Slashdot Mirror

Because the .22 calibre rifles and handguns used by this shooter are NOT "rediculously powerful firearms."

Seriously. They are target practice rounds, that are useless agains even the softest of bullet resisting armors.

Here, here's a picture for you to mull over:
size comparison of several standardized rounds

See that little pipsqueek on the far right? That's what comes out of the "assault rifle" the killer from this story used. It is literally the size of 3 BBs glued together, with a few grams of powder behind it. Cartridge and all, it weighs less then 20 grams.

Compare that with the REAL assault rifle rounds on the far left, and you have a better idea of why this is a farce.

The majority of the wounds were from an AR-15 using .223 rounds, and NOT .22 rounds. The amount of misinformation about this tragedy and topic is staggering.

Get your shit straight before you start spouting off bullshit about pipsqueek rounds and "REAL" assault rifle rounds pretending you know the difference.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/22_penny_223-tfb.jpg

Because the .22 calibre rifles and handguns used by this shooter are NOT "rediculously powerful firearms."

Seriously. They are target practice rounds, that are useless agains even the softest of bullet resisting armors.

Here, here's a picture for you to mull over:
size comparison of several standardized rounds

See that little pipsqueek on the far right? That's what comes out of the "assault rifle" the killer from this story used. It is literally the size of 3 BBs glued together, with a few grams of powder behind it. Cartridge and all, it weighs less then 20 grams.

Compare that with the REAL assault rifle rounds on the far left, and you have a better idea of why this is a farce.

The referenced url is on my Korean War website. Virtually none of us who fought in the Korean War used hearing protection in combat, apart from those in mortar or artillery positions. Many of us, in the comfort of our homes, wish we had. If back in the turmoil of combat, well, we might still prefer to take our chances.

The problem is that the effects of noise vary among individuals, as does our self-healing and permanancy of damage from the 140 db or so rifle blast. Noise Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL) We learn this on the firing line in boot camp, or elsewhere. Also, the true effect of combat sounds on hearing is in a, possibly improbable, distant future. The risk of being killed by missing some audible clue before the firing begins is immediate, and the damage definitely permanent.

This was true of all infantry I knew of, not just Americans. My Aussie Digger pals, for instance, never used hearing protection except in mortar positions. Myself, I still hear fairly well, but always use protection on the firing range (still a member of NRA.)

Look up Rife http://www.holman.net/rifetechnology/ (Read the history section) and it has been shown to work currntly. http://www.rt66.com/~rifetech/ is another link http://www.rense.com/general31/rife.htm http://www.renewedlife.com/article/?id=28

What got me interesting in this is reading Clarks book the cure for all diseases , I built the zapper and it works well, while not plasma based.

Makes you really wonder why this is all supressed. Take back a History of the AMA journal and the needs of advertising revenue to pay for it.

While at it might as well check out Moray another vein but http://www.nuenergy.org/alt/archive.htm link 1. Free Electricity Generated from the Radiant Cosmos (esp page 3 where the pantent examiner wouldn't allow the patent cause he couldn't concieve of the idea.)

"Question (From an N.C. State staff member): Where in heaven's name did the habit of putting a punctuation mark within a quote become policy? When quoting something that does not especially end with a period it seems unnatural to put a period wit hin the quotation marks just because it ends a sentence. (". . . to take the food away from the cat is not always. . . ." To my way of thinking this is wrong and should be ". . . to take the food away from the cat is not always . . .". But, perhaps, I jus t don't see the logic.

Answer: You're right. American English is consistent in this punctuation policy. You can look for relief in British publications, which follow the rule you find more logical.

You are not alone in objecting to the American convention. A whole group of kindred spirits is lurking on one of the links from the N.C. State Online Writing Lab homepage. The "Frequently Asked Questions" link (on the bulleted list at the bottom of the page or directly at http://www.rt66.com/ telp/styfaq1.htm#q1) puts this question to a vote of copyeditors. The American system wins out, but the British system has surprising support. The analysis covers the reasons for the opinions."

