Date   

Re: Gun Technique, Hunting and Technology

James Bentley
 

What's insane is that the general public can purchase a version of this sniper rifle that hits a very small target at over half a mile.

Yikes, I think I will just stay in the house with the blinds drrawn.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 11:17 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Gun Technique, Hunting and Technology

Wow! that is freakin insane!

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
James Bentley
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:07 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Gun Technique, Hunting and Technology

The United States military has a computerized rifle and scope combination.
It first takes a photo of the entire target area. Next, the shooter uses a
cursor on a touch screen to tell the computer where to put the bullet.
Next, the shooter aims at the target. The computer fires the rifle only
when it sees that the rifle is aimed with pin point accuracy. 3 inch
Targets can be hit accurately at distances over two miles.



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:56 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Gun Technique, Hunting and Technology

Finally, a relevant informative post. Thank you for contributing to my small
pool of knowledge. :)

And while on the subject matter, I'm thinking an audio beep of some sort
might be able to alert the blind shooter than the object of interest is
within the cross hairs of scope. Key will be determining what is target
object and what is some sort of artifact.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Joe
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 8:47 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: [TechTalk] Gun Technique, Hunting and Technology

There is now what some are calling a smart rifle, out of Texas. At $25,000,
it's beyond the reach of most enthusiasts, but it can fetch that price for
the level of precision it can automatically adjust to help the shooter
acquire a target. If technology has leaped that far, one can almost wonder
what credit, if any, the shooter gets, but my question is this: What
technology have the hunters among us used to rely a little less on sighted
assistance? I go deer hunting, but thus far I have leaned heavily on
discrete cues from sighted companions to know where and when to fire. It's
not a bad method. I've brought down three bucks in this fashion, and while
hunting can often be enjoyed with companions, it would be nice to
independently, but responsibly, engage and execute the target myself. Right
now I use a laser to help my sighted companions get a better sense of where
I am aiming. This allows me to hold and operate the rifle on my own, but
again, it feels inefficient. Any tips would be welcomed.

I'll note that while I am a member of a local shooting range, I have
hesitated to obtain a gun permit. I understand my shooting would be optimal
at very close range, but the risk of hitting someone innocent, however
small, still weighs on my conscience.

I realize for some the discussion of guns and hunting could be abhorrent. If
so, feel free to email me off list. For whatever it's worth, I eat what I
kill. I've never gone hunting for the mere sport. I've learned how to skin
my own kill, and I suppose one could argue the knife skill in doing so could
itself be viewed as a form of technology skill.

Not to stray too far off topic here, but any number of disasters could occur
in our lifetime and in our own backyard. In a scenario with no power and
extensive food shortage, that Windows machine isn't going to be worth a
whole lot except for maybe scrap metal. Our definition of "technology" just
might revert to what technology used to be. That is, the means to survive.

Best,

Joe

--
Musings of a Work in Progress:
www.JoeOrozco.com/

Twitter: @ScribblingJoe


Re: How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

Joseph Lee <joseph.lee22590@...>
 

Hi Carlos,

Usually when I posta poll, I prepare myself to receive votes from polls and emails (as a direct email or as a reply).

As for my vote: : I chose option 3 in the poll. I tend to use it if there are new Insider builds that include features or fixes for it.

As for Edge: will give you a backstage tour upon request.

Cheers,

Joseph

 

From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 7:22 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

 

Sigh I give up.  LOL everyone can just post their vote in a reply if it is more convenient.

----- Original Message -----

From: Loy

Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:17 AM

Subject: Re: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

 

It takes me to the Tech Talk group main page, no options to vote.

----- Original Message -----

From: Carlos

Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 10:02 AM

Subject: Re: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

 

Interesting.  There should be several radio buttons which are the choices and a

"Vote"

link.

----- Original Message -----

From: Loy

Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:00 AM

Subject: Re: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

 

I clicked on vote now but did not see any option to vote.

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Carlos

Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 9:49 AM

Subject: Re: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

 

LOL click on the

link and choose an option to make it official.  This way everyone can also view the results of the poll.

----- Original Message -----

From: Loy

Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:45 AM

Subject: Re: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

 

I never use narrator.

----- Original Message -----

From: Carlos

Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 9:39 AM

Subject: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

 

A new poll has been created:

Just for fun and because we rarely use this feature.

 

1. I only use Narrator for emergencies
2. I never use Narrator
3. I use Narrator regularly

Vote Now


Re: Get The Audible App for Windows 10

Lynn White
 

Thank you Joseph. That helps big time.

On 7/2/2016 11:16 AM, Joseph Lee wrote:
Hi,
Once the Store opens, press Control+E, search for Audible and press ENTER (note that you may needto sign into MS Account to download it unless situation has changed).
Cheers,
Joseph
-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of Lynn White
Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 8:57 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: [TechTalk] Get The Audible App for Windows 10

I have just spnt a very frustrating time in the Windows store trying to download the Audible app so that I can read books on my Victor Stream.

Can anyone suggest a more direct way to get this. The Audible page takes you directly to the Windows store. Windows will not allow you to down the app for Windows 7.

Thanks for any help.







Re: Gun Technique, Hunting and Technology

Jeremy <jeremy.richards7@...>
 

Wow! that is freakin insane!

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
James Bentley
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:07 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Gun Technique, Hunting and Technology

The United States military has a computerized rifle and scope combination.
It first takes a photo of the entire target area. Next, the shooter uses a
cursor on a touch screen to tell the computer where to put the bullet.
Next, the shooter aims at the target. The computer fires the rifle only
when it sees that the rifle is aimed with pin point accuracy. 3 inch
Targets can be hit accurately at distances over two miles.



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:56 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Gun Technique, Hunting and Technology

Finally, a relevant informative post. Thank you for contributing to my small
pool of knowledge. :)

And while on the subject matter, I'm thinking an audio beep of some sort
might be able to alert the blind shooter than the object of interest is
within the cross hairs of scope. Key will be determining what is target
object and what is some sort of artifact.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Joe
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 8:47 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: [TechTalk] Gun Technique, Hunting and Technology

There is now what some are calling a smart rifle, out of Texas. At $25,000,
it's beyond the reach of most enthusiasts, but it can fetch that price for
the level of precision it can automatically adjust to help the shooter
acquire a target. If technology has leaped that far, one can almost wonder
what credit, if any, the shooter gets, but my question is this: What
technology have the hunters among us used to rely a little less on sighted
assistance? I go deer hunting, but thus far I have leaned heavily on
discrete cues from sighted companions to know where and when to fire. It's
not a bad method. I've brought down three bucks in this fashion, and while
hunting can often be enjoyed with companions, it would be nice to
independently, but responsibly, engage and execute the target myself. Right
now I use a laser to help my sighted companions get a better sense of where
I am aiming. This allows me to hold and operate the rifle on my own, but
again, it feels inefficient. Any tips would be welcomed.

I'll note that while I am a member of a local shooting range, I have
hesitated to obtain a gun permit. I understand my shooting would be optimal
at very close range, but the risk of hitting someone innocent, however
small, still weighs on my conscience.

I realize for some the discussion of guns and hunting could be abhorrent. If
so, feel free to email me off list. For whatever it's worth, I eat what I
kill. I've never gone hunting for the mere sport. I've learned how to skin
my own kill, and I suppose one could argue the knife skill in doing so could
itself be viewed as a form of technology skill.

Not to stray too far off topic here, but any number of disasters could occur
in our lifetime and in our own backyard. In a scenario with no power and
extensive food shortage, that Windows machine isn't going to be worth a
whole lot except for maybe scrap metal. Our definition of "technology" just
might revert to what technology used to be. That is, the means to survive.

Best,

Joe

--
Musings of a Work in Progress:
www.JoeOrozco.com/

Twitter: @ScribblingJoe


Re: Get The Audible App for Windows 10

Joseph Lee <joseph.lee22590@...>
 

Hi,
Once the Store opens, press Control+E, search for Audible and press ENTER (note that you may needto sign into MS Account to download it unless situation has changed).
Cheers,
Joseph

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of Lynn White
Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 8:57 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: [TechTalk] Get The Audible App for Windows 10

I have just spnt a very frustrating time in the Windows store trying to download the Audible app so that I can read books on my Victor Stream.

Can anyone suggest a more direct way to get this. The Audible page takes you directly to the Windows store. Windows will not allow you to down the app for Windows 7.

Thanks for any help.


Re: Gun Technique, Hunting and Technology

James Bentley
 

The United States military has a computerized rifle and scope combination. It first takes a photo of the entire target area. Next, the shooter uses a cursor on a touch screen to tell the computer where to put the bullet. Next, the shooter aims at the target. The computer fires the rifle only when it sees that the rifle is aimed with pin point accuracy. 3 inch Targets can be hit accurately at distances over two miles.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:56 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Gun Technique, Hunting and Technology

Finally, a relevant informative post. Thank you for contributing to my small
pool of knowledge. :)

And while on the subject matter, I'm thinking an audio beep of some sort
might be able to alert the blind shooter than the object of interest is
within the cross hairs of scope. Key will be determining what is target
object and what is some sort of artifact.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Joe
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 8:47 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: [TechTalk] Gun Technique, Hunting and Technology

There is now what some are calling a smart rifle, out of Texas. At $25,000,
it's beyond the reach of most enthusiasts, but it can fetch that price for
the level of precision it can automatically adjust to help the shooter
acquire a target. If technology has leaped that far, one can almost wonder
what credit, if any, the shooter gets, but my question is this: What
technology have the hunters among us used to rely a little less on sighted
assistance? I go deer hunting, but thus far I have leaned heavily on
discrete cues from sighted companions to know where and when to fire. It's
not a bad method. I've brought down three bucks in this fashion, and while
hunting can often be enjoyed with companions, it would be nice to
independently, but responsibly, engage and execute the target myself. Right
now I use a laser to help my sighted companions get a better sense of where
I am aiming. This allows me to hold and operate the rifle on my own, but
again, it feels inefficient. Any tips would be welcomed.

I'll note that while I am a member of a local shooting range, I have
hesitated to obtain a gun permit. I understand my shooting would be optimal
at very close range, but the risk of hitting someone innocent, however
small, still weighs on my conscience.

I realize for some the discussion of guns and hunting could be abhorrent. If
so, feel free to email me off list. For whatever it's worth, I eat what I
kill. I've never gone hunting for the mere sport. I've learned how to skin
my own kill, and I suppose one could argue the knife skill in doing so could
itself be viewed as a form of technology skill.

Not to stray too far off topic here, but any number of disasters could occur
in our lifetime and in our own backyard. In a scenario with no power and
extensive food shortage, that Windows machine isn't going to be worth a
whole lot except for maybe scrap metal. Our definition of "technology" just
might revert to what technology used to be. That is, the means to survive.

Best,

Joe

--
Musings of a Work in Progress:
www.JoeOrozco.com/

Twitter: @ScribblingJoe


Re: FS podcast

Lynn White
 

I think that you are assuming that they have been making gobs of money before purchasing AI Square. If they were, why would they feel the need to buy them?


I think that all of us need to take a breath and see what happens. I have my theories as what might happen. However, I could be so wrong in my thinking.

On 7/2/2016 5:24 AM, Gerald Levy wrote:

But now that the parent company of Freedom Scientific and AI Squared owns both JAWS and Window Eyes and thus has a virtual monopoly in the commercial screen reader market, what incentive do they have to offer deeply discounted prices to everyone? They have lucrative contracts with government and blind rehab agencies that guarantee them a steady income stream, so why should they care whether or not you can afford their products? And they have Jonathan Mosen in their back pocket to hawk their products. Of course, he pays nothing for JAWS or Open Book or any other FS product unlike the rest of us in exchange for promoting them. In all the years I have been listening to FSCasts, he has never uttered a negative comment about any FS product, even though he is now an independent contractor and no longer works directly for them. You would think that there is so much discontent over FS's unfair pricing policies that there would be mass defections to NVDA, but of course, this hasn't happened because for all of its faults, JAWS is still the best screen reader on the market.

Gerald



-----Original Message----- From: Matt
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:35 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] FS podcast

I would say different if they sold enough they would make money it might not
be at 75 bucks but it might be at a couple of hundred. . their profit margin
I sure is triple or more on the products. So they could sell to everyone for
some kind of discount. They could sell say 75 bucks for convention goers and
say 175 bucks for non goers. As the one going they could write this off
taxes as advertisement .Also here again they would be making in the long run
money off the SMA which is really just selling the product at a discounted
price instead of making you buy it at full price for the next version. This
is really all SMA is discounted price off the next version. SJMT



Matt.from.florida@gmail.com


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Lynn White
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:10 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] FS podcast

Maybe it's just a simply fact that Freedom Scientific is helping to promote
people to go to conventions.


It promotes good will and gets people involved. If they sold to every
blind person the discounted price, they wouldn't make any kind of money
at all.


You would then have another screen reader possibly to fall by the wayside.


