As someone posted elsewhere: "I don't want to take your guns away, but if the price of freedom is 18 dead elementary school kids 3 times a year, I don't want to be free. "Gun control" doesn't have to mean "take away guns". Stop arguing against that straw man."
Gun owners jumping right to slippery-slope arguments are not helpful.
Hmpf. One of the reasons I don't go to the theater anymore is that the ones around here have their volume set so high that I have to wear earplugs as a matter of course.
And? A nest of Islamists just outside Russian territory, who feel free to export weapons to Russian Islamists, is a whole different thing than the status quo.
As I posted elsethread: Republican obstructionism. Big business wanted loud commercials and the rest followed naturally.
Turning around and complaining that government can't do anything right plays right into their hands, because then Republicans who believe it get elected and proceed to make it true.
Sometimes the sound engineer will do a bad job. I've watched a few movies at home wherein the characters will be talking too quietly to hear easily, so I'll turn up the volume, then the next scene will have something really loud like an explosion or an ambulance going by, and I have to lower the volume quickly, and then they start talking quietly again.
They haven't been pro-civil rights since the '68 Civil Rights Act, when the racist southern Dems bolted the party because of LBJ pushing the Act through.
You know what? They were welcomed with open arms by the Republicans. See the Southern Strategy, you fucking ignoramus.
You seem to have a reading-for-comprehension problem, maybe because you're so anti-UN and don't want to know anything positive about them.
What I said was that "in general" they agree, meaning that most of the member states do, it's just that the rules of the Security Council mean it's a lot harder to do anything that any of the victors of WWII don't want[1]. I don't recall how many of the total representatives in the general assembly have to vote to override a SC veto (2/3?) or indeed if that's even come to a vote yet.
[1] not "all" the security council votes. You've got the five permanent members (USA, UK, France, Russia, China), each with a veto, plus several other countries on a system of rotating seats. I could take your opinions more seriously if they had any basis in fact.
The UN in general/can/ agree on Syria, it's just that Russia and China have their vetoes on the Security Council and used them to protect the Assad regime. Why? My theory is geopolitics: Russia is trying to keep a friendly government near its southwestern flank and head off US/NATO gains in the region, and possibly they're trying to keep Islamists off said flank lest the plague spread into their territory.
China's just wanting to cock-block us so we don't get too powerful, and maybe they've got some lucrative trade going on, or would like to.
Bullshit. There's no way 16MB of RAM plus a whole 486-based computer would have gone for as little as $1500 in 1991. You could get a Pentium-based machine around 1995 with 16MB for in the neighborhood of 3 grand.
The point of taking samples beforehand is that you can then say "look, these are exactly the chemicals that your fracking added to this water" and they can't try to worm out of it by claiming those chemicals were already there.
Or, you know, require water samples to be taken all around the area of the wells for at least a month before drilling begins, then take more samples periodically and compare.
Are you suggesting that the Chinese human waves were/unarmed/? I assure you they were not. If nothing else the Soviets saw to that even before the war when the Chinese Communists were fighting the Nationalists, not to mention any Japanese arms captured, not to mention American-supplied arms lost by the Nationalists during their defeat. The Japanese only conquered a smallish part of China besides.
FWIW the Minuteman III (the US's only operational ICBM) is entirely solid-fueled, likewise the Trident II, our only operational submarine-launched ballistic missile.
The Russians, however, have used several liquid-fueled ICBMs and SLBMs, and given North Korea's history as a Russian ally this may explain why they're using that type of fuel.
I don't see how we could have possibly beaten China in the early '50s. Even ignoring their shorter supply lines and near-limitless manpower, they were also allied with the Soviets at the time, and our industry had spun down from its war footing in the '40s.
You're right that this is an armored car and not a tank.
However, a tank need not have a turret-mounted gun. Early British tanks (such as the Mark IV from WWI) had no turrets, using instead sponson-mounted cannon and/or Vickers machine guns, depending on the model. Some other tanks didn't even have cannon and mounted only rifle-caliber machine guns.
A tank need not have heavy armor. Some of the light tanks from WWI through the '40s had just enough armor to stop small-arms fire, especially (as someone else noted) Japanese and Italian models, but also the Panzer I & the Vickers 6-ton and its derivatives.
Under certain circumstances, a tank need not even have tracks. Some tanks from the '30s and '40s had what's called a Christie suspension, for example the Soviet BT-7. Said tanks could remove their tracks and run on good roads using just the wheels.
Slashdot Mirror
What is the correlation between mass shootings and the closing & defunding of mental health institutions?
As someone posted elsewhere: "I don't want to take your guns away, but if the price of freedom is 18 dead elementary school kids 3 times a year, I don't want to be free. "Gun control" doesn't have to mean "take away guns". Stop arguing against that straw man."
Gun owners jumping right to slippery-slope arguments are not helpful.
