That's not true either. Following their directions doesn't mean you won't be negligent. Not following their direction doesn't mean you are negligent. You're conflating things. Each situation needs to be judged on it's own merits.

Removing safety features is not negligence unless you make the firearm unsafe. None of my firearms have a firing pin block from the factory. They're all safe firearms. My triggers have been lightened - they're still safe firearms. I've seen triggers lightened so much that they are unsafe. As before, each instance is judged on it's own merits.

I'll soon finish my mechanical engineering degree (and don't you know it, I'm looking for a job in firearm designing), so I do know a little about this stuff. Whilst with the proper equipment you can detect crack propagation or premature wear, this is not done on consumer products like firearms. That's why I wrote "this sort of item". Unless you're going to spend more money than the firearm is worth trying to detect cracks, you won't know it has cracked until you visually identify it.

Sure proper cleaning and gun inspection is part of having a safe, well functioning firearm. But don't fool yourself into thinking it's an aeroplane or space shuttle in inspections. Go ask your local gunsmith - the best one you can find - how many times he's done x-ray diffraction on a firearm for preventative maintenance. Chances are he's going to say zero.

Spend 5 seconds on google and I know you will find multiple videos of factory condition firearms discharging unintentionally. You'll also find recall information affecting millions of firearms - firearms at risk of unintentional discharge.

I should have qualified "much". More or less than 2500 rounds a year?

You're not obliged under any circumstances to follow manufacturers warnings or instructions. They are liability limiting instructions (they are for the manufacturers safety against being sued).

Firing pin safety blocks and other "don't sue me" "safety" features are often disabled in competition guns. When something safely fails and nobody is in danger then no negligence has occurred. If you don't get it fixed after the failure then you're negligent at that point.

You don't know if it was a (preventative) maintenance issue. Faulty parts aren't a preventative maintenance issue in this sort of item (since you can't identify a fault until something like this happens - that's when you know it's faulty).

Do you shoot much?

@Fantomas
Don't forget Meatloaf! And Gary Busey could reprise his Buddy Holly. Celebrity Apprentice winners [because Trump LIKES winners] Trace Adkins and John Rich might consider it for old times sake.

I did see a news item that they were having difficulty finding performers [even LYING ... shocker ... about who they've lined up]: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/arts/music/no-elton-john-will-not-perform-at-the-trump-inauguration.html?_r=0

Yeah I'm not sure if RFID alone would cut it. For instance, would the return signal from 15x RFIDs of the same item be distinguishable enough from 16x? I assume they would weigh items as well, just like the self checkouts. Waiting for the technical information.

It's not clear yet how many items are using RFID. They say they are using "computer vision, sensor fusion, and deep learning" akin to what is used in self-driving cars.

So there are some concerns if you pickup an item then put it back in the wrong place, will it detect it was still left in the store, or will it charge you? Putting it back in the right spot, refunds you, but it's not obvious otherwise.

We really need to know more from the Amazon employees that are using it.

It sounds a lot like Minority Report style stuff going on, and I think it is more a tech demo than a full concept they'll carry out in mass. The information on the path the customer takes, what they get and all that is probably worth a ton, and helps offset other costs with the system... though most of those costs are offset by having fewer employees... We are quickly reaching what CGP Grey noted in his video *relate=http://videosift.com/video/Humans-Need-Not-Apply where we need less and less people to do the lower end jobs... and those shelves look like they can be filled from the back, which is easier on robots.

The packaging for every item must have an embedded RFID. An idea from about a decade back. One of the worries back then was that people could scan your garbage and learn a lot about you. People probably don't care about that nowadays.

I assume they still employ security guards to watch for people who walk in without a phone or amazon account, jump the turnstile, and start casually taking items off the shelf...