On 7/1/2016 11:48 PM, Matt wrote:
So if they are paying for the space then that would be even a another
reason
not to give the discount at all . but I sure them paying for the booth at
the convention would come under advertisement and is taking off taxes.
This
still don't explain why not offer this to everyone not just convention
goers. Like the Blind Bargains (A T Guys) they have a booth and they have
sells as well but it is not limited to just convention goers . To me it
would make sense to offer it to everyone and they would come out in the
long
run plus help a lot of people. The reason is that in the long run more
than
likely they would get the people that is buying it would keep the SMA up .
which they make good money off them the SMA itself. Which is a lot better
than it used to be since they lower the price on SMA Two years for 125
bucks
is very good and the SMA is on sale at the convention as well but it is
only
for convention goers. Too me it just don't make sense as they would be
more
than likely in the long run making money . In fact at 75 bucks I bet they
are still making money as they hope to sell enough they will make money.
I
just cannot help it I seem to have a problem with this.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf
Of
Carolyn Arnold
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 8:07 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] FS podcast

Plus, the vendors at the conventions have to pay or the space that they
have
there.

Bye for now,

Carolyn


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Friday, July 1, 2016 4:40 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: [TechTalk] FS podcast

Well this talks all about convention time. They have some really good
deals
but the thing is it is only for those that goes to the convention. I
personally think this is just so wrong! Why can they not offer this to
everyone!? Like Jaws is just 75 bucks but you have to go to the convention
and be registered. Why not just offer this to all the blind community? To
me
this just don't seem exactly right! I might be wrong but it should be
offered to anyone who wants it! or any of the products they are selling at
a
discount. You know not everyone can afford or even get to these places.
But
here is the podcast below.



FS podcast 128
<http://podcast.freedomscientific.com/FSCast/episodes/FSCast
128-Conference_Specials,MathML,Mike_Wood.mp3>



http://podcast.freedomscientific.com/FSCast/episodes/FSCast1
28-Conference_Specials,MathML,Mike_Wood.mp3







Matt.from.florida@gmail.com
<mailto:Matt.from.florida@gmail.com>
























Get The Audible App for Windows 10

Lynn White
 

I have just spnt a very frustrating time in the Windows store trying to download the Audible app so that I can read books on my Victor Stream.

Can anyone suggest a more direct way to get this. The Audible page takes you directly to the Windows store. Windows will not allow you to down the app for Windows 7.

Thanks for any help.


Re: Gun Technique, Hunting and Technology

Jeremy <jeremy.richards7@...>
 

Finally, a relevant informative post. Thank you for contributing to my small
pool of knowledge. :)

And while on the subject matter, I'm thinking an audio beep of some sort
might be able to alert the blind shooter than the object of interest is
within the cross hairs of scope. Key will be determining what is target
object and what is some sort of artifact.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Joe
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 8:47 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: [TechTalk] Gun Technique, Hunting and Technology

There is now what some are calling a smart rifle, out of Texas. At $25,000,
it's beyond the reach of most enthusiasts, but it can fetch that price for
the level of precision it can automatically adjust to help the shooter
acquire a target. If technology has leaped that far, one can almost wonder
what credit, if any, the shooter gets, but my question is this: What
technology have the hunters among us used to rely a little less on sighted
assistance? I go deer hunting, but thus far I have leaned heavily on
discrete cues from sighted companions to know where and when to fire. It's
not a bad method. I've brought down three bucks in this fashion, and while
hunting can often be enjoyed with companions, it would be nice to
independently, but responsibly, engage and execute the target myself. Right
now I use a laser to help my sighted companions get a better sense of where
I am aiming. This allows me to hold and operate the rifle on my own, but
again, it feels inefficient. Any tips would be welcomed.

I'll note that while I am a member of a local shooting range, I have
hesitated to obtain a gun permit. I understand my shooting would be optimal
at very close range, but the risk of hitting someone innocent, however
small, still weighs on my conscience.

I realize for some the discussion of guns and hunting could be abhorrent. If
so, feel free to email me off list. For whatever it's worth, I eat what I
kill. I've never gone hunting for the mere sport. I've learned how to skin
my own kill, and I suppose one could argue the knife skill in doing so could
itself be viewed as a form of technology skill.

Not to stray too far off topic here, but any number of disasters could occur
in our lifetime and in our own backyard. In a scenario with no power and
extensive food shortage, that Windows machine isn't going to be worth a
whole lot except for maybe scrap metal. Our definition of "technology" just
might revert to what technology used to be. That is, the means to survive.

Best,

Joe

--
Musings of a Work in Progress:
www.JoeOrozco.com/

Twitter: @ScribblingJoe


Re: definition for , technology, was, all about guns and safety was Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Carlos
 

Please let's try to get along ladies and gentlemen. The fact is that
despite personal opinions, guns are a product of technology. This is not a
matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact.

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Bentley" <bentleyj1952@att.net>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: definition for , technology, was, all about guns and safety was
[TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


I suspect that you misunderstood my post.

Why is it OK for you to clarify to Jerimy what is acceptible for this list
but, my clarification is making a big deal out of this.

Can we please respect each other and our fellow listers and drop this
thread...Please.

James



-----Original Message-----
From: Matt
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:27 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: definition for , technology, was, all about guns and safety
was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Why are you making such a big deal of this? you seem to be the only one!
This list as Carlos has told you is fairly flexible and this is why it is
such a great list!


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf
Of James Bentley
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 11:10 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: definition for , technology, was, all about guns and safety was
[TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

tech·nol·o·gy


/tekˈnäləjē/


noun

noun: technology; plural noun: technologies




the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially
in industry.
"advances in computer technology"



•machinery and equipment developed from the application of scientific
knowledge.



•the branch of knowledge dealing with engineering or applied sciences.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:57 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

I'm actually making a friendly request for the gun enthusists on the list
to
help me understand what facet of guns is technology related? This is a
friendly request though it may come off as a challenge. Again, I think I
might learn something I had not considered in the past.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf
Of
Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:36 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Are guns not technology? As you say, just about anything can be
considered
technology. Anything manufactured for use as a tool qualifies as
technology
and while I agree that there should be a reasonable common sense line in
defining how it relates to the list, it certainly doesn't only apply to
computers and electronics even taking that into account.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy" <jeremy.richards7@gmail.com>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident


Ok, but just so I learn something, what makes the gun topic tech related?

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Joe
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:17 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Hell, can we keep the gun talk on this list for now? One less list to
subscribe to, and I think Carlos has the right of it in considering
guns as technology. Just my two cents.

Joe

--
Musings of a Work in Progress:
www.JoeOrozco.com/

Twitter: @ScribblingJoe

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 8:26 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Generally electronic and accessible technology is what most members
are interested in discussing, but I don't object to other types of
technology being discussed within reason. It is a general technology
discussion list, not exclusively for discussing computer related
technology. However, I expect people to use a bit of common sense.
Science provides technology, but it is not technology. We will handle
unusual topics on an individual basis, but basically as long as it
does not strain the credulity and patience of most members, I am
willing to be flexible and open minded. Of course, if a slightly
offbeat topic seems to be dragging on for too long or irritating too
many members, I may request that we move on at some point.
Also, while the majority of members are blind and I will not go out of
my way to promote the list in the sighted community, I have no
objections to sighted individuals who might wish to subscribe and
participate.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy" <jeremy.richards7@gmail.com>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident


Hi Carlos,

In hopes of not stepping on toes, I think you might want to define
what is meant by technology as it relates to this list. I don't think
most would consider guns technology in terms of the scope of blind
members wanting to know about computer sciences and general computing.
As is, it appears that just about anything can be considered
technology is
one thinks about it.
Would the study of ants be considered technology if an electronic
device is used to watch them at work? Would Woman's make-up be on
topic on this list if someone twists him or herself in pretzels to
box up a question using a technology slant? I think most list members
consider computers and all they do for us as on topic, but
seismographs and oscilloscopes might not be as relevant. ...Just
looking for a bit more clarity.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 4:12 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Guns are most certainly technology and I personally don't have a
problem with the discussion, but I believe some members might not be
quite as understanding so we might want to close this topic or move
it to the chat list as was suggested.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@gmail.com>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Well it not just because it a gun thread if it was about guns and
the technology that could be implemted on them then it would be on
topic.
But just guns in general no . or if it is abut guns and blindness it
would be on topic. As carlos is fairly flexable and most anything
technology wise or blindness related is on topic . But I have no
problem about moving to the chat room.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:31 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

It might be time for the chat list as this topic has now morphed
into some sort of gun thread.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:28 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Well this is true on single action revolvers of today and it is
still the safety way is to let the hammer set on an empty chamber.
Now you could do the same for a double action as well let it set on
the empty chamber but you don't have to . As the trigger pull unless
modified is usually a fairly heavy pull anyhow. . but the safest way
is not to put your finger on the trigger till you are ready to pull
it. they really have 4types of revolvers as I know. They are single
shot, single action, double action only and DASA (Double action plus
single
action) another words you can just pull the trigger or you can cock
the hammer and pull the trigger. Your choice. Most double action
only does not have an external hammer.
Now I was brought up with guns and had them around me and learn at
every early age about them and how to handle them. But you need to
get training on handling them and using them as well as training on
the laws and how to protect yourself with them. it is much more than
just going out and buying gun. This is just stupid. I not a big fan
of most regulation but some I am and some I have no problem with
them at
all.
But I don't know if we are not sort of straying off topic and off
the the subject as well so this might need to be moved to the chat
room.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of James Bentley
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:00 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

You can't even pull the trigger on a single action revolver unless
the hammer is cocked back in to the firing position. You never cock
the gun unless you intend to discharge it.

Most double action revolvers do not have a safety because the gun still
needs to be cocked before it can be fired. Or, the necessary trigger
travel to discharge the gun is so great that it would be almost
impossible to accidentily pull the trigger far enough to shoot the gun.

James



-----Original Message-----
From: Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 11:33 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

You can on most all pistols you cannot on revolvers the safety is
not to pull the trigger.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Pamela Dominguez
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

I think you can lock the trigger. Pam.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 6:19 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

My problem with a gun would be, what if I accidently trigger it in
my pocket? Or sit on it, or whatever?
Knife, cane, spray, they're all good, but I'd be worried with a gun.
Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@gmail.com
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 18:12:42 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Nothing wrong with pepper spray in certain events but you don't take
pepper spray to a gun fight or a knife fight or even a baseball bat
fight. If you did you would be on the losing end of the fight for
sure!
You can have lots of things in your protection tool box! Pepper
spray is one of them. But it should not be the only thing. You
should have a knife , stun gun or Taser and a gun for sure a good
old fashion hickory cane with a good hook to it that is very pointed
at the end of the hook is good or asord cane is good. But a water
gun is not much good unless you have something besides water in it.



Matt.from.florida@gmail.com


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 4:55 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Hi All,
Speaking of protection, I'd feel safer with a bottle of pepper spray
myself, too. I have worries about guns myself, but the good old
pepper spray.

Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laz" <laz@talkingmp3players.com
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:55:52 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Gerald, I really hope you're just joking with all this drivel. I
know one of these so-called "blind extremists" who carries a gun and
he carries it for protection only. The times he has shot it in
public was because he was being threatened by four sighted extremist
thugs also known as criminals, who were threatening to not only rob
him but cause him physical harm. He took out his gun and shot
once, straight up into the air. Yes, the extremist thugs quickly
ran away in fright and I hope they also needed to do some laundry
quickly
afterward.
Who
knows what would have happened to my friend if he hadn't been
legally carrying his weapon. But I know I'm wasting my time with
telling you that as you're not for the individual and his rights but
for some other agenda instead. BTW there are more deaths due to
automobile accidents than there are due to shootings so this brings
it back around to your glass half full attitude aimed at
self-driving cars which have caused how many deaths so far...

Laz

On 7/1/16, Gerald Levy <bwaylimited@verizon.net> wrote:

That's a damn good question. Why, indeed, are some blind extremists
allowed

to walk around with guns? Oh, excuse me, it's their constitutional
right.
Never mind that they place the rest of us at risk. It's bad enough
that terrorists and sociopaths are allowed to buy and own firearms.
But blind
consumers as well? No wonder this country is a screwed up mess that
has become beholden to dangerous demagogues like Donald Trump.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:45 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

It is nonsense because it is simply not possible. And if the
lawmakers were so determined to put a halt to any technology that is
not 100% safe and foolproof, there are many types of technology we
would not have access to in modern society. If the lawmakers in
Washington care so much about keeping dangerous technology out of
the hands of the blind, then why are there several blind individuals
who are still being allowed to legally own firearms?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerald Levy" <bwaylimited@verizon.net
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident



You may think that making self-driving cars 100% foolproof is nonsense.
But
you can bet that the lawmakers in Washington and elsewhere won't see
it that way. They will demand that self-driving vehicles be made as
close to 100% foolproof as possible before they consider enacting
legislation that would allow blind drivers to operate them without
the accompaniment of a sighted driver. That's just the realities of
politics in a predominantly sighted world.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:11 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Who knows when blind people will be allowed to manage these types of
cars.
Will it be any time soon? Probably not, but there is a difference
between soon and never. But as far as I'm concerned, the other
issue here is this ridiculous assumption that somehow the technology
should be or ever can be made 100% safe and foolproof. That is just
nonsense and trying to predict the future of the technology based on
one accident or even several is just more nonsense.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@gmail.com
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Well I usually don't or try not to look at things with a half empty
blass but a half full one. But in some cases this is just not
possible. I have to agree with him on this Gerald . It is also
not just the US legislature but from state to state. Just like all
driving laws vary from state to state..
It
is called states' rights and there forth each state will more than
likely implement it on law on driving driverless cars. I also think
they would require very special training even for the sited but
certainly for the blind person as well! I just don't see the blind
being able to do this in my life time and I hope to be here around
another 30 years. I am coming up on my 58th birthday.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:49 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


It really doesn't matter what caused the accident. The bottom line
is that it will be a very long time, if ever, before blind consumers
are allowed to operate one of these gizmos by themselves. One fatal
accident is still one fatal accident too many. These vehicles must
be made 100% safe and foolproof before the powers that be in
Washington will let blind drivers behind the wheel without the
accompaniment of a sighted driver in the passenger's seat. Sorry to
throw water on your parade.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Again, another reflexive post of yours. There's lots of reasons why
this could have happened. It is likely these multiple car
manufacturers are using different gPS databases and supporting
software, as well as other yet to be determined reasons, so what
happened here may not happen to other researchers who are using more
developed databases--the results depend on lots of variables. The
Google car has not had this type of history, and the single accident
it had was due to a human disabling the computer and taking over the
driving.

