tapes to back up about 3 terrabytes of data, the cost becomes cheaper than individual hard drives. So a few terrabytes down the road and you could be wishing you had considered tape if you're still using DVD-R. OTOH, DVD-R is just fine and dandy if a terrabyte or two is all you need. Because you can fit a lot of discs in a shoebox and sharpie pen to label them is pretty cheap too.
External drives are *not* long term archiving solutions. They are useful for storing vast amounts of data that presumably you want to actually access and use (and possibly modify) on a regular basis; also, they are good for the kind of incremental backups you refer to, Time Machine, Retrospect, other 3rd party backup tools can be used for this. But if you have important files you know aren't going to change, while having them on HDD is useful for instant access, that's not where they should be permanently archived -- they should be burned to a permanent medium, preferably more than one copy, and stored in a safe place (or places). If your drive fails and you still need the data to be on that drive, you can then restore from the permanent medium.
Um... I guess I got carried away and didn't mean to elaborate on what you already said. But, er... um.. Yep, I agree.
SandynJosh
Apr 16, 11:24 PM
Apple does censor things they do not want certain content on the appstore. Show a nip and you get axed I highly disagree with that enable a type of parental control don't chose for me
Want to see a nip? Just turn on iPhone Safari and you can jump on the internet and see the whole tit. Apple has a right to offer a store that is kid friendly, and in the end may make them more money than if they let hookers walk the aisles.
iTunes is a safe place. It's free of smut and malware. Everyone can go there and have a good time, like Disneyland.
Want to see a nip? Just turn on iPhone Safari and you can jump on the internet and see the whole tit. Apple has a right to offer a store that is kid friendly, and in the end may make them more money than if they let hookers walk the aisles.
iTunes is a safe place. It's free of smut and malware. Everyone can go there and have a good time, like Disneyland.
vincenz
Oct 5, 05:10 PM
Wonder if he'll let me crash on his sofa!
ifjake
Oct 3, 09:37 AM
The way I imagine Apple liscensing/opening up the iPod/iTunes/iTMS system would be for Apple to completely control what the user sees, how the user gets content, even if it doesn't control what the user gets. Like how you can choose which country to set the Music Store to, adding maybe an Amazon.com store to the list, Real.com, etc. But as a "reward" for opening itself up to competition, Apple would recieve a slight liscence fee, an teensy bit of the price of whatever's sold. This way Apple could control the look of the iTMS no matter where it comes from by supplying a template, a "user interface guideline" sort of thing for this new multi-store, and all media from Apple or Amazon or wherever could all happily coexist in iTunes. If the other companies want to sell to players other than the iPod, they can use their own system or work out a similar situation with Microsoft and fair play and such.
I don't really like leaving this in the hands of DVD Jon. Maybe Apple will wait and see what kind of response he gets and then take it from there, but I think Apple and especially iTunes still need to be part of the picture.
Maybe Apple could simply provide an easy "Add to Library" handle in iTunes, even if the stuff comes from some browser based store, you buy it and it goes to iTunes and thus the iPod. The whole multi-store thing is to me the ideal that I'd be willing to let go of.
I don't really like leaving this in the hands of DVD Jon. Maybe Apple will wait and see what kind of response he gets and then take it from there, but I think Apple and especially iTunes still need to be part of the picture.
Maybe Apple could simply provide an easy "Add to Library" handle in iTunes, even if the stuff comes from some browser based store, you buy it and it goes to iTunes and thus the iPod. The whole multi-store thing is to me the ideal that I'd be willing to let go of.
TheFreshPrince
Sep 12, 07:25 AM
Japan store down too. :rolleyes:
ariel
Sep 25, 11:46 AM
...well...I've been using Aperture 1.1 with 765k+ images on a 24" 800mhz G3 and it really rocks!...
I'm assuming you slipped and meant to type 20"...right?
Geez... musta been having a wet dream when i typed that LOL
Yes it is 20" and i use every bit of it heehee
I'm assuming you slipped and meant to type 20"...right?
Geez... musta been having a wet dream when i typed that LOL
Yes it is 20" and i use every bit of it heehee
Object-X
Sep 25, 11:20 AM
Why are people rating this news as negative? It seems like a decent update to a good program, and it's free for existing Aperture users. What were you expecting?
Because they didn't announce MacBook Pro's with Core 2 Duo! Why else?
Because they didn't announce MacBook Pro's with Core 2 Duo! Why else?
juliuspierpont
Mar 17, 01:23 AM
I would have a hard time enjoying something which reminded me every time I used it that I'd probably cost some kid his job, and that I basically stole. Sure, the feeling of euphoria for "sticking it to the man" must have been pretty cool, but now, every time you use it, remember what kind of person you are deep down. And don't for a minute think that returning that phone you found negates this...when the chips were down, and it was really tempting (not some cruddy used phone that you'd have had to make an effort to use) you failed at being a decent person.
Edit: This is what ignore lists are for, by the way. I hope I never have to read another thing you write.
Edit: This is what ignore lists are for, by the way. I hope I never have to read another thing you write.
Geckotek
Jan 2, 01:25 AM
Not saying you're correct or incorrect, just saying that the information I had been dealt doesn't support your statement. I'm fairly certain that question was settled after the first teardown.
Edit: Looked around and couldn't find a datasheet on the Triquint chips. Perhpas we never really had an answer on this. But I don't see LTE as a possibility and if HSPA+ is, why is it not enabled yet??
Well, once again, supposedly LTE will allow for simultaneous voice/data.
