many many years ago I used to use points to shade technical drawings (instead of my classmates who used watercolor, I was really bad at that, so I figured something else)

After some time it was killing my fingers / wrists so all I did was simply to get a glove and basically attach an adapter for the technical pen to the index finger, so I could dot by simply moving my index finger down (just like tapping), *much* *much* more ergonomic...

That's basically it.

Folks that don't have guns also view guns through a utilitarian lens. No need to have them unless you need to kill something. With that mentality, they're bound to see guns and killing as a combined issue. When they look at a modern rifle that has the same ergonomics as a war rifle, they think of killing people.

For gun owners, harming other folks is real far down the totem pole. They have other uses for guns, uses that aren't killing people.

Many non gun owners look at pistols and think 'oh, well, maybe one day I'd buy one to have just in case, just for protection'. They think of them as defensive arms, and not as the firearm category with the most kills associated.

So, yeah, it boils down to imagery and symbolism.

-scheherazade

Lawrence Wilkerson's dismissive comments about self defense are very disrespectful to people who have had to resort to self defense. He wouldn't say things like that had he been unfortunate enough to have had such a personal experience. (As one parent of a Fla victim said - his child would have given anything for a firearm at the time of the event.)

Re. 2nd amendment, yes, it's not for pure self defense. The reasoning is provided within the text. The government is denied legal powers over gun ownership ('shall not be infringed') in order to preserve the ability of the people to form a civilian paramilitary intended to face [presumably invading] foreign militaries in combat ('militia').

It's important to remember that the U.S. is a republic - so the citizens are literally the state (not in abstract, but actually so). As such, there is very little distinction between self defense and state defense - given that self and state are one.

Personally, I believe any preventative law is a moral non-starter. Conceptually they rely on doling out punishment via rights-denial to all people, because some subset might do harm. Punishment should be reserved for those that trespass on others - violating their domain (body/posessions/etc). Punishment should not be preemptive, simply to satiate the fears/imaginations of persons not affected by those punished. Simply, there should be no laws against private activities among consenting individuals. Folks don't have to like what other folks do, and they don't have to be liked either. It's enough to just leave one another alone in peace.

Re. Fla, the guilty party is dead. People should not abuse government to commit 3rd party trespass onto innocent disliked demographics (gun owners) just to lash out. Going after groups of people out of fear or dislike is unjustified.







---------------------------------------------------




As an aside, the focus on "assault rifles" makes gun control advocates appear not sincere, and rather knee-jerk/emotional. Practically all gun killings utilize pistols.

There are only around 400 or so total rifle deaths per year (for all kinds of rifles combined) - which is almost as many as the people who die each year by falling out of bed (ever considered a bed to be deadly? With 300 million people, even low likelihood events must still happen reasonably often. It's important to keep in mind the likelihood, and not simply the totals.).

Around 10'000 people die each day out of all causes. Realistically, rifles of all sorts, especially assault rifles, are not consequential enough to merit special attention - given the vast ocean of far more deadly things to worry about.

If they were calling for a ban+confiscation of all pistols, with a search of every home and facility in the U.S., then I'd consider the advocates to be at least making sense regarding the objective of reducing gun related death.

Also, since sidearms have less utility in a military application, a pistol ban is less anti-2nd-amendment than an assault rifle ban.







As a technical point, ar15s are not actually assault rifles - they just look like one (m4/m16).
Assault rifles are named after the German Sturm Gewehr (storm rifle). It's a rifle that splits the difference between a sub-machinegun (automatic+pistol ammo) and a battle rifle (uses normal rifle/hunting ammo).

- SMG is easy to control in automatic, but has limited damage. (historical example : ppsh-41)

- Battle rifles do lots of damage, but are hard to control (lots of recoil, using full power hunting ammo). (historical example : AVT-40)

- An 'assault rifle' uses something called an 'intermediate cartridge'. It's a shrunken down, weaker version of hunting ammo. A non-high-power rifle round, that keeps recoil in check when shooting automatic. It's stronger than a pistol, but weaker than a normal rifle. But that weakness makes it controllable in automatic fire. (historical example : StG-44)

- The ar15 has no automatic fire. This defeats the purpose of using weak ammo (automatic controlability). So in effect, it's just a weak normal rifle. (The M4/M16 have automatic, so they can make use of the weak ammo to manage recoil - and they happen to look the same).

Practically speaking, a semi-auto hunting rifle is more lethal. A Remington 7400 with box mag is a world deadlier than an ar15. An M1A looks like a hunting rifle, and is likewise deadlier than an ar15. Neither are viewed as evil or dangerous.

You can also get hunting rifles that shoot intermediate cartridges (eg. Ruger Mini14). The lethality is identical to an ar15, but because it doesn't look black and scary, no one complains.

In practice, what makes the ar15 scary is its appearance. The pistol grip, the adjustable stock, the muzzle device, the black color, all are visual identifiers, and those visuals have become politically more important than what it actually does.

You can see the lack of firearms awareness in the proposed laws - proposed bans focus on those visual features. No pistol grips, no adjustable stocks, etc. Basically a listing of ancillary features that evoke scary appearance, and nothing to do with the core capabilities of a firearm.

What has made the ar15 the most popular rifle in the country, is that it has very good ergonomics, and is very friendly to new shooters. The low recoil doesn't scare new shooters away, and the great customizability makes it like a gun version of a tuner-car.