Gerald, I don't think technology is for you, so you might consider
solutions which are less stressful to you.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 9:18 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


For those of you who are chomping at the bit to buy one of those
newfangled self-driving cars that may some day revolutionize the
lives of us blind consumers, not so fast. The race to develop a
safe and reliable self-driving vehicle suffered a major setback
recently when a Tesla all-electric self-driving car was involved in
a fatal accident that killed the driver while it was operating in
self-driving mode. I guess it's back to the drawing board:


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/self-driving-tesla-fat
al-crash-investigation.html?_r=0

Gerald
































--
Affordably priced Accessible Talking MP3 Players, Accessible phones,
Bluetooth devices, and accessories http://www.talkingmp3players.com/
Email: laz@talkingmp3players.com
Phone: 727-498-0121
Skype: lazmesa
Personal Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/laz.mesa
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/Talkingmp3players?_rdr















-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4613/12537 - Release Date:
07/01/16

















































Gun Technique, Hunting and Technology

Joe
 

There is now what some are calling a smart rifle, out of Texas. At $25,000,
it's beyond the reach of most enthusiasts, but it can fetch that price for
the level of precision it can automatically adjust to help the shooter
acquire a target. If technology has leaped that far, one can almost wonder
what credit, if any, the shooter gets, but my question is this: What
technology have the hunters among us used to rely a little less on sighted
assistance? I go deer hunting, but thus far I have leaned heavily on
discrete cues from sighted companions to know where and when to fire. It's
not a bad method. I've brought down three bucks in this fashion, and while
hunting can often be enjoyed with companions, it would be nice to
independently, but responsibly, engage and execute the target myself. Right
now I use a laser to help my sighted companions get a better sense of where
I am aiming. This allows me to hold and operate the rifle on my own, but
again, it feels inefficient. Any tips would be welcomed.

I'll note that while I am a member of a local shooting range, I have
hesitated to obtain a gun permit. I understand my shooting would be optimal
at very close range, but the risk of hitting someone innocent, however
small, still weighs on my conscience.

I realize for some the discussion of guns and hunting could be abhorrent. If
so, feel free to email me off list. For whatever it's worth, I eat what I
kill. I've never gone hunting for the mere sport. I've learned how to skin
my own kill, and I suppose one could argue the knife skill in doing so could
itself be viewed as a form of technology skill.

Not to stray too far off topic here, but any number of disasters could occur
in our lifetime and in our own backyard. In a scenario with no power and
extensive food shortage, that Windows machine isn't going to be worth a
whole lot except for maybe scrap metal. Our definition of "technology" just
might revert to what technology used to be. That is, the means to survive.

Best,

Joe

--
Musings of a Work in Progress:
www.JoeOrozco.com/

Twitter: @ScribblingJoe


Re: definition for , technology, was, all about guns and safety was Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Matt
 

It was not again at you ! Sorry you took it that way! I don't know everyone name and not going to try to remember everyone name!


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of James Bentley
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 11:37 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: definition for , technology, was, all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

I suspect that you misunderstood my post.

Why is it OK for you to clarify to Jerimy what is acceptible for this list but, my clarification is making a big deal out of this.

Can we please respect each other and our fellow listers and drop this thread...Please.

James



-----Original Message-----
From: Matt
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:27 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: definition for , technology, was, all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Why are you making such a big deal of this? you seem to be the only one!
This list as Carlos has told you is fairly flexible and this is why it is such a great list!


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
James Bentley
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 11:10 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: definition for , technology, was, all about guns and safety was
[TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

tech·nol·o·gy


/tekˈnäləjē/


noun

noun: technology; plural noun: technologies




the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially
in industry.
"advances in computer technology"



•machinery and equipment developed from the application of scientific
knowledge.



•the branch of knowledge dealing with engineering or applied sciences.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:57 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

I'm actually making a friendly request for the gun enthusists on the list to
help me understand what facet of guns is technology related? This is a
friendly request though it may come off as a challenge. Again, I think I
might learn something I had not considered in the past.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:36 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Are guns not technology? As you say, just about anything can be considered
technology. Anything manufactured for use as a tool qualifies as technology
and while I agree that there should be a reasonable common sense line in
defining how it relates to the list, it certainly doesn't only apply to
computers and electronics even taking that into account.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy" <jeremy.richards7@gmail.com>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident


Ok, but just so I learn something, what makes the gun topic tech related?

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Joe
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:17 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Hell, can we keep the gun talk on this list for now? One less list to
subscribe to, and I think Carlos has the right of it in considering
guns as technology. Just my two cents.

Joe

--
Musings of a Work in Progress:
www.JoeOrozco.com/

Twitter: @ScribblingJoe

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 8:26 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Generally electronic and accessible technology is what most members
are interested in discussing, but I don't object to other types of
technology being discussed within reason. It is a general technology
discussion list, not exclusively for discussing computer related
technology. However, I expect people to use a bit of common sense.
Science provides technology, but it is not technology. We will handle
unusual topics on an individual basis, but basically as long as it
does not strain the credulity and patience of most members, I am
willing to be flexible and open minded. Of course, if a slightly
offbeat topic seems to be dragging on for too long or irritating too
many members, I may request that we move on at some point.
Also, while the majority of members are blind and I will not go out of
my way to promote the list in the sighted community, I have no
objections to sighted individuals who might wish to subscribe and
participate.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy" <jeremy.richards7@gmail.com>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident


Hi Carlos,

In hopes of not stepping on toes, I think you might want to define
what is meant by technology as it relates to this list. I don't think
most would consider guns technology in terms of the scope of blind
members wanting to know about computer sciences and general computing.
As is, it appears that just about anything can be considered
technology is
one thinks about it.
Would the study of ants be considered technology if an electronic
device is used to watch them at work? Would Woman's make-up be on
topic on this list if someone twists him or herself in pretzels to
box up a question using a technology slant? I think most list members
consider computers and all they do for us as on topic, but
seismographs and oscilloscopes might not be as relevant. ...Just
looking for a bit more clarity.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 4:12 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Guns are most certainly technology and I personally don't have a
problem with the discussion, but I believe some members might not be
quite as understanding so we might want to close this topic or move
it to the chat list as was suggested.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@gmail.com>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Well it not just because it a gun thread if it was about guns and
the technology that could be implemted on them then it would be on
topic.
But just guns in general no . or if it is abut guns and blindness it
would be on topic. As carlos is fairly flexable and most anything
technology wise or blindness related is on topic . But I have no
problem about moving to the chat room.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:31 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

It might be time for the chat list as this topic has now morphed
into some sort of gun thread.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:28 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Well this is true on single action revolvers of today and it is
still the safety way is to let the hammer set on an empty chamber.
Now you could do the same for a double action as well let it set on
the empty chamber but you don't have to . As the trigger pull unless
modified is usually a fairly heavy pull anyhow. . but the safest way
is not to put your finger on the trigger till you are ready to pull
it. they really have 4types of revolvers as I know. They are single
shot, single action, double action only and DASA (Double action plus
single
action) another words you can just pull the trigger or you can cock
the hammer and pull the trigger. Your choice. Most double action
only does not have an external hammer.
Now I was brought up with guns and had them around me and learn at
every early age about them and how to handle them. But you need to
get training on handling them and using them as well as training on
the laws and how to protect yourself with them. it is much more than
just going out and buying gun. This is just stupid. I not a big fan
of most regulation but some I am and some I have no problem with
them at
all.
But I don't know if we are not sort of straying off topic and off
the the subject as well so this might need to be moved to the chat room.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of James Bentley
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:00 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

You can't even pull the trigger on a single action revolver unless
the hammer is cocked back in to the firing position. You never cock
the gun unless you intend to discharge it.

Most double action revolvers do not have a safety because the gun still
needs to be cocked before it can be fired. Or, the necessary trigger
travel to discharge the gun is so great that it would be almost
impossible to accidentily pull the trigger far enough to shoot the gun.

James



-----Original Message-----
From: Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 11:33 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

You can on most all pistols you cannot on revolvers the safety is
not to pull the trigger.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Pamela Dominguez
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

I think you can lock the trigger. Pam.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 6:19 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

My problem with a gun would be, what if I accidently trigger it in
my pocket? Or sit on it, or whatever?
Knife, cane, spray, they're all good, but I'd be worried with a gun.
Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@gmail.com
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 18:12:42 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Nothing wrong with pepper spray in certain events but you don't take
pepper spray to a gun fight or a knife fight or even a baseball bat
fight. If you did you would be on the losing end of the fight for
sure!
You can have lots of things in your protection tool box! Pepper
spray is one of them. But it should not be the only thing. You
should have a knife , stun gun or Taser and a gun for sure a good
old fashion hickory cane with a good hook to it that is very pointed
at the end of the hook is good or asord cane is good. But a water
gun is not much good unless you have something besides water in it.



Matt.from.florida@gmail.com


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 4:55 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Hi All,
Speaking of protection, I'd feel safer with a bottle of pepper spray
myself, too. I have worries about guns myself, but the good old
pepper spray.

Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laz" <laz@talkingmp3players.com
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:55:52 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Gerald, I really hope you're just joking with all this drivel. I
know one of these so-called "blind extremists" who carries a gun and
he carries it for protection only. The times he has shot it in
public was because he was being threatened by four sighted extremist
thugs also known as criminals, who were threatening to not only rob
him but cause him physical harm. He took out his gun and shot
once, straight up into the air. Yes, the extremist thugs quickly
ran away in fright and I hope they also needed to do some laundry
quickly
afterward.
Who
knows what would have happened to my friend if he hadn't been
legally carrying his weapon. But I know I'm wasting my time with
telling you that as you're not for the individual and his rights but
for some other agenda instead. BTW there are more deaths due to
automobile accidents than there are due to shootings so this brings
it back around to your glass half full attitude aimed at
self-driving cars which have caused how many deaths so far...

Laz

On 7/1/16, Gerald Levy <bwaylimited@verizon.net> wrote:

That's a damn good question. Why, indeed, are some blind extremists
allowed

to walk around with guns? Oh, excuse me, it's their constitutional
right.
Never mind that they place the rest of us at risk. It's bad enough
that terrorists and sociopaths are allowed to buy and own firearms.
But blind
consumers as well? No wonder this country is a screwed up mess that
has become beholden to dangerous demagogues like Donald Trump.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:45 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

It is nonsense because it is simply not possible. And if the
lawmakers were so determined to put a halt to any technology that is
not 100% safe and foolproof, there are many types of technology we
would not have access to in modern society. If the lawmakers in
Washington care so much about keeping dangerous technology out of
the hands of the blind, then why are there several blind individuals
who are still being allowed to legally own firearms?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerald Levy" <bwaylimited@verizon.net
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident



You may think that making self-driving cars 100% foolproof is nonsense.
But
you can bet that the lawmakers in Washington and elsewhere won't see
it that way. They will demand that self-driving vehicles be made as
close to 100% foolproof as possible before they consider enacting
legislation that would allow blind drivers to operate them without
the accompaniment of a sighted driver. That's just the realities of
politics in a predominantly sighted world.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:11 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Who knows when blind people will be allowed to manage these types of
cars.
Will it be any time soon? Probably not, but there is a difference
between soon and never. But as far as I'm concerned, the other
issue here is this ridiculous assumption that somehow the technology
should be or ever can be made 100% safe and foolproof. That is just
nonsense and trying to predict the future of the technology based on
one accident or even several is just more nonsense.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@gmail.com
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Well I usually don't or try not to look at things with a half empty
blass but a half full one. But in some cases this is just not
possible. I have to agree with him on this Gerald . It is also
not just the US legislature but from state to state. Just like all
driving laws vary from state to state..
It
is called states' rights and there forth each state will more than
likely implement it on law on driving driverless cars. I also think
they would require very special training even for the sited but
certainly for the blind person as well! I just don't see the blind
being able to do this in my life time and I hope to be here around
another 30 years. I am coming up on my 58th birthday.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:49 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


It really doesn't matter what caused the accident. The bottom line
is that it will be a very long time, if ever, before blind consumers
are allowed to operate one of these gizmos by themselves. One fatal
accident is still one fatal accident too many. These vehicles must
be made 100% safe and foolproof before the powers that be in
Washington will let blind drivers behind the wheel without the
accompaniment of a sighted driver in the passenger's seat. Sorry to
throw water on your parade.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Again, another reflexive post of yours. There's lots of reasons why
this could have happened. It is likely these multiple car
manufacturers are using different gPS databases and supporting
software, as well as other yet to be determined reasons, so what
happened here may not happen to other researchers who are using more
developed databases--the results depend on lots of variables. The
Google car has not had this type of history, and the single accident
it had was due to a human disabling the computer and taking over the
driving.

