This is one of the reasons why, regardless of the expense, I charter every time it is feasible. Why yes, yes I have had very high powered firearms on an airplane. In fact, I've been in the midst of a whole bunch of us who had high powered firearms in an airplane - and we didn't even have to land in the plane.
Chartering is definitely the way to go. Less stress, show up, load up, and go
They might even let me fly the plane.
Yup, I did that once. Actually it was kind of funny, the pilot knew I was an aviation slut, and had me go through the preflight with him. Then he took off, and at 50 feet said "Here ya go!" The surprise had me white knuckling it for a minute, but then I settled down and had a freaking blast. He sat back and gave me info on trimming the tab and other helpful stuff, then chatted with me the whole way, and only took over again about 300 feet above the landing runway. Basically an inflight lesson for me.
However, I think you might be projecting a bit with that "gun kooks" thing. There are some gun nuts, granted, but they're a very, very tiny majority.
Pre sensitization might be the issue. I've had the occasion to be dealing with a number of them, and had some very unpleasant and public experiences with them. As a firearms owner and user myself, I have zero patience any more for people who would assault me - a presumed friend - because I think that the gun show loophole should be closed.
And even *I* support reasonable regulation. Though we'd probably argue what is reasonable. I can assure you, I do not donate a nickel to the NRA and I do not like them one bit. I do donate to the local and national ACLU however.
For myself, reasonable consists of a few things, like eliminating the gun show loophole. Registering a gun should be considered the same thing as registering a car. People with psych issues should have temporary injunctions against firearm ownership. Convicted felons should have a 5 year injunction, then with a clean record since release, be allowed to legally own firearms again.
That's the "rights" part. Now the responsibilities:
People who let their firearms sit around the house, and one of their children gut shoots a sibling and kills them should be prosecuted for murder. The dude who bought the guns for those assholes in California recently should be responsible for all the murders they committed.
There. I don't think that's terribly restrictive. Felons and people who might be likely to reorganize their towns with a firearm won't have them legally, and one of their favorite routes to get their illegal pieces will be gone. If people want so called assault rifles, they can have one, hell, I don't care if people have fully automatic weapons. I'd fancy building a.22 caliber Gatling gun myself. Now that would be a conversation starter.
Do you remember when the NRA was a hunter's organization?
And no, what I think is reasonable isn't going to stop all gun violence. But I'm not letting perfect be the enemy of good.
Do they still make 10 mile per gallon cars? Are you in America or something?
The rest of us are up to 80 mpg.
And yet, desipte your "all 'murrican iz the evilz" attitude, in 2016, the worst gas milage cars come from Italy, a Lambo and a ferrari at 12 mpg - probably 10 in real life.
In fact, none of them are made in America - All the worst gas milage cars except the Infinti's are made in........
Get ready for it.........
your 80 miles per gallon, environmentally superior......
Here's the link. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg...
Trucks not surprisingly either, won't be getting as good as predicted, but once again, despite Europe having the edge in all things compared to their dull unsophisticated American brethren, the worst truck gas milage for 2016 are two offerings from Mercedes Benz. Where are they located?
Actually, Air Marshalls carry the.357 SIG, a round that was chosen for its higher penetration than more standard 9mm or.40 SW rounds.
That's true. the birdshot type rounds were used in the 70's and 80's. Regardless, these are supposed to use hollow point rounds to expand upon penetrating the perp.
The reason a round with better penetration was desired is that it is likely they will have to shoot through a seat and the fact that, despite what Hollywood says, shooting a window on a passenger jet will not explosively decompress the plane and cause people to get sucked out like they are in outer space.
Of course not. But putting a hole in a plane is not just something where they say - "yup a hole in the plane, tthis is good". As well, there are other things in the body of a plane that might not be happy if taken out of commission. they are not mere canisters with nothing else around them. http://www.meriweather.com/fli...
And perhaps this is why the highly trained US Air Marshals have to date have only taken out one person - at least according to my research. You might dispatch a terst, but will probably have collateral deaths as well.
Did I miss the protests where gun rights folks have been demanding that they be allowed to take guns on planes?
You apparenlty missed all the posts in here that have people yapping about how a simple check-in for their pieces is depriving them of their rights. This didn't turn into a gun rights issue because people were for it.
New York City... safest in the country... you're so funny.
Do you even hear the nonsense coming out of your mouth?
New York City was the only American city to crack the world Safe cities index compiled by the Economist.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/29/...
It comes in at number 10, and as no American cities were ranked any higher, his statement is not necessarily nonsense.