What we need is 24 hour news commentary that says,

"We were alerted to a possible news item when Trump made an inflammatory twitter post about (women/media/minorities).
We dug deeper and found a legitimate news item concerning Trumps (financial fraud, pending lawsuit, unethical actions)."

chris hedges adds his warning to us all:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/waiting_for_the_barbarians_201611271

@Stormsinger

i can agree with the intent of your comment but i think it ignores a far greater,and possibly more dangerous facet of this current election cycle.

look,
when the DNC began it's political play to nudge sanders out,and was changing the rules of application to keep laurence lessig off the ballot.it became obvious (to me anyways) that clinton was tagged for the run,and the DNC was attempting to steal sanders thunder,which was shockingly impressive,and redirect it to boost clinton.

but the DNC had failed to successfully execute this plan because they didn't understand the true nature of those sanders supporters.so their plan backfired.

the RNC did almost the EXACT same thing with trump.they hated the man,wanted nothing to do with him,but they saw how powerful his campaign was picking up steam and they attempted to play the long con.for a year they allowed trump to do and say whatever he wanted,with little rebuttal or regard.they watched as trump got bigger,and bolder,and more brash.they watched his numbers climb consistently..and they waited.and after a year,they attempted to step in and steal trumps thunder by offering a more "reasonable" candidate.

ok ok...enough with the trump.
you want cruz?...nope.
how about ben carson? he is a sweet guy and BLACK....nope.
marco rubio?he is spanish with immigrant parents...nope
john kasich?...nope

because the RNC didn't get it either.they too,attempted to steal trumps thunder and their plan backfired.

liberals didnt get it.
conservatives didnt get it.
corporate media didnt get it.
political pundits,who get PAID to get it,didnt get it.
pollsters didnt get it.
suzy mcprettyface who reads the teleprompter didnt get it.

but the americans who lived in those dead midwestern towns got it.they may not understand neoliberalism,but they could see the effects by the boarded up stores,closed banks and the only jobs to have were the night shift at the one fast food joint left in the entire town.

these are the very same people who may not fully comprehend what the bank bailouts meant,or how austerity affected them,but they understood that the biggest industry in their town was no longer coal,or steel,or fishing but production of meth.they saw small shops close and crumble under the weight of a walmart superstore,and chains of pill mills.

they watched as construction jobs dried up,and private prisons expanded.there are some towns in texas and florida that literally survive on the incarceration of other americans.so they may not have fully understood that the "war on drugs" is actually a war on people,but they certainly could see the after-effects.

and these people were being told..everyday..that the economy was doing great.
that unemployment was at an all time low.
that the american dream was still attainable.
and at the very same time they were also being told that if you were on food stamps you were a loser,and a leech.
that if you lost your home it was YOUR fault.
that if you couldnt find a job you were lazy.
and if you DID happen to find a job,but it paid minimum,well then you should have gone to college or made better choices.

and since when did it become a virtue to exploit the hopeless and the desperate? to take advantage of someones misfortune and pay them pennies to do a job,but god forbid someone actually demands what they feel they are worth,because then you are accused of being a rip off artist!

when did THIS tactic become and american ideology?

and that really is the core nugget of this tale.
the ideology of america.
the amercian dream.
it was dead,and those people finally got it.
and there is NOTHING more fanatical or zealous than a defeated idealist.

so you can judge them for voting trump,but i think we should also understand WHY they voted for trump.

chris hedges wrote a truthdig piece that is far more eloquent and illuminating than anything i could ever put to paper.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/we_are_all_deplorables_20161120

Followup:

1. Chili's apologized in bland corp-speak: http://brinker.mediaroom.com/newsreleases?item=135354

2. The manager was placed on leave: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/11/15/chilis-manager-who-took-vets-meal-veterans-day-placed-leave/93876364/

That's a fan theory that explains why James Bond isn't the same guy all the time (Connery, Brosnan, Moore etc.) and kept spying around from the late 60's until now. The idea is that 'James Bond' is a cover identity used by various Agents of MI-6. This would allow for a black Bond but it isn't canon at all. That's why the Craig Bonds rebooted the franchise to allow the reuse of characters (Blofeld) and storylines (Vesper Lind vs. Tracy Bond).
007 is James Bond. The Producers are very protective in regards to this. However, the other 00-agents are pretty much non-existant in the franchise. They showed up in 'From Russia With Love' in a short meeting scene (sans dialogue), 009 died in the first 5 minutes of Octopussy (sans dialogue). The notable exception is Alec Trevelyan played by Sean Bean (I think he was 006), the villian from 'GoldenEye'. You could ague that Javier Bradem's Silva from 'Skyfall' must've been a 00-Agent but it is AFAIK not confirmed. Oh, and another 00-Agent was mentioned in 'Spectre'.
The reason Bond was made a scott was because Fleming like Connery's portrayal so much even though he was against casting him in the beginning. Bond's heritage is a minor plot point (more of a trivia item actually) in 'OHMSS' and a major plot point in 'Skyfall' (the name of Bond's family home).
As I said, gender-swapping Bond is much easier.