Gerald, I don't think technology is for you, so you might consider
solutions which are less stressful to you.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 9:18 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


For those of you who are chomping at the bit to buy one of those
newfangled self-driving cars that may some day revolutionize the
lives of us blind consumers, not so fast. The race to develop a
safe and reliable self-driving vehicle suffered a major setback
recently when a Tesla all-electric self-driving car was involved in
a fatal accident that killed the driver while it was operating in
self-driving mode. I guess it's back to the drawing board:


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/self-driving-tesla-fat
al-crash-investigation.html?_r=0

Gerald
































--
Affordably priced Accessible Talking MP3 Players, Accessible phones,
Bluetooth devices, and accessories http://www.talkingmp3players.com/
Email: laz@talkingmp3players.com
Phone: 727-498-0121
Skype: lazmesa
Personal Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/laz.mesa
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/Talkingmp3players?_rdr















-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4613/12537 - Release Date:
07/01/16



































Re: definition for , technology, was, all about guns and safety was Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

James Bentley
 

I suspect that you misunderstood my post.

Why is it OK for you to clarify to Jerimy what is acceptible for this list but, my clarification is making a big deal out of this.

Can we please respect each other and our fellow listers and drop this thread...Please.

James

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:27 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: definition for , technology, was, all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Why are you making such a big deal of this? you seem to be the only one! This list as Carlos has told you is fairly flexible and this is why it is such a great list!


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of James Bentley
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 11:10 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: definition for , technology, was, all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

tech·nol·o·gy


/tekˈnäləjē/


noun

noun: technology; plural noun: technologies




the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry.
"advances in computer technology"



•machinery and equipment developed from the application of scientific
knowledge.



•the branch of knowledge dealing with engineering or applied sciences.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:57 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

I'm actually making a friendly request for the gun enthusists on the list to
help me understand what facet of guns is technology related? This is a
friendly request though it may come off as a challenge. Again, I think I
might learn something I had not considered in the past.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:36 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Are guns not technology? As you say, just about anything can be considered
technology. Anything manufactured for use as a tool qualifies as technology
and while I agree that there should be a reasonable common sense line in
defining how it relates to the list, it certainly doesn't only apply to
computers and electronics even taking that into account.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy" <jeremy.richards7@gmail.com>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident


Ok, but just so I learn something, what makes the gun topic tech related?

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Joe
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:17 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Hell, can we keep the gun talk on this list for now? One less list to
subscribe to, and I think Carlos has the right of it in considering
guns as technology. Just my two cents.

Joe

--
Musings of a Work in Progress:
www.JoeOrozco.com/

Twitter: @ScribblingJoe

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 8:26 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Generally electronic and accessible technology is what most members
are interested in discussing, but I don't object to other types of
technology being discussed within reason. It is a general technology
discussion list, not exclusively for discussing computer related
technology. However, I expect people to use a bit of common sense.
Science provides technology, but it is not technology. We will handle
unusual topics on an individual basis, but basically as long as it
does not strain the credulity and patience of most members, I am
willing to be flexible and open minded. Of course, if a slightly
offbeat topic seems to be dragging on for too long or irritating too
many members, I may request that we move on at some point.
Also, while the majority of members are blind and I will not go out of
my way to promote the list in the sighted community, I have no
objections to sighted individuals who might wish to subscribe and
participate.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy" <jeremy.richards7@gmail.com>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident


Hi Carlos,

In hopes of not stepping on toes, I think you might want to define
what is meant by technology as it relates to this list. I don't think
most would consider guns technology in terms of the scope of blind
members wanting to know about computer sciences and general computing.
As is, it appears that just about anything can be considered
technology is
one thinks about it.
Would the study of ants be considered technology if an electronic
device is used to watch them at work? Would Woman's make-up be on
topic on this list if someone twists him or herself in pretzels to
box up a question using a technology slant? I think most list members
consider computers and all they do for us as on topic, but
seismographs and oscilloscopes might not be as relevant. ...Just
looking for a bit more clarity.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 4:12 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Guns are most certainly technology and I personally don't have a
problem with the discussion, but I believe some members might not be
quite as understanding so we might want to close this topic or move
it to the chat list as was suggested.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@gmail.com>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Well it not just because it a gun thread if it was about guns and
the technology that could be implemted on them then it would be on
topic.
But just guns in general no . or if it is abut guns and blindness it
would be on topic. As carlos is fairly flexable and most anything
technology wise or blindness related is on topic . But I have no
problem about moving to the chat room.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:31 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

It might be time for the chat list as this topic has now morphed
into some sort of gun thread.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:28 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Well this is true on single action revolvers of today and it is
still the safety way is to let the hammer set on an empty chamber.
Now you could do the same for a double action as well let it set on
the empty chamber but you don't have to . As the trigger pull unless
modified is usually a fairly heavy pull anyhow. . but the safest way
is not to put your finger on the trigger till you are ready to pull
it. they really have 4types of revolvers as I know. They are single
shot, single action, double action only and DASA (Double action plus
single
action) another words you can just pull the trigger or you can cock
the hammer and pull the trigger. Your choice. Most double action
only does not have an external hammer.
Now I was brought up with guns and had them around me and learn at
every early age about them and how to handle them. But you need to
get training on handling them and using them as well as training on
the laws and how to protect yourself with them. it is much more than
just going out and buying gun. This is just stupid. I not a big fan
of most regulation but some I am and some I have no problem with
them at
all.
But I don't know if we are not sort of straying off topic and off
the the subject as well so this might need to be moved to the chat room.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of James Bentley
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:00 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

You can't even pull the trigger on a single action revolver unless
the hammer is cocked back in to the firing position. You never cock
the gun unless you intend to discharge it.

Most double action revolvers do not have a safety because the gun still
needs to be cocked before it can be fired. Or, the necessary trigger
travel to discharge the gun is so great that it would be almost
impossible to accidentily pull the trigger far enough to shoot the gun.

James



-----Original Message-----
From: Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 11:33 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

You can on most all pistols you cannot on revolvers the safety is
not to pull the trigger.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Pamela Dominguez
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

I think you can lock the trigger. Pam.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 6:19 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

My problem with a gun would be, what if I accidently trigger it in
my pocket? Or sit on it, or whatever?
Knife, cane, spray, they're all good, but I'd be worried with a gun.
Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@gmail.com
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 18:12:42 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Nothing wrong with pepper spray in certain events but you don't take
pepper spray to a gun fight or a knife fight or even a baseball bat
fight. If you did you would be on the losing end of the fight for
sure!
You can have lots of things in your protection tool box! Pepper
spray is one of them. But it should not be the only thing. You
should have a knife , stun gun or Taser and a gun for sure a good
old fashion hickory cane with a good hook to it that is very pointed
at the end of the hook is good or asord cane is good. But a water
gun is not much good unless you have something besides water in it.



Matt.from.florida@gmail.com


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 4:55 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Hi All,
Speaking of protection, I'd feel safer with a bottle of pepper spray
myself, too. I have worries about guns myself, but the good old
pepper spray.

Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laz" <laz@talkingmp3players.com
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:55:52 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Gerald, I really hope you're just joking with all this drivel. I
know one of these so-called "blind extremists" who carries a gun and
he carries it for protection only. The times he has shot it in
public was because he was being threatened by four sighted extremist
thugs also known as criminals, who were threatening to not only rob
him but cause him physical harm. He took out his gun and shot
once, straight up into the air. Yes, the extremist thugs quickly
ran away in fright and I hope they also needed to do some laundry
quickly
afterward.
Who
knows what would have happened to my friend if he hadn't been
legally carrying his weapon. But I know I'm wasting my time with
telling you that as you're not for the individual and his rights but
for some other agenda instead. BTW there are more deaths due to
automobile accidents than there are due to shootings so this brings
it back around to your glass half full attitude aimed at
self-driving cars which have caused how many deaths so far...

Laz

On 7/1/16, Gerald Levy <bwaylimited@verizon.net> wrote:

That's a damn good question. Why, indeed, are some blind extremists
allowed

to walk around with guns? Oh, excuse me, it's their constitutional
right.
Never mind that they place the rest of us at risk. It's bad enough
that terrorists and sociopaths are allowed to buy and own firearms.
But blind
consumers as well? No wonder this country is a screwed up mess that
has become beholden to dangerous demagogues like Donald Trump.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:45 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

It is nonsense because it is simply not possible. And if the
lawmakers were so determined to put a halt to any technology that is
not 100% safe and foolproof, there are many types of technology we
would not have access to in modern society. If the lawmakers in
Washington care so much about keeping dangerous technology out of
the hands of the blind, then why are there several blind individuals
who are still being allowed to legally own firearms?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerald Levy" <bwaylimited@verizon.net
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident



You may think that making self-driving cars 100% foolproof is nonsense.
But
you can bet that the lawmakers in Washington and elsewhere won't see
it that way. They will demand that self-driving vehicles be made as
close to 100% foolproof as possible before they consider enacting
legislation that would allow blind drivers to operate them without
the accompaniment of a sighted driver. That's just the realities of
politics in a predominantly sighted world.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:11 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Who knows when blind people will be allowed to manage these types of
cars.
Will it be any time soon? Probably not, but there is a difference
between soon and never. But as far as I'm concerned, the other
issue here is this ridiculous assumption that somehow the technology
should be or ever can be made 100% safe and foolproof. That is just
nonsense and trying to predict the future of the technology based on
one accident or even several is just more nonsense.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@gmail.com
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Well I usually don't or try not to look at things with a half empty
blass but a half full one. But in some cases this is just not
possible. I have to agree with him on this Gerald . It is also
not just the US legislature but from state to state. Just like all
driving laws vary from state to state..
It
is called states' rights and there forth each state will more than
likely implement it on law on driving driverless cars. I also think
they would require very special training even for the sited but
certainly for the blind person as well! I just don't see the blind
being able to do this in my life time and I hope to be here around
another 30 years. I am coming up on my 58th birthday.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:49 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


It really doesn't matter what caused the accident. The bottom line
is that it will be a very long time, if ever, before blind consumers
are allowed to operate one of these gizmos by themselves. One fatal
accident is still one fatal accident too many. These vehicles must
be made 100% safe and foolproof before the powers that be in
Washington will let blind drivers behind the wheel without the
accompaniment of a sighted driver in the passenger's seat. Sorry to
throw water on your parade.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Again, another reflexive post of yours. There's lots of reasons why
this could have happened. It is likely these multiple car
manufacturers are using different gPS databases and supporting
software, as well as other yet to be determined reasons, so what
happened here may not happen to other researchers who are using more
developed databases--the results depend on lots of variables. The
Google car has not had this type of history, and the single accident
it had was due to a human disabling the computer and taking over the
driving.

Gerald, I don't think technology is for you, so you might consider
solutions which are less stressful to you.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 9:18 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


For those of you who are chomping at the bit to buy one of those
newfangled self-driving cars that may some day revolutionize the
lives of us blind consumers, not so fast. The race to develop a
safe and reliable self-driving vehicle suffered a major setback
recently when a Tesla all-electric self-driving car was involved in
a fatal accident that killed the driver while it was operating in
self-driving mode. I guess it's back to the drawing board:


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/self-driving-tesla-fat
al-crash-investigation.html?_r=0

Gerald
































--
Affordably priced Accessible Talking MP3 Players, Accessible phones,
Bluetooth devices, and accessories http://www.talkingmp3players.com/
Email: laz@talkingmp3players.com
Phone: 727-498-0121
Skype: lazmesa
Personal Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/laz.mesa
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/Talkingmp3players?_rdr















-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4613/12537 - Release Date:
07/01/16



































Re: all about guns and safety was Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Matt
 

Well it is not just technology in general. It is also a blindness issue
which is on topic! How blind people uses guns in their life to protect their
self! As pure technology goes there is but have not been talked about is
finger print deactivate the gun for firing and then there is the scopes that
go on them and just the technology of how they work. What is the best for
use with a blind person for CCW and what is the best for home security for
the blind person. And the list goes on and on! I don't see what the big deal
is ? As the thread would die if you let it die or move to the chat room! But
you will not let it!


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 11:30 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Matt, you're not understanding. I'm actually trying to contribute to the
discussion by asking what part of guns has to do with technology for me and
others to learn from, but all I'm getting is that the subject matter is
appropriate for the list. I know that now. At this point, if I get more of
the same and no one posts any technology related information, I'm going to
assume guns probably don't have much to do with technology.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Matt
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 8:25 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Well guns in general might not be on topic but how they work and so on is
and also this list deals with blindness issues as well so guns and blind
people using them is on topic but we was going to try to move this to the
chat list but you keep bringing up why it is on topic or off topic. If you
need a better explanation then I suggest you write Carlos off list to
explain it better!


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:57 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

I'm actually making a friendly request for the gun enthusists on the list to
help me understand what facet of guns is technology related? This is a
friendly request though it may come off as a challenge. Again, I think I
might learn something I had not considered in the past.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:36 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Are guns not technology? As you say, just about anything can be considered
technology. Anything manufactured for use as a tool qualifies as technology
and while I agree that there should be a reasonable common sense line in
defining how it relates to the list, it certainly doesn't only apply to
computers and electronics even taking that into account.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy" <jeremy.richards7@gmail.com>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident


Ok, but just so I learn something, what makes the gun topic tech related?