"Finally, there remains the problem of whether to put other punctuation marks inside or outside the quotation marks. There are two schools of thought on this, which I shall call the logical view and the conventional view.

The logical view holds that the only punctuation marks which should be placed inside the quotation marks are those that form part of the quotation, while all others should be placed outside. The conventional view, in contrast, insists on placing most other punctuation marks inside a closing quote, regardless of whether they form part of the quotation. Here are two sentences punctuated according to the logical view:

        "The only thing we have to fear", said Franklin Roosevelt, "is fear itself."
        The Prime Minister condemned what he called "simple-minded solutions".

And here they are punctuated according to the conventional view:

        "The only thing we have to fear," said Franklin Roosevelt, "is fear itself."
        The Prime Minister condemned what he called "simple-minded solutions."

Note the placing of the comma after fear in the first example and of the final full stop in the second. These are not part of their quotations, and so the logical view places them outside the quote marks, while the conventional view places them inside, on the theory that a closing quote should always follow another punctuation mark."

One day, perhaps, scientists will invent new & modernly acceptable language to say the same thing that Royal Raymond Rife was talking about earlier last century. Rife's microscope was a truly unique invention that still lacks rigorous investigation, mainly due to its extraordinary claims giving it a 'quack' status. The curioes can start at places like here. For those who read with a "zero tolerance" filter for anything that doesn't sound like a recent issue of Science or Nature, please step lightly where people are using "volatile" language....

.
-shpoffo

For a start, Korea was primarily backed by China, not the USSR. You might want to do a little more history-reading of your own.

Additionally, most of the casualties in wars such as Vietnam are largely attributable to unilateral action; i.e., only one superpower seriously involved. Most of the casualties in Vietnam are due to the US, not the USSR, and just the opposite for Afghanistan. Military positioning against each other played some role in these conflicts, as the presence of "combat advisors" and equipment shows, but - as we can see today in Iraq and Chechnya - neither one needs a Cold War to get involved in unpopular invasions and occupations.

Finally, note that - compared to what would have happened if the US and USSR had actually gone to war - even conflicts like Vietnam and Afghanistan count as "relatively peaceful". There's a world of difference between "perfectly peaceful" and "USSR and USA go to war", but you're falling into the trap of seeing a false dichotomy. Wake up - the real world is not boolean.


As for diplomacy not working, well, tell that to the thousands of people still alive because global war casualties are at their lowest level in the post-WWII period".

Why is this, you might ask? Well, some clever Americans have been analysing the situation:

"International engagement is blossoming," said American scholar Monty G. Marshall. "There's been an enormous amount of activity to try to end these conflicts."

Others say:

"The end of the Cold War liberated the U.N." -- historically paralyzed by U.S.-Soviet antagonism -- "to do what its founders had originally intended and more"

Fancy that - diplomacy works. At least for people capable of understanding the fact that the real world is not black and white, and that there's a world of options between "we'll give you everything" and "we crush you".

That's a pretty light requirement, since the M16A1 is a pretty light gun at 6.35 lbs. Compare it to the M1, at 9.5 lbs and up (and up since the wooden stock was often denser than spec).
Those three pounds don't sound like much until you carry it all day. They really help with guncontrol, too. I can shoot the 30-06 M1 about as well as the .223 M16, since the extra weight helps reduce muzzle jump.

Don't tell me this isnt totally cool :)
make your own pong game with a little soldering and a PIC microcontroller, generates simple black and white NTSC output and everything.

VCR Pong

Klowner

On the eighties platforms, innovation was fueled by adversity - the adversity of trying to use an extremely limited machine for something useful.

I disagree. Back then, I didn't think of my computers as being limited. (They were limited, but I didn't know it, because I have not lived in 2000 yet. ;-) Doing things was a challenge, but the challenge was to myself, not the little machine.