Remember, Law and Order and Law and Order Special Victims Unit are fiction, not the news.
I admit it doesn't sound truthy, but hey, I've walked around New York City without fear. Then again, I'm not a fearful person.
All the cars will eventually be networked and will, in fact, talk to each other and human drivers will not merely be obsolete but illegal. Eventually 100-120mph down the highway will be the standard cruising speed.
There's a word for that. A train.
The concept of taking an inherently singular activity, and turning it into something that already exists, only with less efficiency, and a metric fuckton more unreliable infrastructure, is perhaps not the ultimate in stupidity, but near enough to be indistinguishable from it.
Not that I advocate off body carry, but the mistake is understandable in that example. In a rush, something goes wrong, has to grab a different bag. Forgets in his rush to remove the firearm. It happens, it does not make one irresponsible, maybe a bit too complacent, but not necessarily irresponsible. And it takes a felony conviction to lose the right to buy/possess.
It certainly the fuck damn well does make one irresponsible. Guns are designed to launch projectiles that are designed to kill people, and one should never ever not know exactly where their's are. I know where every one of my pieces are, and there hasn't been a day I haven't.
There's a lot of responsibility to owning one, and not having an idea where it is, is right up their with the unloaded guns kill the most people irresponsibility.
You have ALL rights unless a specific limitation is put in place in the constitution granting the government dominion over a particular activity. Do not fall into the trap of saying that if it isn't in the Bill of RIghts, it's not a right.
And taking hull piercing devices into the hull of an easily pierceable thing like a passenger plane is not something that should ever be considered a right.
Gun kooks have become so unhinged that a mere check-in process is considered violating their "rights".
Ever see the firearm check-in process for a flight? Remarkably painless and at least the last time I watched, a lot quicker than my SOP, which was travelling heavy with a lot of equipment.
Actually, the top 5 cities for violent crime are all cities lack gun control (4 of which are legally banned, by state law, from enacting gun control).
and cities like New York, with its strict gun control, is actually ranked one of the safest cities in the country.
Damn.
So much for your BS.
Not to mention, have the gun nuts become so irrational that a simple check-in process for your firearm become a "They're takin' r Gunz away!!" moment?
You check the gun in, and you get it back when you land. I've watched the process, it's simple, and easy.
I know the typical ammosexual has erotic fantasies of saving a planefull of people by pumping some slugs into a bunch of tersts and saving the day, but really, we don't want to be firing off weapons inside a thin hulled pressurized cabin at 35,000 feet.
Air Marshalls even have special rounds that are designed to not penetrate the walls of the cabin and depressurize the plane. Let them do their job.
As shown by Slashdotters, make a ridiculous claim, get ridiculous (and deserved) responses.
I suspect in the end, autonomy is going to look a little different than the predicticationaies are predicticating.
Some of this stuff is tremendous technology. Lane assist, automatic parking, anti-tailgating radar collision avoidance. All tremendous stuff. rerouting information
But a fully autonomous car? Probably not. The killer? Maybe not what you think.
I'm trying to imagine everyone planning out their route every day. It reminds me of the programmable thermostats. I tried them, but my schedule isn't the same from day to day, so I found myself just setting it on manual, and dialing in the temp I wanted when I got home.
"Let's go look at the Christmas lights honey."
"Okay, give me a half hour to plan a route"
"Oh - look at the lights on that street - Let's go there."
"Now I gotta re-program? Let's save that for a different evening, dear".
Almost none of the present day autonomous car utopia scenarios are very practical. The concept of you kickin' back and reading the paper while your car drives down the interstate to work at 80 mph while following the person ahead of you at three feet behind just isn't going to work (do all cars have the same stopping distance? are all cars maintained to that presumed same difference.
And in the Utopian autonomous car vision, the cars know what each other are doing, so they become a huge part of the Internet of Things.
And sitting at the ready behind the wheel, always alert, always ready to take over, is completely ridonkulous. Is MADD going to start agitating for criminalization of people with slightly slower reflexes?
What I am seeing is a whole lot of different technology that will make driving safer, all allowing the driver to be safer, while not requiring that the driver pre-plan, or be so bored they fall asleep waiting for that one moment they might need to take over.
Anything we eat should be tested, especially new food sources never touched by the hand of man. Never contaminated by any other than the natural gene pool the plant was born with.
Which of course leads us back to the topic at hand, that when the piece of evidence that has been cited so often by the Anti-GMO people is shown to be fabricated, to be fraudulent, Are you going to accept that as legitimate? Do you believe that in pursuit of what you believe, that the outcome justifies fraud?