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Joe
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:17 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Hell, can we keep the gun talk on this list for now? One less list to
subscribe to, and I think Carlos has the right of it in considering
guns as technology. Just my two cents.

Joe

--
Musings of a Work in Progress:
www.JoeOrozco.com/

Twitter: @ScribblingJoe

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 8:26 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Generally electronic and accessible technology is what most members
are interested in discussing, but I don't object to other types of
technology being discussed within reason. It is a general technology
discussion list, not exclusively for discussing computer related
technology. However, I expect people to use a bit of common sense.
Science provides technology, but it is not technology. We will handle
unusual topics on an individual basis, but basically as long as it
does not strain the credulity and patience of most members, I am
willing to be flexible and open minded. Of course, if a slightly
offbeat topic seems to be dragging on for too long or irritating too
many members, I may request that we move on at some point.
Also, while the majority of members are blind and I will not go out of
my way to promote the list in the sighted community, I have no
objections to sighted individuals who might wish to subscribe and
participate.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy" <jeremy.richards7@gmail.com>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident


Hi Carlos,

In hopes of not stepping on toes, I think you might want to define
what is meant by technology as it relates to this list. I don't think
most would consider guns technology in terms of the scope of blind
members wanting to know about computer sciences and general computing.
As is, it appears that just about anything can be considered
technology is
one thinks about it.
Would the study of ants be considered technology if an electronic
device is used to watch them at work? Would Woman's make-up be on
topic on this list if someone twists him or herself in pretzels to
box up a question using a technology slant? I think most list members
consider computers and all they do for us as on topic, but
seismographs and oscilloscopes might not be as relevant. ...Just
looking for a bit more clarity.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 4:12 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Guns are most certainly technology and I personally don't have a
problem with the discussion, but I believe some members might not be
quite as understanding so we might want to close this topic or move
it to the chat list as was suggested.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@gmail.com>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Well it not just because it a gun thread if it was about guns and
the technology that could be implemted on them then it would be on
topic.
But just guns in general no . or if it is abut guns and blindness it
would be on topic. As carlos is fairly flexable and most anything
technology wise or blindness related is on topic . But I have no
problem about moving to the chat room.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:31 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

It might be time for the chat list as this topic has now morphed
into some sort of gun thread.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:28 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Well this is true on single action revolvers of today and it is
still the safety way is to let the hammer set on an empty chamber.
Now you could do the same for a double action as well let it set on
the empty chamber but you don't have to . As the trigger pull unless
modified is usually a fairly heavy pull anyhow. . but the safest way
is not to put your finger on the trigger till you are ready to pull
it. they really have 4types of revolvers as I know. They are single
shot, single action, double action only and DASA (Double action plus
single
action) another words you can just pull the trigger or you can cock
the hammer and pull the trigger. Your choice. Most double action
only does not have an external hammer.
Now I was brought up with guns and had them around me and learn at
every early age about them and how to handle them. But you need to
get training on handling them and using them as well as training on
the laws and how to protect yourself with them. it is much more than
just going out and buying gun. This is just stupid. I not a big fan
of most regulation but some I am and some I have no problem with
them at
all.
But I don't know if we are not sort of straying off topic and off
the the subject as well so this might need to be moved to the chat room.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of James Bentley
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:00 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

You can't even pull the trigger on a single action revolver unless
the hammer is cocked back in to the firing position. You never cock
the gun unless you intend to discharge it.

Most double action revolvers do not have a safety because the gun still
needs to be cocked before it can be fired. Or, the necessary trigger
travel to discharge the gun is so great that it would be almost
impossible to accidentily pull the trigger far enough to shoot the gun.

James



-----Original Message-----
From: Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 11:33 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

You can on most all pistols you cannot on revolvers the safety is
not to pull the trigger.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Pamela Dominguez
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

I think you can lock the trigger. Pam.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 6:19 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

My problem with a gun would be, what if I accidently trigger it in
my pocket? Or sit on it, or whatever?
Knife, cane, spray, they're all good, but I'd be worried with a gun.
Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@gmail.com
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 18:12:42 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Nothing wrong with pepper spray in certain events but you don't take
pepper spray to a gun fight or a knife fight or even a baseball bat
fight. If you did you would be on the losing end of the fight for
sure!
You can have lots of things in your protection tool box! Pepper
spray is one of them. But it should not be the only thing. You
should have a knife , stun gun or Taser and a gun for sure a good
old fashion hickory cane with a good hook to it that is very pointed
at the end of the hook is good or asord cane is good. But a water
gun is not much good unless you have something besides water in it.



Matt.from.florida@gmail.com


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 4:55 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Hi All,
Speaking of protection, I'd feel safer with a bottle of pepper spray
myself, too. I have worries about guns myself, but the good old
pepper spray.

Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laz" <laz@talkingmp3players.com
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:55:52 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Gerald, I really hope you're just joking with all this drivel. I
know one of these so-called "blind extremists" who carries a gun and
he carries it for protection only. The times he has shot it in
public was because he was being threatened by four sighted extremist
thugs also known as criminals, who were threatening to not only rob
him but cause him physical harm. He took out his gun and shot
once, straight up into the air. Yes, the extremist thugs quickly
ran away in fright and I hope they also needed to do some laundry
quickly
afterward.
Who
knows what would have happened to my friend if he hadn't been
legally carrying his weapon. But I know I'm wasting my time with
telling you that as you're not for the individual and his rights but
for some other agenda instead. BTW there are more deaths due to
automobile accidents than there are due to shootings so this brings
it back around to your glass half full attitude aimed at
self-driving cars which have caused how many deaths so far...

Laz

On 7/1/16, Gerald Levy <bwaylimited@verizon.net> wrote:

That's a damn good question. Why, indeed, are some blind extremists
allowed

to walk around with guns? Oh, excuse me, it's their constitutional
right.
Never mind that they place the rest of us at risk. It's bad enough
that terrorists and sociopaths are allowed to buy and own firearms.
But blind
consumers as well? No wonder this country is a screwed up mess that
has become beholden to dangerous demagogues like Donald Trump.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:45 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

It is nonsense because it is simply not possible. And if the
lawmakers were so determined to put a halt to any technology that is
not 100% safe and foolproof, there are many types of technology we
would not have access to in modern society. If the lawmakers in
Washington care so much about keeping dangerous technology out of
the hands of the blind, then why are there several blind individuals
who are still being allowed to legally own firearms?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerald Levy" <bwaylimited@verizon.net
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident



You may think that making self-driving cars 100% foolproof is nonsense.
But
you can bet that the lawmakers in Washington and elsewhere won't see
it that way. They will demand that self-driving vehicles be made as
close to 100% foolproof as possible before they consider enacting
legislation that would allow blind drivers to operate them without
the accompaniment of a sighted driver. That's just the realities of
politics in a predominantly sighted world.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:11 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Who knows when blind people will be allowed to manage these types of
cars.
Will it be any time soon? Probably not, but there is a difference
between soon and never. But as far as I'm concerned, the other
issue here is this ridiculous assumption that somehow the technology
should be or ever can be made 100% safe and foolproof. That is just
nonsense and trying to predict the future of the technology based on
one accident or even several is just more nonsense.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@gmail.com
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Well I usually don't or try not to look at things with a half empty
blass but a half full one. But in some cases this is just not
possible. I have to agree with him on this Gerald . It is also
not just the US legislature but from state to state. Just like all
driving laws vary from state to state..
It
is called states' rights and there forth each state will more than
likely implement it on law on driving driverless cars. I also think
they would require very special training even for the sited but
certainly for the blind person as well! I just don't see the blind
being able to do this in my life time and I hope to be here around
another 30 years. I am coming up on my 58th birthday.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:49 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


It really doesn't matter what caused the accident. The bottom line
is that it will be a very long time, if ever, before blind consumers
are allowed to operate one of these gizmos by themselves. One fatal
accident is still one fatal accident too many. These vehicles must
be made 100% safe and foolproof before the powers that be in
Washington will let blind drivers behind the wheel without the
accompaniment of a sighted driver in the passenger's seat. Sorry to
throw water on your parade.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Again, another reflexive post of yours. There's lots of reasons why
this could have happened. It is likely these multiple car
manufacturers are using different gPS databases and supporting
software, as well as other yet to be determined reasons, so what
happened here may not happen to other researchers who are using more
developed databases--the results depend on lots of variables. The
Google car has not had this type of history, and the single accident
it had was due to a human disabling the computer and taking over the
driving.

Gerald, I don't think technology is for you, so you might consider
solutions which are less stressful to you.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 9:18 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


For those of you who are chomping at the bit to buy one of those
newfangled self-driving cars that may some day revolutionize the
lives of us blind consumers, not so fast. The race to develop a
safe and reliable self-driving vehicle suffered a major setback
recently when a Tesla all-electric self-driving car was involved in
a fatal accident that killed the driver while it was operating in
self-driving mode. I guess it's back to the drawing board:


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/self-driving-tesla-fat
al-crash-investigation.html?_r=0

Gerald
































--
Affordably priced Accessible Talking MP3 Players, Accessible phones,
Bluetooth devices, and accessories http://www.talkingmp3players.com/
Email: laz@talkingmp3players.com
Phone: 727-498-0121
Skype: lazmesa
Personal Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/laz.mesa
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/Talkingmp3players?_rdr















-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4613/12537 - Release Date:
07/01/16



































Re: How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

Carlos
 


Yes I forgot about the need to log in when I created the poll.

----- Original Message -----
From: Matt
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

Well I think if you did not have to log in it would have been different! Most of us don’t know our password or never had one! Sorry !

 

 

 

From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:22 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

 

Sigh I give up.  LOL everyone can just post their vote in a reply if it is more convenient.

----- Original Message -----

From: Loy

Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:17 AM

Subject: Re: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

 

It takes me to the Tech Talk group main page, no options to vote.

----- Original Message -----

From: Carlos

Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 10:02 AM

Subject: Re: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

 

Interesting.  There should be several radio buttons which are the choices and a

"Vote"

link.

----- Original Message -----

From: Loy

Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:00 AM

Subject: Re: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

 

I clicked on vote now but did not see any option to vote.

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Carlos

Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 9:49 AM

Subject: Re: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

 

LOL click on the

link and choose an option to make it official.  This way everyone can also view the results of the poll.

----- Original Message -----

From: Loy

Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:45 AM

Subject: Re: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

 

I never use narrator.

----- Original Message -----

From: Carlos

Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 9:39 AM

Subject: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

 

A new poll has been created:

Just for fun and because we rarely use this feature.

 

1. I only use Narrator for emergencies
2. I never use Narrator
3. I use Narrator regularly

Vote Now


Re: all about guns and safety was Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Jeremy <jeremy.richards7@...>
 

Matt, you're not understanding. I'm actually trying to contribute to the
discussion by asking what part of guns has to do with technology for me and
others to learn from, but all I'm getting is that the subject matter is
appropriate for the list. I know that now. At this point, if I get more of
the same and no one posts any technology related information, I'm going to
assume guns probably don't have much to do with technology.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Matt
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 8:25 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Well guns in general might not be on topic but how they work and so on is
and also this list deals with blindness issues as well so guns and blind
people using them is on topic but we was going to try to move this to the
chat list but you keep bringing up why it is on topic or off topic. If you
need a better explanation then I suggest you write Carlos off list to
explain it better!


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:57 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

I'm actually making a friendly request for the gun enthusists on the list to
help me understand what facet of guns is technology related? This is a
friendly request though it may come off as a challenge. Again, I think I
might learn something I had not considered in the past.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:36 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Are guns not technology? As you say, just about anything can be considered
technology. Anything manufactured for use as a tool qualifies as technology
and while I agree that there should be a reasonable common sense line in
defining how it relates to the list, it certainly doesn't only apply to
computers and electronics even taking that into account.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy" <jeremy.richards7@gmail.com>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident


Ok, but just so I learn something, what makes the gun topic tech related?

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Joe
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:17 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Hell, can we keep the gun talk on this list for now? One less list to
subscribe to, and I think Carlos has the right of it in considering
guns as technology. Just my two cents.