I think its massive success, popularity, and widespread adoption, have made it the most likely candidate to be used in a shooting. It's cursed to be on-hand whenever events like Fla happen.

-scheherazade

Cute and reasonably clever.

Not sure how it improves usability or ergonomics though.

I bought a super comfortable ergonomic chair from Steelcase called the Think. I love everything about it. It's extremely adjustable and comfortable. It's great for everyday use--I use it constantly and I never get uncomfortable or suffer from aches due to prolonged use.

Sometimes, I'll watch a movie, and I'll put the back spring on the lightest setting and lean back to relax. However, for gaming, I like to lock the back in the vertical position for support. It seems to help me play better this way. I also like the way the arms articulate more than other chairs I've used.

I can already tell from the build quality of this chair that it will far outlast the previous chair I used, where the back broke off, and the fabric tore, exposing the foam inside.

It was slightly on the expensive side, but it's true what they say: You get what you pay for. And with something as important to your physical health as an office chair, I find it quite justifiable to spend several hundred dollars on such a tool.

Our school got these nice "ergonomic" chairs.. Man they are awful, there's no lock, there's a spring and in order to stay in good posture, you have to simultaneously keep your self up, lean on your elbows and push back.. When you lean forward the back support follows you and pushes slowly you to the edge of your seat and when you lean back it's like you got nothing there and the whole thing feels like it's gonne capsize. It's simultaneously too stiff and too soft. It takes about 2 hours and i get back cramps.. And they claim they are super healthy as you can't relax.. If i ever meet the guy who designed those, i'm gonna kick him in the nuts. I'll take my gaming chair anyday..

That's a great idea! you'd have to hold the controller upside down though (easier for NES than newer ergonomically designed controllers)

I'm not an ergonomics or safety expert, so this is just my opinion.

In my experience, 9:30-2:30 (just above center) has given me the best ability to quickly turn the wheel as far as I need.

My theory is that having your hands above center means that every turn is a pull on an already-extended arm. This is fast and instinctive. If your hands are low on the wheel, you have to use awkward lateral pushing force to turn.

I think the point of things like the Wii controller and Kinnect was to create a new controller that helps to eliminate things like Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.

Moving back to thumbs goes directly opposite to that concept. I play games on my phone now, all thumb games, and I'm well on my way to Carpal Tunnel surgery. (...not exclusively from iPhone thumb games.) So although this small controller concept may feel right at first, I think more needs to be done in the way of ergonomics and less two thumb or finger controls.

I agree that maybe people are getting tired of novelty controllers but I think Wii kicked it off with a step in the right direction. Maybe a few more steps need to be taken?

There's no difference between this:
http://www.capitanhipower.com/Photos/M1Rifle.jpg

and this:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/M1A96819/m1-3.gif

Other than ergonomics...
Same action, same rifle (M1 Garand)

This was designed for touchscreen interface, so of course it's going to be better with a touchscreen. But, the idea of a 'touchscreen monitor workstation' does not make ergonomic sense. For the majority of us who sit at a desk with their monitor in front of them, imagine experiencing this software 'as intended,' with a touchscreen monitor. Now, imagine holding your arm out with your hand arched backwards and clicking items on the desktop...for 8 hours a day. If typing on a keyboard gives people carpeltunnel issues, mousing around with this kind of setup will have long lines at all the hospitals.

Let's say we have our ideal setup to prevent all injuries. We have the monitor lay flat on the desk or at rather flat angle, and then people can mouse around on it rather comfortably. Now, your monitor is where your keyboard goes. Typing on the screen works in a pinch, but a real keyboard is certainly much better. The only setup I've seen that has successfully married a touchscreen monitor with a keyboard is the new small tablet systems, where both the monitor and the keyboard are small enough to fit on your lap at the same time. Of course, if you want to do more than surf the web or check emails, that dinky screen really doesn't do it.

Touchscreens are for toys, not for productivity.

It's amazing how ergonomic that mouse is.

>> ^cracanata:

What is this concept based on, or what's the target for this? Is it like a temporary or summer house? Is it just a place to come back for sleep? No current water nor electricity. On a rainy day/night the sound inside this will sound like you are living in a acoustic guitar. Not that I'm against this idea, but I am.
Ergonomic homes are awesome, but not this 3x3m box.


I am not sure if you watched the video, or read the description.. 'portable cube prefabs are being used across France as rural hotels','this vacation prefab was designed for stargazing', 'it's assumed they'll be used as vacation rentals'..

Also if it had a shower, toilet, electric fireplace and plugs for things like the coffeemaker.. and a working fridge, it does have running water and electricity.

>> ^cracanata:

What is this concept based on, or what's the target for this? Is it like a temporary or summer house? Is it just a place to come back for sleep? No current water nor electricity. On a rainy day/night the sound inside this will sound like you are living in a acoustic guitar. Not that I'm against this idea, but I am.
Ergonomic homes are awesome, but not this 3x3m box.


It sure seems like there is running water and electricity... I believe it's meant to be a vacationing home of sorts.

What is this concept based on, or what's the target for this? Is it like a temporary or summer house? Is it just a place to come back for sleep? No current water nor electricity. On a rainy day/night the sound inside this will sound like you are living in a acoustic guitar. Not that I'm against this idea, but I am.
Ergonomic homes are awesome, but not this 3x3m box.