IMHO, the innovation was due to there simply being no "establishment" around yet, no preconceptions of what personal computers were for. That not only led to innovation by the programmers, but also by the computer manufacturers themselves. There was a huge variety in feature sets among the machines back then (much more than now) because it hadn't been decided yet, what a personal computer was supposed to be or what people would use it for.

Some had a BASIC interpreter in ROM, some had a FORTH interpreter (!) in ROM, some just had little loaders in ROM that would load an interpreter from a tape or disk, some had cartridge slots so that people could insert ROMs or other expansion hardware, most had weirdo non-standard peripheral interfaces that didn't work with other manufacturers, some had smart peripherals that contained their own CPU (and some didn't), they all had wildly different ways of handling graphics (and some with sprites or "player/missile graphics"), a few had Intel CPUs, a few had Motorola CPUs, most others had Zilog or MOS Technology CPUs, some were deliberate attempts to be compatable with others (but most weren't), etc. Things were very heterogenous back then, and no idea was immediately dismissed as "stupid" the way it would be now.

I'm typing this on an Amiga right now, and there's a x86 Linux box a couple feet to my right. There are stylistic differences (and huge under-the-hood differences), but the interfaces are remarkably similar (and so is my brother's Mac in the other room, and the OS/2 and Windoze machines I use at work), and so are the applications. It has been largely agreed upon what a personal computer is for, and they've all converged into a homogenous lump.

On the eighties platforms, innovation was fueled by adversity - the adversity of trying to use an extremely limited machine for something useful.

I disagree. Back then, I didn't think of my computers as being limited. (They were limited, but I didn't know it, because I have not lived in 2000 yet. ;-) Doing things was a challenge, but the challenge was to myself, not the little machine.

IMHO, the innovation was due to there simply being no "establishment" around yet, no preconceptions of what personal computers were for. That not only led to innovation by the programmers, but also by the computer manufacturers themselves. There was a huge variety in feature sets among the machines back then (much more than now) because it hadn't been decided yet, what a personal computer was supposed to be or what people would use it for.

Some had a BASIC interpreter in ROM, some had a FORTH interpreter (!) in ROM, some just had little loaders in ROM that would load an interpreter from a tape or disk, some had cartridge slots so that people could insert ROMs or other expansion hardware, most had weirdo non-standard peripheral interfaces that didn't work with other manufacturers, some had smart peripherals that contained their own CPU (and some didn't), they all had wildly different ways of handling graphics (and some with sprites or "player/missile graphics"), a few had Intel CPUs, a few had Motorola CPUs, most others had Zilog or MOS Technology CPUs, some were deliberate attempts to be compatable with others (but most weren't), etc. Things were very heterogenous back then, and no idea was immediately dismissed as "stupid" the way it would be now.

I'm typing this on right now, and there's a x86 Linux box a couple feet to my right. There are stylistic differences (and huge under-the-hood differences), but the interfaces are remarkably similar (and so is my brother's Mac in the other room, and the OS/2 and Windoze machines I use at work), and so are the applications. It has been largely agreed upon what a personal computer is for, and they've all converged into a homogenous lump.

Well, if we're gonna talk about non-printers making music, then I may as well plug my VT100 Oddities page, since a VT100 can make music too. Sort of.

If you allready can solder and program in C and read circuit diagrams, then by all means, get a Motorola chip and start hacking. This kit is NOT for you! But if you are semi-clueless about robotics, then this is probably a good kit.

BTW: My robotics credintials are at My Home Page

I'm sorry, but I think you (and a bunch of other people here) have missed the point. One of the advantages of Open Sourcing the Amiga OS would undoubtably be to decouple it from the hardware dongle, which even the owner doesn't want to sell anymore. Trust me: almost nobody cares about the hardware anymore. Those who do, are viewed as fanatics even among the ranks of us Amiga fanatics. :-)

Amiga hardware was very cool up until through the early 90s, but as mass-market commodity chipsets caught up, a lot of Amiga users tried to adopt them. My Amiga has a graphics card and a sound card based on PeeCee chipsets. I don't use the Amiga chipsets for those things anymore. Hell, I don't even use the built-in serial port anymore. She's a Frankenstein machine (and it's only going to get worse once I put a G4 PPC in it).