Joe

--
Musings of a Work in Progress:
www.JoeOrozco.com/

Twitter: @ScribblingJoe

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 8:26 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Generally electronic and accessible technology is what most members
are interested in discussing, but I don't object to other types of
technology being discussed within reason. It is a general technology
discussion list, not exclusively for discussing computer related
technology. However, I expect people to use a bit of common sense.
Science provides technology, but it is not technology. We will handle
unusual topics on an individual basis, but basically as long as it
does not strain the credulity and patience of most members, I am
willing to be flexible and open minded. Of course, if a slightly
offbeat topic seems to be dragging on for too long or irritating too
many members, I may request that we move on at some point.
Also, while the majority of members are blind and I will not go out of
my way to promote the list in the sighted community, I have no
objections to sighted individuals who might wish to subscribe and
participate.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy" <jeremy.richards7@gmail.com>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident


Hi Carlos,

In hopes of not stepping on toes, I think you might want to define
what is meant by technology as it relates to this list. I don't think
most would consider guns technology in terms of the scope of blind
members wanting to know about computer sciences and general computing.
As is, it appears that just about anything can be considered
technology is
one thinks about it.
Would the study of ants be considered technology if an electronic
device is used to watch them at work? Would Woman's make-up be on
topic on this list if someone twists him or herself in pretzels to
box up a question using a technology slant? I think most list members
consider computers and all they do for us as on topic, but
seismographs and oscilloscopes might not be as relevant. ...Just
looking for a bit more clarity.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 4:12 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Guns are most certainly technology and I personally don't have a
problem with the discussion, but I believe some members might not be
quite as understanding so we might want to close this topic or move
it to the chat list as was suggested.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@gmail.com>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Well it not just because it a gun thread if it was about guns and
the technology that could be implemted on them then it would be on
topic.
But just guns in general no . or if it is abut guns and blindness it
would be on topic. As carlos is fairly flexable and most anything
technology wise or blindness related is on topic . But I have no
problem about moving to the chat room.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:31 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

It might be time for the chat list as this topic has now morphed
into some sort of gun thread.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:28 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Well this is true on single action revolvers of today and it is
still the safety way is to let the hammer set on an empty chamber.
Now you could do the same for a double action as well let it set on
the empty chamber but you don't have to . As the trigger pull unless
modified is usually a fairly heavy pull anyhow. . but the safest way
is not to put your finger on the trigger till you are ready to pull
it. they really have 4types of revolvers as I know. They are single
shot, single action, double action only and DASA (Double action plus
single
action) another words you can just pull the trigger or you can cock
the hammer and pull the trigger. Your choice. Most double action
only does not have an external hammer.
Now I was brought up with guns and had them around me and learn at
every early age about them and how to handle them. But you need to
get training on handling them and using them as well as training on
the laws and how to protect yourself with them. it is much more than
just going out and buying gun. This is just stupid. I not a big fan
of most regulation but some I am and some I have no problem with
them at
all.
But I don't know if we are not sort of straying off topic and off
the the subject as well so this might need to be moved to the chat room.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of James Bentley
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:00 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

You can't even pull the trigger on a single action revolver unless
the hammer is cocked back in to the firing position. You never cock
the gun unless you intend to discharge it.

Most double action revolvers do not have a safety because the gun still
needs to be cocked before it can be fired. Or, the necessary trigger
travel to discharge the gun is so great that it would be almost
impossible to accidentily pull the trigger far enough to shoot the gun.

James



-----Original Message-----
From: Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 11:33 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

You can on most all pistols you cannot on revolvers the safety is
not to pull the trigger.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Pamela Dominguez
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

I think you can lock the trigger. Pam.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 6:19 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

My problem with a gun would be, what if I accidently trigger it in
my pocket? Or sit on it, or whatever?
Knife, cane, spray, they're all good, but I'd be worried with a gun.
Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@gmail.com
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 18:12:42 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Nothing wrong with pepper spray in certain events but you don't take
pepper spray to a gun fight or a knife fight or even a baseball bat
fight. If you did you would be on the losing end of the fight for
sure!
You can have lots of things in your protection tool box! Pepper
spray is one of them. But it should not be the only thing. You
should have a knife , stun gun or Taser and a gun for sure a good
old fashion hickory cane with a good hook to it that is very pointed
at the end of the hook is good or asord cane is good. But a water
gun is not much good unless you have something besides water in it.



Matt.from.florida@gmail.com


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 4:55 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Hi All,
Speaking of protection, I'd feel safer with a bottle of pepper spray
myself, too. I have worries about guns myself, but the good old
pepper spray.

Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laz" <laz@talkingmp3players.com
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:55:52 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Gerald, I really hope you're just joking with all this drivel. I
know one of these so-called "blind extremists" who carries a gun and
he carries it for protection only. The times he has shot it in
public was because he was being threatened by four sighted extremist
thugs also known as criminals, who were threatening to not only rob
him but cause him physical harm. He took out his gun and shot
once, straight up into the air. Yes, the extremist thugs quickly
ran away in fright and I hope they also needed to do some laundry
quickly
afterward.
Who
knows what would have happened to my friend if he hadn't been
legally carrying his weapon. But I know I'm wasting my time with
telling you that as you're not for the individual and his rights but
for some other agenda instead. BTW there are more deaths due to
automobile accidents than there are due to shootings so this brings
it back around to your glass half full attitude aimed at
self-driving cars which have caused how many deaths so far...

Laz

On 7/1/16, Gerald Levy <bwaylimited@verizon.net> wrote:

That's a damn good question. Why, indeed, are some blind extremists
allowed

to walk around with guns? Oh, excuse me, it's their constitutional
right.
Never mind that they place the rest of us at risk. It's bad enough
that terrorists and sociopaths are allowed to buy and own firearms.
But blind
consumers as well? No wonder this country is a screwed up mess that
has become beholden to dangerous demagogues like Donald Trump.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:45 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

It is nonsense because it is simply not possible. And if the
lawmakers were so determined to put a halt to any technology that is
not 100% safe and foolproof, there are many types of technology we
would not have access to in modern society. If the lawmakers in
Washington care so much about keeping dangerous technology out of
the hands of the blind, then why are there several blind individuals
who are still being allowed to legally own firearms?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerald Levy" <bwaylimited@verizon.net
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident



You may think that making self-driving cars 100% foolproof is nonsense.
But
you can bet that the lawmakers in Washington and elsewhere won't see
it that way. They will demand that self-driving vehicles be made as
close to 100% foolproof as possible before they consider enacting
legislation that would allow blind drivers to operate them without
the accompaniment of a sighted driver. That's just the realities of
politics in a predominantly sighted world.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:11 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Who knows when blind people will be allowed to manage these types of
cars.
Will it be any time soon? Probably not, but there is a difference
between soon and never. But as far as I'm concerned, the other
issue here is this ridiculous assumption that somehow the technology
should be or ever can be made 100% safe and foolproof. That is just
nonsense and trying to predict the future of the technology based on
one accident or even several is just more nonsense.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@gmail.com
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Well I usually don't or try not to look at things with a half empty
blass but a half full one. But in some cases this is just not
possible. I have to agree with him on this Gerald . It is also
not just the US legislature but from state to state. Just like all
driving laws vary from state to state..
It
is called states' rights and there forth each state will more than
likely implement it on law on driving driverless cars. I also think
they would require very special training even for the sited but
certainly for the blind person as well! I just don't see the blind
being able to do this in my life time and I hope to be here around
another 30 years. I am coming up on my 58th birthday.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:49 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


It really doesn't matter what caused the accident. The bottom line
is that it will be a very long time, if ever, before blind consumers
are allowed to operate one of these gizmos by themselves. One fatal
accident is still one fatal accident too many. These vehicles must
be made 100% safe and foolproof before the powers that be in
Washington will let blind drivers behind the wheel without the
accompaniment of a sighted driver in the passenger's seat. Sorry to
throw water on your parade.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Again, another reflexive post of yours. There's lots of reasons why
this could have happened. It is likely these multiple car
manufacturers are using different gPS databases and supporting
software, as well as other yet to be determined reasons, so what
happened here may not happen to other researchers who are using more
developed databases--the results depend on lots of variables. The
Google car has not had this type of history, and the single accident
it had was due to a human disabling the computer and taking over the
driving.

Gerald, I don't think technology is for you, so you might consider
solutions which are less stressful to you.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 9:18 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


For those of you who are chomping at the bit to buy one of those
newfangled self-driving cars that may some day revolutionize the
lives of us blind consumers, not so fast. The race to develop a
safe and reliable self-driving vehicle suffered a major setback
recently when a Tesla all-electric self-driving car was involved in
a fatal accident that killed the driver while it was operating in
self-driving mode. I guess it's back to the drawing board:


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/self-driving-tesla-fat
al-crash-investigation.html?_r=0

Gerald
































--
Affordably priced Accessible Talking MP3 Players, Accessible phones,
Bluetooth devices, and accessories http://www.talkingmp3players.com/
Email: laz@talkingmp3players.com
Phone: 727-498-0121
Skype: lazmesa
Personal Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/laz.mesa
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/Talkingmp3players?_rdr















-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4613/12537 - Release Date:
07/01/16



































Re: How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

Matt
 

Well I think if you did not have to log in it would have been different! Most of us don’t know our password or never had one! Sorry !

 

 

 

From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:22 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

 

Sigh I give up.  LOL everyone can just post their vote in a reply if it is more convenient.

----- Original Message -----

From: Loy

Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:17 AM

Subject: Re: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

 

It takes me to the Tech Talk group main page, no options to vote.

----- Original Message -----

From: Carlos

Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 10:02 AM

Subject: Re: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

 

Interesting.  There should be several radio buttons which are the choices and a

"Vote"

link.

----- Original Message -----

From: Loy

Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:00 AM

Subject: Re: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

 

I clicked on vote now but did not see any option to vote.

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Carlos

Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 9:49 AM

Subject: Re: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

 

LOL click on the

link and choose an option to make it official.  This way everyone can also view the results of the poll.

----- Original Message -----

From: Loy

Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:45 AM

Subject: Re: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

 

I never use narrator.

----- Original Message -----

From: Carlos

Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 9:39 AM

Subject: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

 

A new poll has been created:

Just for fun and because we rarely use this feature.

 

1. I only use Narrator for emergencies
2. I never use Narrator
3. I use Narrator regularly

Vote Now


Re: definition for , technology, was, all about guns and safety was Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Matt
 

Why are you making such a big deal of this? you seem to be the only one! This list as Carlos has told you is fairly flexible and this is why it is such a great list!


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of James Bentley
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 11:10 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: definition for , technology, was, all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

tech·nol·o·gy


/tekˈnäləjē/


noun

noun: technology; plural noun: technologies




the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry.
"advances in computer technology"



•machinery and equipment developed from the application of scientific
knowledge.



•the branch of knowledge dealing with engineering or applied sciences.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:57 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

I'm actually making a friendly request for the gun enthusists on the list to
help me understand what facet of guns is technology related? This is a
friendly request though it may come off as a challenge. Again, I think I
might learn something I had not considered in the past.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:36 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Are guns not technology? As you say, just about anything can be considered
technology. Anything manufactured for use as a tool qualifies as technology
and while I agree that there should be a reasonable common sense line in
defining how it relates to the list, it certainly doesn't only apply to
computers and electronics even taking that into account.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy" <jeremy.richards7@gmail.com>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident


Ok, but just so I learn something, what makes the gun topic tech related?

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Joe
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:17 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Hell, can we keep the gun talk on this list for now? One less list to
subscribe to, and I think Carlos has the right of it in considering
guns as technology. Just my two cents.

Joe

--
Musings of a Work in Progress:
www.JoeOrozco.com/

Twitter: @ScribblingJoe

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 8:26 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Generally electronic and accessible technology is what most members
are interested in discussing, but I don't object to other types of
technology being discussed within reason. It is a general technology
discussion list, not exclusively for discussing computer related
technology. However, I expect people to use a bit of common sense.
Science provides technology, but it is not technology. We will handle
unusual topics on an individual basis, but basically as long as it
does not strain the credulity and patience of most members, I am
willing to be flexible and open minded. Of course, if a slightly
offbeat topic seems to be dragging on for too long or irritating too
many members, I may request that we move on at some point.
Also, while the majority of members are blind and I will not go out of
my way to promote the list in the sighted community, I have no
objections to sighted individuals who might wish to subscribe and
participate.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy" <jeremy.richards7@gmail.com>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident


Hi Carlos,

In hopes of not stepping on toes, I think you might want to define
what is meant by technology as it relates to this list. I don't think
most would consider guns technology in terms of the scope of blind
members wanting to know about computer sciences and general computing.
As is, it appears that just about anything can be considered
technology is
one thinks about it.
Would the study of ants be considered technology if an electronic
device is used to watch them at work? Would Woman's make-up be on
topic on this list if someone twists him or herself in pretzels to
box up a question using a technology slant? I think most list members
consider computers and all they do for us as on topic, but
seismographs and oscilloscopes might not be as relevant. ...Just
looking for a bit more clarity.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 4:12 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Guns are most certainly technology and I personally don't have a
problem with the discussion, but I believe some members might not be
quite as understanding so we might want to close this topic or move
it to the chat list as was suggested.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@gmail.com>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Well it not just because it a gun thread if it was about guns and
the technology that could be implemted on them then it would be on
topic.
But just guns in general no . or if it is abut guns and blindness it
would be on topic. As carlos is fairly flexable and most anything
technology wise or blindness related is on topic . But I have no
problem about moving to the chat room.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:31 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

It might be time for the chat list as this topic has now morphed
into some sort of gun thread.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:28 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Well this is true on single action revolvers of today and it is
still the safety way is to let the hammer set on an empty chamber.
Now you could do the same for a double action as well let it set on
the empty chamber but you don't have to . As the trigger pull unless
modified is usually a fairly heavy pull anyhow. . but the safest way
is not to put your finger on the trigger till you are ready to pull
it. they really have 4types of revolvers as I know. They are single
shot, single action, double action only and DASA (Double action plus
single
action) another words you can just pull the trigger or you can cock
the hammer and pull the trigger. Your choice. Most double action
only does not have an external hammer.
Now I was brought up with guns and had them around me and learn at
every early age about them and how to handle them. But you need to
get training on handling them and using them as well as training on
the laws and how to protect yourself with them. it is much more than
just going out and buying gun. This is just stupid. I not a big fan
of most regulation but some I am and some I have no problem with
them at
all.
But I don't know if we are not sort of straying off topic and off
the the subject as well so this might need to be moved to the chat room.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of James Bentley
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:00 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

You can't even pull the trigger on a single action revolver unless
the hammer is cocked back in to the firing position. You never cock
the gun unless you intend to discharge it.