I for one will be staying with AT&T if and when Verizon gets the iPhone. I'll also be laughing while Verizon suffers the same fate that AT&T did as millions of users hit their network at once. I don't care how "strong" Verizon's network is, I don't think they're ready for the heavy hit they're going to take.
As of now, LTE only supports data. They are working for a voice solution in the future. So any LTE phones will be LTE for data and CDMA/WCDMA for voice.
And thinking that Verizon won't be prepared is just foolish. For starters, they have the luxury that AT&T didn't have...too look at another network and how the iPhone has performed on that network. It would be like watching a guy walk off a cliff and slam into the rocks below...then just walking off after him expecting a different result. Not to mention the fact that Verizon has handled bigger data hogs in the form of laptop users for longer than AT&T anyway.
Edit: Looked around and couldn't find a datasheet on the Triquint chips. Perhpas we never really had an answer on this. But I don't see LTE as a possibility and if HSPA+ is, why is it not enabled yet??
Well, once again, supposedly LTE will allow for simultaneous voice/data.
I for one will be staying with AT&T if and when Verizon gets the iPhone. I'll also be laughing while Verizon suffers the same fate that AT&T did as millions of users hit their network at once. I don't care how "strong" Verizon's network is, I don't think they're ready for the heavy hit they're going to take.
As of now, LTE only supports data. They are working for a voice solution in the future. So any LTE phones will be LTE for data and CDMA/WCDMA for voice.
And thinking that Verizon won't be prepared is just foolish. For starters, they have the luxury that AT&T didn't have...too look at another network and how the iPhone has performed on that network. It would be like watching a guy walk off a cliff and slam into the rocks below...then just walking off after him expecting a different result. Not to mention the fact that Verizon has handled bigger data hogs in the form of laptop users for longer than AT&T anyway.
MacCurry
Sep 28, 01:41 PM
Is the update available now?
dime21
May 5, 11:15 AM
Why are you using fear as part of your argument? I shouldn't have to have a gun on me to feel safe in my community. It's not saying I feel immune to crime, but fear of crime shouldn't drive a person.
Not fear of crime, but rather, the desire for self-preservation. Is someone else providing that safety for you? Or are you providing it for yourself? It sounds like you're taking option 3, and not providing it at all. FYI- the supreme court ruled that the police have no legal obligation to provide for your safety. Their job is only to catch the criminals during/after a crime - not to prevent it, and not to "keep you safe". Do you also choose not to wear your seat belt in your car, because that's for people who always fear collisions, and fear of an automotive collision shouldn't drive a person?
Yes, I own a few guns and I carry a hand gun on my person anytime I leave the house. To run errands, to pick the kids up from school, you name it, I'm carrying. I look it at the same way as the fire extinguisher I have sitting in the corner of my kitchen. I really really don't want an occasion to use it. Ever. But should that occasion arise, I absolutely want to have immediate access to it. Without that fire extinguisher, all I could do is stand in the front yard and watch my home burn to the ground waiting for the fire department to arrive. Carrying a hand gun is no different that that fire extinguisher in my kitchen or the airbags in my car. I don't ever want to use them, but having them can mean the difference between life and death. It doesn't mean I'm being driven by fear of kitchen fires or vehicle collisions.
Violent criminals frequently use guns to kill people. That is a fact, and there is absolutely nothing you can do to change that. Nothing. All you can do is arm yourself to level the playing field.
Given the choice, I'd much rather have the robber hold me up with a knife, than a gun.
Yes, because violent criminals give you a choice. lol. Next time you're in that situation, be sure to voice your opinion to your assailant. Please sir, if you are determined to rob me, please kindly exchange your hand gun for a knife. lmao. Oh wait, you may not even have the chance to ask, because now you're dead. He shot you because he felt like it, and there was nothing you could do to stop him.
Not fear of crime, but rather, the desire for self-preservation. Is someone else providing that safety for you? Or are you providing it for yourself? It sounds like you're taking option 3, and not providing it at all. FYI- the supreme court ruled that the police have no legal obligation to provide for your safety. Their job is only to catch the criminals during/after a crime - not to prevent it, and not to "keep you safe". Do you also choose not to wear your seat belt in your car, because that's for people who always fear collisions, and fear of an automotive collision shouldn't drive a person?
Yes, I own a few guns and I carry a hand gun on my person anytime I leave the house. To run errands, to pick the kids up from school, you name it, I'm carrying. I look it at the same way as the fire extinguisher I have sitting in the corner of my kitchen. I really really don't want an occasion to use it. Ever. But should that occasion arise, I absolutely want to have immediate access to it. Without that fire extinguisher, all I could do is stand in the front yard and watch my home burn to the ground waiting for the fire department to arrive. Carrying a hand gun is no different that that fire extinguisher in my kitchen or the airbags in my car. I don't ever want to use them, but having them can mean the difference between life and death. It doesn't mean I'm being driven by fear of kitchen fires or vehicle collisions.
Violent criminals frequently use guns to kill people. That is a fact, and there is absolutely nothing you can do to change that. Nothing. All you can do is arm yourself to level the playing field.
Given the choice, I'd much rather have the robber hold me up with a knife, than a gun.
Yes, because violent criminals give you a choice. lol. Next time you're in that situation, be sure to voice your opinion to your assailant. Please sir, if you are determined to rob me, please kindly exchange your hand gun for a knife. lmao. Oh wait, you may not even have the chance to ask, because now you're dead. He shot you because he felt like it, and there was nothing you could do to stop him.
No comments:
Post a Comment