But the hardware isn't the only Frankenstein part -- it's the software too. The OS is tied to obsolete things like the Amiga chipset and even the 68k processor itself, and over the years, all sorts of competing hacks have been used to extend it and make it more device independent. They sorta work, but there's a lot of reinvention and infighting. (The Phase 5 vs H&P approaches to PPCs, for example, and the earlier CyberGraphX vs P96 wars.)

Open Sourcing AmigaOS would permanently fix this problem. Imagine being able to run AmigaOS on a fully modern computer, instead of an AmigaDongle that has a bunch of cyber implants to modernize it! Oh, and some people say, 'What can the Amiga do that OS ___ can't?' Well, turn the question around: What can OS ____ do that AmigaOS can't? There are in fact a few things, but not many. If anyone advocates against Open Source AmigaOS, I have to wonder: What are you afraid of?

Would I use an Open Source Amiga OS? No, probably not. If it had been done a few years ago, maybe. But a few months ago I finally decided to commit to Neutrino. Yet there are still a few people who don't want to go to Neutrino (for whatever reason) and I think an Open Source AmigaOS would be a great way to give them a fighting chance. Why would anyone be against that?

I've been a die-hard Amiga fan for years, but that's changed over the last 7 days. I'm not going to sell my Amiga or put it on mothballs, but neither am I going to spend another penny on it.

Aw Kirk, I don't understand how the last 7 days can have disillusioned you about your Amiga Classic. If you believed Collas and Amiga Inc, then you've known the ol' A3000 was a dead-end for several months. Collas never led anyone to believe that the Amiga Classics would be able to play any part in his plans for the future.

If anything, the last week has improved the situation. Now that Amiga Inc has totally blown its credibility, Amiga Inc's so-called plans are no longer a serious distraction. And that means the True Path is now clearly illuminated: QNX Neutrino! Well, guess what? Your old A3000 (thanks to your PPC board) will run Neutrino. You don't need new hardware. So why despair?

Besides, I can't stand to see you so sad, when your A3000 is even niftier than mine. You tryin' to demoralize the rest of us?!? ;-)

See ya, Amiga. It's been a blast for the last 14 years, but I'm just not in love with you anymore.

Oh well. If you ever wanna sell your Micronik case, lemme know... *drool*

Why would anyone want to throw away a whole computer? Just because the planned obsolescence timer on the chipset has expired, there's still a perfectly good metal case and power supply. People who replace the entire unit instead of the motherboard deserve to have disposal problems.

Heck, I still use a computer that was manufactured in 1991 on a daily basis, even if most of the motherboard's functions have been overridden with addons.

Oh, and back in January I decided to get a new graphics board (PIV). I gave my old graphics (CV64) board to a friend. He installed it in his machine and gave his old graphics board (Spectrum) to a friend. It's pretty easy to get rid of stuff if you really want to; someone always wants it -- and this is relatively obscure stuff (Amiga hardware) that I'm talking about! For "mainstream" stuff it ought to be trivial.

Granted, quite a number of people apparently think the custom hardware is what defined the Amiga, but it's hardly "agreed." There's also a lot of Amiga people who feel that the performance of the custom hardware, relative to what else was available at the time, is what defined the Amiga. When off-the-shelf hardware caught up to (and passed) the Amiga chipset, plenty of Amiga users jumped ship on the hardware, and are now using graphics cards (and sound cards, etc.) made up of off-the-shelf components.

I still use an Amiga every day, but I would have defected years ago if I still had to use the Amiga graphics hardware.