Most double action revolvers do not have a safety because the gun still
needs to be cocked before it can be fired. Or, the necessary trigger
travel to discharge the gun is so great that it would be almost
impossible to accidentily pull the trigger far enough to shoot the gun.

James



-----Original Message-----
From: Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 11:33 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

You can on most all pistols you cannot on revolvers the safety is
not to pull the trigger.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Pamela Dominguez
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

I think you can lock the trigger. Pam.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 6:19 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

My problem with a gun would be, what if I accidently trigger it in
my pocket? Or sit on it, or whatever?
Knife, cane, spray, they're all good, but I'd be worried with a gun.
Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@gmail.com
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 18:12:42 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Nothing wrong with pepper spray in certain events but you don't take
pepper spray to a gun fight or a knife fight or even a baseball bat
fight. If you did you would be on the losing end of the fight for
sure!
You can have lots of things in your protection tool box! Pepper
spray is one of them. But it should not be the only thing. You
should have a knife , stun gun or Taser and a gun for sure a good
old fashion hickory cane with a good hook to it that is very pointed
at the end of the hook is good or asord cane is good. But a water
gun is not much good unless you have something besides water in it.



Matt.from.florida@gmail.com


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 4:55 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Hi All,
Speaking of protection, I'd feel safer with a bottle of pepper spray
myself, too. I have worries about guns myself, but the good old
pepper spray.

Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laz" <laz@talkingmp3players.com
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:55:52 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Gerald, I really hope you're just joking with all this drivel. I
know one of these so-called "blind extremists" who carries a gun and
he carries it for protection only. The times he has shot it in
public was because he was being threatened by four sighted extremist
thugs also known as criminals, who were threatening to not only rob
him but cause him physical harm. He took out his gun and shot
once, straight up into the air. Yes, the extremist thugs quickly
ran away in fright and I hope they also needed to do some laundry
quickly
afterward.
Who
knows what would have happened to my friend if he hadn't been
legally carrying his weapon. But I know I'm wasting my time with
telling you that as you're not for the individual and his rights but
for some other agenda instead. BTW there are more deaths due to
automobile accidents than there are due to shootings so this brings
it back around to your glass half full attitude aimed at
self-driving cars which have caused how many deaths so far...

Laz

On 7/1/16, Gerald Levy <bwaylimited@verizon.net> wrote:

That's a damn good question. Why, indeed, are some blind extremists
allowed

to walk around with guns? Oh, excuse me, it's their constitutional
right.
Never mind that they place the rest of us at risk. It's bad enough
that terrorists and sociopaths are allowed to buy and own firearms.
But blind
consumers as well? No wonder this country is a screwed up mess that
has become beholden to dangerous demagogues like Donald Trump.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:45 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

It is nonsense because it is simply not possible. And if the
lawmakers were so determined to put a halt to any technology that is
not 100% safe and foolproof, there are many types of technology we
would not have access to in modern society. If the lawmakers in
Washington care so much about keeping dangerous technology out of
the hands of the blind, then why are there several blind individuals
who are still being allowed to legally own firearms?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerald Levy" <bwaylimited@verizon.net
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident



You may think that making self-driving cars 100% foolproof is nonsense.
But
you can bet that the lawmakers in Washington and elsewhere won't see
it that way. They will demand that self-driving vehicles be made as
close to 100% foolproof as possible before they consider enacting
legislation that would allow blind drivers to operate them without
the accompaniment of a sighted driver. That's just the realities of
politics in a predominantly sighted world.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:11 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Who knows when blind people will be allowed to manage these types of
cars.
Will it be any time soon? Probably not, but there is a difference
between soon and never. But as far as I'm concerned, the other
issue here is this ridiculous assumption that somehow the technology
should be or ever can be made 100% safe and foolproof. That is just
nonsense and trying to predict the future of the technology based on
one accident or even several is just more nonsense.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@gmail.com
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Well I usually don't or try not to look at things with a half empty
blass but a half full one. But in some cases this is just not
possible. I have to agree with him on this Gerald . It is also
not just the US legislature but from state to state. Just like all
driving laws vary from state to state..
It
is called states' rights and there forth each state will more than
likely implement it on law on driving driverless cars. I also think
they would require very special training even for the sited but
certainly for the blind person as well! I just don't see the blind
being able to do this in my life time and I hope to be here around
another 30 years. I am coming up on my 58th birthday.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:49 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


It really doesn't matter what caused the accident. The bottom line
is that it will be a very long time, if ever, before blind consumers
are allowed to operate one of these gizmos by themselves. One fatal
accident is still one fatal accident too many. These vehicles must
be made 100% safe and foolproof before the powers that be in
Washington will let blind drivers behind the wheel without the
accompaniment of a sighted driver in the passenger's seat. Sorry to
throw water on your parade.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Again, another reflexive post of yours. There's lots of reasons why
this could have happened. It is likely these multiple car
manufacturers are using different gPS databases and supporting
software, as well as other yet to be determined reasons, so what
happened here may not happen to other researchers who are using more
developed databases--the results depend on lots of variables. The
Google car has not had this type of history, and the single accident
it had was due to a human disabling the computer and taking over the
driving.

Gerald, I don't think technology is for you, so you might consider
solutions which are less stressful to you.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 9:18 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


For those of you who are chomping at the bit to buy one of those
newfangled self-driving cars that may some day revolutionize the
lives of us blind consumers, not so fast. The race to develop a
safe and reliable self-driving vehicle suffered a major setback
recently when a Tesla all-electric self-driving car was involved in
a fatal accident that killed the driver while it was operating in
self-driving mode. I guess it's back to the drawing board:


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/self-driving-tesla-fat
al-crash-investigation.html?_r=0

Gerald
































--
Affordably priced Accessible Talking MP3 Players, Accessible phones,
Bluetooth devices, and accessories http://www.talkingmp3players.com/
Email: laz@talkingmp3players.com
Phone: 727-498-0121
Skype: lazmesa
Personal Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/laz.mesa
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/Talkingmp3players?_rdr















-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4613/12537 - Release Date:
07/01/16



































Re: all about guns and safety was Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Matt
 

Well guns in general might not be on topic but how they work and so on is
and also this list deals with blindness issues as well so guns and blind
people using them is on topic but we was going to try to move this to the
chat list but you keep bringing up why it is on topic or off topic. If you
need a better explanation then I suggest you write Carlos off list to
explain it better!


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:57 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

I'm actually making a friendly request for the gun enthusists on the list to
help me understand what facet of guns is technology related? This is a
friendly request though it may come off as a challenge. Again, I think I
might learn something I had not considered in the past.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:36 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Are guns not technology? As you say, just about anything can be considered
technology. Anything manufactured for use as a tool qualifies as technology
and while I agree that there should be a reasonable common sense line in
defining how it relates to the list, it certainly doesn't only apply to
computers and electronics even taking that into account.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy" <jeremy.richards7@gmail.com>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident


Ok, but just so I learn something, what makes the gun topic tech related?

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Joe
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:17 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Hell, can we keep the gun talk on this list for now? One less list to
subscribe to, and I think Carlos has the right of it in considering
guns as technology. Just my two cents.

Joe

--
Musings of a Work in Progress:
www.JoeOrozco.com/

Twitter: @ScribblingJoe

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 8:26 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Generally electronic and accessible technology is what most members
are interested in discussing, but I don't object to other types of
technology being discussed within reason. It is a general technology
discussion list, not exclusively for discussing computer related
technology. However, I expect people to use a bit of common sense.
Science provides technology, but it is not technology. We will handle
unusual topics on an individual basis, but basically as long as it
does not strain the credulity and patience of most members, I am
willing to be flexible and open minded. Of course, if a slightly
offbeat topic seems to be dragging on for too long or irritating too
many members, I may request that we move on at some point.
Also, while the majority of members are blind and I will not go out of
my way to promote the list in the sighted community, I have no
objections to sighted individuals who might wish to subscribe and
participate.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy" <jeremy.richards7@gmail.com>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident


Hi Carlos,

In hopes of not stepping on toes, I think you might want to define
what is meant by technology as it relates to this list. I don't think
most would consider guns technology in terms of the scope of blind
members wanting to know about computer sciences and general computing.
As is, it appears that just about anything can be considered
technology is
one thinks about it.
Would the study of ants be considered technology if an electronic
device is used to watch them at work? Would Woman's make-up be on
topic on this list if someone twists him or herself in pretzels to
box up a question using a technology slant? I think most list members
consider computers and all they do for us as on topic, but
seismographs and oscilloscopes might not be as relevant. ...Just
looking for a bit more clarity.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 4:12 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Guns are most certainly technology and I personally don't have a
problem with the discussion, but I believe some members might not be
quite as understanding so we might want to close this topic or move
it to the chat list as was suggested.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@gmail.com>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Well it not just because it a gun thread if it was about guns and
the technology that could be implemted on them then it would be on
topic.
But just guns in general no . or if it is abut guns and blindness it
would be on topic. As carlos is fairly flexable and most anything
technology wise or blindness related is on topic . But I have no
problem about moving to the chat room.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:31 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

It might be time for the chat list as this topic has now morphed
into some sort of gun thread.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:28 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Well this is true on single action revolvers of today and it is
still the safety way is to let the hammer set on an empty chamber.
Now you could do the same for a double action as well let it set on
the empty chamber but you don't have to . As the trigger pull unless
modified is usually a fairly heavy pull anyhow. . but the safest way
is not to put your finger on the trigger till you are ready to pull
it. they really have 4types of revolvers as I know. They are single
shot, single action, double action only and DASA (Double action plus
single
action) another words you can just pull the trigger or you can cock
the hammer and pull the trigger. Your choice. Most double action
only does not have an external hammer.
Now I was brought up with guns and had them around me and learn at
every early age about them and how to handle them. But you need to
get training on handling them and using them as well as training on
the laws and how to protect yourself with them. it is much more than
just going out and buying gun. This is just stupid. I not a big fan
of most regulation but some I am and some I have no problem with
them at
all.
But I don't know if we are not sort of straying off topic and off
the the subject as well so this might need to be moved to the chat room.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of James Bentley
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:00 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

You can't even pull the trigger on a single action revolver unless
the hammer is cocked back in to the firing position. You never cock
the gun unless you intend to discharge it.

Most double action revolvers do not have a safety because the gun still
needs to be cocked before it can be fired. Or, the necessary trigger
travel to discharge the gun is so great that it would be almost
impossible to accidentily pull the trigger far enough to shoot the gun.

James



-----Original Message-----
From: Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 11:33 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

You can on most all pistols you cannot on revolvers the safety is
not to pull the trigger.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Pamela Dominguez
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

I think you can lock the trigger. Pam.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 6:19 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

My problem with a gun would be, what if I accidently trigger it in
my pocket? Or sit on it, or whatever?
Knife, cane, spray, they're all good, but I'd be worried with a gun.
Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@gmail.com
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 18:12:42 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Nothing wrong with pepper spray in certain events but you don't take
pepper spray to a gun fight or a knife fight or even a baseball bat
fight. If you did you would be on the losing end of the fight for
sure!
You can have lots of things in your protection tool box! Pepper
spray is one of them. But it should not be the only thing. You
should have a knife , stun gun or Taser and a gun for sure a good
old fashion hickory cane with a good hook to it that is very pointed
at the end of the hook is good or asord cane is good. But a water
gun is not much good unless you have something besides water in it.



Matt.from.florida@gmail.com


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 4:55 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Hi All,
Speaking of protection, I'd feel safer with a bottle of pepper spray
myself, too. I have worries about guns myself, but the good old
pepper spray.

Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laz" <laz@talkingmp3players.com
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:55:52 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Gerald, I really hope you're just joking with all this drivel. I
know one of these so-called "blind extremists" who carries a gun and
he carries it for protection only. The times he has shot it in
public was because he was being threatened by four sighted extremist
thugs also known as criminals, who were threatening to not only rob
him but cause him physical harm. He took out his gun and shot
once, straight up into the air. Yes, the extremist thugs quickly
ran away in fright and I hope they also needed to do some laundry
quickly
afterward.
Who
knows what would have happened to my friend if he hadn't been
legally carrying his weapon. But I know I'm wasting my time with
telling you that as you're not for the individual and his rights but
for some other agenda instead. BTW there are more deaths due to
automobile accidents than there are due to shootings so this brings
it back around to your glass half full attitude aimed at
self-driving cars which have caused how many deaths so far...