I agree with item 4 Get the money out.

I would be for flat amount of tax dollars to politicians for them to use for reelections ..

Also after public service then no more than 2 years as a lobbyist and then you out for good. Go back home and take a normal job. no more political service.

@bobknight33 --

I agree with @Sagemind that it was not technically a dupe, but pretty close. I was one of the upvotes on your other one.

I think there are 3 reasons why this submission got more votes. In order of importance:

1) This one was timely. The fact that yours was posted 2 weeks ago makes Moore's impressively accurate prediction all the more evident, but the polling, media, and "experts" were telling people it was going to be a landslide for Hillary. Right up until later on election night when it started looking like Florida could flip. Anyway, people didn't want to hear it then, but they are rightly impressed now that his "crackpot" prediction panned out so perfectly.

2) Being video helps it capture the context of what Moore was actually saying a little bit better than yours did. As audio only in yours, I was struggling to reconcile what I was hearing with Moore's political views. This makes it more clear that he is speaking from the perspective of those disenchanted voters, not his own personal opinion. Not as important as #1 up there, but I think this is a legitimate item that at least in part explains the vote disparity in the two submissions.

3) The Sift as a site/community trends more to the left than the US in general, and there's a lot of ire directed at you, personally, for being one of the few vocal people on the other side here. I think it is fantastic that you're here, keeping the conversation from being largely/completely one-sided.

...But, being that voice means that you're going to get some downvotes and have some of your worthy submissions not get as much attention as if they were sifted by anyone else. I'm sure that accounts for a non-negligible portion of the current 5:43 upvote ratio between the two sifts, which may be unfortunate but perhaps isn't surprising?

I disagree. Police are not supposed to be our masters, we are not supposed to bow and scrape before them in the hopes we don't get sent to the stocks (or worse). Police are simply supposed to enforce the laws that we, as a society, have decided that we all should follow.

The problem is, we have allowed the police to become more than that through our own lack of care and mismanagement. A policeman should have to undergo more rigorous training and background checks, mental and physical, than any other service we provide to ourselves. Instead we pay them about the same as teachers and we let bullies into the system. We also allow people with significant evidence that they should never have positions of authority due to mental issues to become police. We do not rigorously punish the bad cops, nor prevent them from seeking work elsewhere, leading to the same type of thing that led to catholic molesters being shuffled about to molest again.

As far as police fearing others, can we finally say that the number of police fatalities are far less than the the ones inflicted by police? Yes, we have many guns in the USA, but the few times I recall of a police person being killed by one seem to revolve around them experiencing a retaliation style attack when you would least expect it (and not on a call), or when they are alone and on a remote call location. Yet most of these controversial police shootings of suspects seem to happen when they are in a group of officers with weapons drawn, which I would consider far less of a jumpy situation than being alone on a highway. If I am an officer, with multiple other officers nearby, I have weapons on the suspect (taser or otherwise), why am I more worried than if I am alone with a suspect? It simply doesn't make sense.

Finally, referring back to your resisting comment, have we not seen lately that you can still be shot while doing absolutely no resisting? One man was laying on the ground, hands in the air, while telling a mentally ill patient of his not to do anything that would get him shot, and the man on the ground got shot. Here in Austin we had a mentally ill man running naked in the street and he was shot and killed versus being tasered or taken down. The use of force, and the extremity of it, have not been shown to be merited. So if you can be shot and killed for not resisting, or simply not understanding the commands in the short time you are given to do so, what can we do? Should we carry a pair of handcuffs and a taser so we can pre-apply these items and give the cops less to fear?