Hmpf. One of the reasons I don't go to the theater anymore is that the ones around here have their volume set so high that I have to wear earplugs as a matter of course.
And? A nest of Islamists just outside Russian territory, who feel free to export weapons to Russian Islamists, is a whole different thing than the status quo.
As I posted elsethread: Republican obstructionism. Big business wanted loud commercials and the rest followed naturally.
Turning around and complaining that government can't do anything right plays right into their hands, because then Republicans who believe it get elected and proceed to make it true.
Republican obstructionism. Big business wanted loud commercials and the rest followed naturally.
I think snorting cocaine counts as "artificial means".
Sometimes the sound engineer will do a bad job. I've watched a few movies at home wherein the characters will be talking too quietly to hear easily, so I'll turn up the volume, then the next scene will have something really loud like an explosion or an ambulance going by, and I have to lower the volume quickly, and then they start talking quietly again.
Dynamic range is good, but only up to a point.
RMS amplitude
That's GNU/amplitude, please.
They haven't been pro-civil rights since the '68 Civil Rights Act, when the racist southern Dems bolted the party because of LBJ pushing the Act through.
You know what? They were welcomed with open arms by the Republicans. See the Southern Strategy, you fucking ignoramus.
You seem to have a reading-for-comprehension problem, maybe because you're so anti-UN and don't want to know anything positive about them.
What I said was that "in general" they agree, meaning that most of the member states do, it's just that the rules of the Security Council mean it's a lot harder to do anything that any of the victors of WWII don't want[1]. I don't recall how many of the total representatives in the general assembly have to vote to override a SC veto (2/3?) or indeed if that's even come to a vote yet.
[1] not "all" the security council votes. You've got the five permanent members (USA, UK, France, Russia, China), each with a veto, plus several other countries on a system of rotating seats. I could take your opinions more seriously if they had any basis in fact.
The UN in general /can/ agree on Syria, it's just that Russia and China have their vetoes on the Security Council and used them to protect the Assad regime. Why? My theory is geopolitics: Russia is trying to keep a friendly government near its southwestern flank and head off US/NATO gains in the region, and possibly they're trying to keep Islamists off said flank lest the plague spread into their territory.
China's just wanting to cock-block us so we don't get too powerful, and maybe they've got some lucrative trade going on, or would like to.
Aw, someone beat me to the C=64 reference.
Bullshit. There's no way 16MB of RAM plus a whole 486-based computer would have gone for as little as $1500 in 1991. You could get a Pentium-based machine around 1995 with 16MB for in the neighborhood of 3 grand.
Equipping the Chinese with weapons and other war materiel. Allies, y'see, and they both had no desire for American supremacy.
Fair enough. I'd imagine you could average it out by taking samples from all the different wells.
The point of taking samples beforehand is that you can then say "look, these are exactly the chemicals that your fracking added to this water" and they can't try to worm out of it by claiming those chemicals were already there.
Obviously.
That's 5:4 aspect ratio.
Also climate-change denialism.
Or, you know, require water samples to be taken all around the area of the wells for at least a month before drilling begins, then take more samples periodically and compare.
That's pretty basic science.
Are you suggesting that the Chinese human waves were /unarmed/? I assure you they were not. If nothing else the Soviets saw to that even before the war when the Chinese Communists were fighting the Nationalists, not to mention any Japanese arms captured, not to mention American-supplied arms lost by the Nationalists during their defeat. The Japanese only conquered a smallish part of China besides.
Don't advertise your ignorance like that.
whoosh.
Debian 3.1 came out back then. You're thinking of the kernel.
FWIW the Minuteman III (the US's only operational ICBM) is entirely solid-fueled, likewise the Trident II, our only operational submarine-launched ballistic missile.
The Russians, however, have used several liquid-fueled ICBMs and SLBMs, and given North Korea's history as a Russian ally this may explain why they're using that type of fuel.
I don't see how we could have possibly beaten China in the early '50s. Even ignoring their shorter supply lines and near-limitless manpower, they were also allied with the Soviets at the time, and our industry had spun down from its war footing in the '40s.
You're right that this is an armored car and not a tank.
However, a tank need not have a turret-mounted gun. Early British tanks (such as the Mark IV from WWI) had no turrets, using instead sponson-mounted cannon and/or Vickers machine guns, depending on the model. Some other tanks didn't even have cannon and mounted only rifle-caliber machine guns.
A tank need not have heavy armor. Some of the light tanks from WWI through the '40s had just enough armor to stop small-arms fire, especially (as someone else noted) Japanese and Italian models, but also the Panzer I & the Vickers 6-ton and its derivatives.
Under certain circumstances, a tank need not even have tracks. Some tanks from the '30s and '40s had what's called a Christie suspension, for example the Soviet BT-7. Said tanks could remove their tracks and run on good roads using just the wheels.