Laz

On 7/1/16, Gerald Levy <bwaylimited@verizon.net> wrote:

That's a damn good question. Why, indeed, are some blind extremists
allowed

to walk around with guns? Oh, excuse me, it's their constitutional
right.
Never mind that they place the rest of us at risk. It's bad enough
that terrorists and sociopaths are allowed to buy and own firearms.
But blind
consumers as well? No wonder this country is a screwed up mess that
has become beholden to dangerous demagogues like Donald Trump.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:45 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

It is nonsense because it is simply not possible. And if the
lawmakers were so determined to put a halt to any technology that is
not 100% safe and foolproof, there are many types of technology we
would not have access to in modern society. If the lawmakers in
Washington care so much about keeping dangerous technology out of
the hands of the blind, then why are there several blind individuals
who are still being allowed to legally own firearms?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerald Levy" <bwaylimited@verizon.net
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident



You may think that making self-driving cars 100% foolproof is nonsense.
But
you can bet that the lawmakers in Washington and elsewhere won't see
it that way. They will demand that self-driving vehicles be made as
close to 100% foolproof as possible before they consider enacting
legislation that would allow blind drivers to operate them without
the accompaniment of a sighted driver. That's just the realities of
politics in a predominantly sighted world.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:11 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Who knows when blind people will be allowed to manage these types of
cars.
Will it be any time soon? Probably not, but there is a difference
between soon and never. But as far as I'm concerned, the other
issue here is this ridiculous assumption that somehow the technology
should be or ever can be made 100% safe and foolproof. That is just
nonsense and trying to predict the future of the technology based on
one accident or even several is just more nonsense.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@gmail.com
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Well I usually don't or try not to look at things with a half empty
blass but a half full one. But in some cases this is just not
possible. I have to agree with him on this Gerald . It is also
not just the US legislature but from state to state. Just like all
driving laws vary from state to state..
It
is called states' rights and there forth each state will more than
likely implement it on law on driving driverless cars. I also think
they would require very special training even for the sited but
certainly for the blind person as well! I just don't see the blind
being able to do this in my life time and I hope to be here around
another 30 years. I am coming up on my 58th birthday.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:49 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


It really doesn't matter what caused the accident. The bottom line
is that it will be a very long time, if ever, before blind consumers
are allowed to operate one of these gizmos by themselves. One fatal
accident is still one fatal accident too many. These vehicles must
be made 100% safe and foolproof before the powers that be in
Washington will let blind drivers behind the wheel without the
accompaniment of a sighted driver in the passenger's seat. Sorry to
throw water on your parade.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Again, another reflexive post of yours. There's lots of reasons why
this could have happened. It is likely these multiple car
manufacturers are using different gPS databases and supporting
software, as well as other yet to be determined reasons, so what
happened here may not happen to other researchers who are using more
developed databases--the results depend on lots of variables. The
Google car has not had this type of history, and the single accident
it had was due to a human disabling the computer and taking over the
driving.

Gerald, I don't think technology is for you, so you might consider
solutions which are less stressful to you.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 9:18 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


For those of you who are chomping at the bit to buy one of those
newfangled self-driving cars that may some day revolutionize the
lives of us blind consumers, not so fast. The race to develop a
safe and reliable self-driving vehicle suffered a major setback
recently when a Tesla all-electric self-driving car was involved in
a fatal accident that killed the driver while it was operating in
self-driving mode. I guess it's back to the drawing board:


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/self-driving-tesla-fat
al-crash-investigation.html?_r=0

Gerald
































--
Affordably priced Accessible Talking MP3 Players, Accessible phones,
Bluetooth devices, and accessories http://www.talkingmp3players.com/
Email: laz@talkingmp3players.com
Phone: 727-498-0121
Skype: lazmesa
Personal Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/laz.mesa
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/Talkingmp3players?_rdr















-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4613/12537 - Release Date:
07/01/16



































definition for , technology, was, all about guns and safety was Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

James Bentley
 

tech·nol·o·gy


/tekˈnäləjē/


noun

noun: technology; plural noun: technologies




the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry.
"advances in computer technology"



•machinery and equipment developed from the application of scientific knowledge.



•the branch of knowledge dealing with engineering or applied sciences.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:57 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

I'm actually making a friendly request for the gun enthusists on the list to
help me understand what facet of guns is technology related? This is a
friendly request though it may come off as a challenge. Again, I think I
might learn something I had not considered in the past.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:36 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Are guns not technology? As you say, just about anything can be considered
technology. Anything manufactured for use as a tool qualifies as technology
and while I agree that there should be a reasonable common sense line in
defining how it relates to the list, it certainly doesn't only apply to
computers and electronics even taking that into account.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy" <jeremy.richards7@gmail.com>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident


Ok, but just so I learn something, what makes the gun topic tech related?

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Joe
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:17 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Hell, can we keep the gun talk on this list for now? One less list to
subscribe to, and I think Carlos has the right of it in considering
guns as technology. Just my two cents.

Joe

--
Musings of a Work in Progress:
www.JoeOrozco.com/

Twitter: @ScribblingJoe

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 8:26 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Generally electronic and accessible technology is what most members
are interested in discussing, but I don't object to other types of
technology being discussed within reason. It is a general technology
discussion list, not exclusively for discussing computer related
technology. However, I expect people to use a bit of common sense.
Science provides technology, but it is not technology. We will handle
unusual topics on an individual basis, but basically as long as it
does not strain the credulity and patience of most members, I am
willing to be flexible and open minded. Of course, if a slightly
offbeat topic seems to be dragging on for too long or irritating too
many members, I may request that we move on at some point.
Also, while the majority of members are blind and I will not go out of
my way to promote the list in the sighted community, I have no
objections to sighted individuals who might wish to subscribe and
participate.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy" <jeremy.richards7@gmail.com>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident


Hi Carlos,

In hopes of not stepping on toes, I think you might want to define
what is meant by technology as it relates to this list. I don't think
most would consider guns technology in terms of the scope of blind
members wanting to know about computer sciences and general computing.
As is, it appears that just about anything can be considered
technology is
one thinks about it.
Would the study of ants be considered technology if an electronic
device is used to watch them at work? Would Woman's make-up be on
topic on this list if someone twists him or herself in pretzels to
box up a question using a technology slant? I think most list members
consider computers and all they do for us as on topic, but
seismographs and oscilloscopes might not be as relevant. ...Just
looking for a bit more clarity.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 4:12 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Guns are most certainly technology and I personally don't have a
problem with the discussion, but I believe some members might not be
quite as understanding so we might want to close this topic or move
it to the chat list as was suggested.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@gmail.com>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Well it not just because it a gun thread if it was about guns and
the technology that could be implemted on them then it would be on
topic.
But just guns in general no . or if it is abut guns and blindness it
would be on topic. As carlos is fairly flexable and most anything
technology wise or blindness related is on topic . But I have no
problem about moving to the chat room.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:31 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

It might be time for the chat list as this topic has now morphed
into some sort of gun thread.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:28 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Well this is true on single action revolvers of today and it is
still the safety way is to let the hammer set on an empty chamber.
Now you could do the same for a double action as well let it set on
the empty chamber but you don't have to . As the trigger pull unless
modified is usually a fairly heavy pull anyhow. . but the safest way
is not to put your finger on the trigger till you are ready to pull
it. they really have 4types of revolvers as I know. They are single
shot, single action, double action only and DASA (Double action plus
single
action) another words you can just pull the trigger or you can cock
the hammer and pull the trigger. Your choice. Most double action
only does not have an external hammer.
Now I was brought up with guns and had them around me and learn at
every early age about them and how to handle them. But you need to
get training on handling them and using them as well as training on
the laws and how to protect yourself with them. it is much more than
just going out and buying gun. This is just stupid. I not a big fan
of most regulation but some I am and some I have no problem with
them at
all.
But I don't know if we are not sort of straying off topic and off
the the subject as well so this might need to be moved to the chat room.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of James Bentley
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:00 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

You can't even pull the trigger on a single action revolver unless
the hammer is cocked back in to the firing position. You never cock
the gun unless you intend to discharge it.

Most double action revolvers do not have a safety because the gun still
needs to be cocked before it can be fired. Or, the necessary trigger
travel to discharge the gun is so great that it would be almost
impossible to accidentily pull the trigger far enough to shoot the gun.

James



-----Original Message-----
From: Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 11:33 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

You can on most all pistols you cannot on revolvers the safety is
not to pull the trigger.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Pamela Dominguez
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

I think you can lock the trigger. Pam.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 6:19 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

My problem with a gun would be, what if I accidently trigger it in
my pocket? Or sit on it, or whatever?
Knife, cane, spray, they're all good, but I'd be worried with a gun.
Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@gmail.com
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 18:12:42 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Nothing wrong with pepper spray in certain events but you don't take
pepper spray to a gun fight or a knife fight or even a baseball bat
fight. If you did you would be on the losing end of the fight for
sure!
You can have lots of things in your protection tool box! Pepper
spray is one of them. But it should not be the only thing. You
should have a knife , stun gun or Taser and a gun for sure a good
old fashion hickory cane with a good hook to it that is very pointed
at the end of the hook is good or asord cane is good. But a water
gun is not much good unless you have something besides water in it.



Matt.from.florida@gmail.com


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 4:55 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Hi All,
Speaking of protection, I'd feel safer with a bottle of pepper spray
myself, too. I have worries about guns myself, but the good old
pepper spray.

Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laz" <laz@talkingmp3players.com
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:55:52 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Gerald, I really hope you're just joking with all this drivel. I
know one of these so-called "blind extremists" who carries a gun and
he carries it for protection only. The times he has shot it in
public was because he was being threatened by four sighted extremist
thugs also known as criminals, who were threatening to not only rob
him but cause him physical harm. He took out his gun and shot
once, straight up into the air. Yes, the extremist thugs quickly
ran away in fright and I hope they also needed to do some laundry
quickly
afterward.
Who
knows what would have happened to my friend if he hadn't been
legally carrying his weapon. But I know I'm wasting my time with
telling you that as you're not for the individual and his rights but
for some other agenda instead. BTW there are more deaths due to
automobile accidents than there are due to shootings so this brings
it back around to your glass half full attitude aimed at
self-driving cars which have caused how many deaths so far...

Laz

On 7/1/16, Gerald Levy <bwaylimited@verizon.net> wrote:

That's a damn good question. Why, indeed, are some blind extremists
allowed

to walk around with guns? Oh, excuse me, it's their constitutional
right.
Never mind that they place the rest of us at risk. It's bad enough
that terrorists and sociopaths are allowed to buy and own firearms.
But blind
consumers as well? No wonder this country is a screwed up mess that
has become beholden to dangerous demagogues like Donald Trump.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:45 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

It is nonsense because it is simply not possible. And if the
lawmakers were so determined to put a halt to any technology that is
not 100% safe and foolproof, there are many types of technology we
would not have access to in modern society. If the lawmakers in
Washington care so much about keeping dangerous technology out of
the hands of the blind, then why are there several blind individuals
who are still being allowed to legally own firearms?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerald Levy" <bwaylimited@verizon.net
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident



You may think that making self-driving cars 100% foolproof is nonsense.
But
you can bet that the lawmakers in Washington and elsewhere won't see
it that way. They will demand that self-driving vehicles be made as
close to 100% foolproof as possible before they consider enacting
legislation that would allow blind drivers to operate them without
the accompaniment of a sighted driver. That's just the realities of
politics in a predominantly sighted world.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:11 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Who knows when blind people will be allowed to manage these types of
cars.
Will it be any time soon? Probably not, but there is a difference
between soon and never. But as far as I'm concerned, the other
issue here is this ridiculous assumption that somehow the technology
should be or ever can be made 100% safe and foolproof. That is just
nonsense and trying to predict the future of the technology based on
one accident or even several is just more nonsense.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@gmail.com
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Well I usually don't or try not to look at things with a half empty
blass but a half full one. But in some cases this is just not
possible. I have to agree with him on this Gerald . It is also
not just the US legislature but from state to state. Just like all
driving laws vary from state to state..
It
is called states' rights and there forth each state will more than
likely implement it on law on driving driverless cars. I also think
they would require very special training even for the sited but
certainly for the blind person as well! I just don't see the blind
being able to do this in my life time and I hope to be here around
another 30 years. I am coming up on my 58th birthday.


Matt.from.florida@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:49 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


It really doesn't matter what caused the accident. The bottom line
is that it will be a very long time, if ever, before blind consumers
are allowed to operate one of these gizmos by themselves. One fatal
accident is still one fatal accident too many. These vehicles must
be made 100% safe and foolproof before the powers that be in
Washington will let blind drivers behind the wheel without the
accompaniment of a sighted driver in the passenger's seat. Sorry to
throw water on your parade.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Again, another reflexive post of yours. There's lots of reasons why
this could have happened. It is likely these multiple car
manufacturers are using different gPS databases and supporting
software, as well as other yet to be determined reasons, so what
happened here may not happen to other researchers who are using more
developed databases--the results depend on lots of variables. The
Google car has not had this type of history, and the single accident
it had was due to a human disabling the computer and taking over the
driving.

Gerald, I don't think technology is for you, so you might consider
solutions which are less stressful to you.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 9:18 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


For those of you who are chomping at the bit to buy one of those
newfangled self-driving cars that may some day revolutionize the
lives of us blind consumers, not so fast. The race to develop a
safe and reliable self-driving vehicle suffered a major setback
recently when a Tesla all-electric self-driving car was involved in
a fatal accident that killed the driver while it was operating in
self-driving mode. I guess it's back to the drawing board:


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/self-driving-tesla-fat
al-crash-investigation.html?_r=0

Gerald
































--
Affordably priced Accessible Talking MP3 Players, Accessible phones,
Bluetooth devices, and accessories http://www.talkingmp3players.com/
Email: laz@talkingmp3players.com
Phone: 727-498-0121
Skype: lazmesa
Personal Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/laz.mesa
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/Talkingmp3players?_rdr















-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4613/12537 - Release Date:
07/01/16


































79041 - 79060 of 105839