I don't know if you looked at the investigation work, but it is damning. Pretty amateurish as well. Anti-GMO advocates might try the conspiracy defense. 8^)
You might be amused to know I eat almost all organic. I think it tastes better. I'd not be upset if I had an ear of Roundup Ready corn though. My family and I were foodies long before it was fashionable. Do my own charcuterie, sausage and bacon from properly raised - you know, no antibiotics, field roaming - animals and can my fresh organic veggies. You haven't lived until you've tasted my Hungarian sausage, or if vegan, my assortment of picked and canned in a morning veggies and pickled stuff as well. I can afford it, much of the rest of the world cannot. For good or evil we're on an experiment to determine the loading capacity of the planet. So its GMO or 6 feet below for most of the world.
I'm neither pro nor anti-GMO. I am interested in truth, not wishful thinking. But I cannot abide fraud.
When almost all the actual evidence points one way, and another side uses unsourced claims that can be found to be false, and uses personal attacks on climate scientists and institutions for the rest, I think it fair to call that side denialists. There are also skeptics, who can actually be convinced by the evidence. They aren't denialists.
And how. I hear how "Michael Mann is an asshole, therefore there is no such thing as global warming" BS all the time. First off, his personality is not the determinant true or false of the laws of physics, and second, he actually isn't an asshole. He fights back.
Being skeptical is a true positive trait. But the intellectual dishonesty of people who call themselves "Global warming skeptics" is not even wrong. As pointed out in the thread, one replied to my query for some true evidence, gave a link and strut around like a little cock-a-hoop showing the tool that I am as wrong.
And all it took was about 45 minutes to go through the completely unattributed graph to find out who made it, look up his information and publications, and find out that the graph that supposedly proved AGW as bullshit not only did no such thing, all it did was cast possible doubt on the model used by scientists , and then some time later was found that the measurements were in error, not the model.
And duly noted as such by the author of their so called incrminiating evidence against AGW.
But there they are using flawed and outdated data , brandishing it as a bludgeon against the forces of evil as they blindly see it.
No skeptics these, merely useful tools for those who have a pecuniary interest in the continued use of the largest greenhouse gase emitters.
The times have changed - the internet is a fine research tool to fact check. And a skeptic fact checks, not blindly accepts data that agrees with how he wants physics to operate.
the guys being laid from the oil/gas companies are going to have a hard time pulling the same maneuver.
We did the gas exploration/drilling thing recently where I live. The locals who were promised these good jobs were hired as independent contractors and terminated as soon as the wells came on line.
the states that run on an oil dependent economy are also going to have trouble pulling it off as they watch their budgets crater.
Oklahoma is projecting a 900 million hole this year. this after last years much smaller price drops caused a 600 million hole that they -barely- handled by cutting tons of services (couldn't cancel the oddly coincidental 600+ odd million in poorly timed tax cuts after all). this year, they wont be likely to be able to skate by again; they're already talking laying off loads teachers....in the worst and most underpaid state education system in the country.
There are some - including myself - who believe that a state has to avoid relying on volatile resources such as petrochemicals as the basis of their economy. The money is nice when it happens, but all it takes is a look at oil prices over the long term to see that they tend towards feast or famine. Building an economy on that is foolish.
As well, Oklahoma's politicians do not help matters. It's getting difficult to do their job - blame liberals - when there aren't any left. The easy days of pumping a valuable resource out of the ground and patting yourself on the back for being brilliant are over.
so ya. enjoy your cheap gas.
I'm enjoying the ability to bank the money I'm not spending. I've not changed my driving habits, nor my penchant for driving vehicles that get good gas mileage. I sure as hell don't have any sympathy for the folks who are buying their 60 K 10 mile per gallon pickup trucks during this temporary downturn.
I'm just waiting for an all electric Jeep.
(yes, im a green enviro whacko who wants to see a prius or better in every garage, but I also know the consequences of cratering oil prices.
Then you should understand that the times are a changing. Reading your post, it appears you do, but you have to take that last step. It isn't a good time to be working in coal either. Petrochemicals are going to contract into a niche market eventually, where their portable high energy density can't be easily served by other means - Think airplanes for instance.
There will be disruptions - it is up to us to be proactive.
the sharper the disruption to the status quo, the shaper the economic shock to states that depend on oil, coal, etc, and most of them aren't prepared to shift en masse to the newer technologies. imo they should be, and should be investing in them heavily cause they should be able to see it coming...but these states are completely averse to state spending on pretty much anything, so they refuse to do it)
Oh yeah, and no doubt. But they will have to, unless they want to become the new rust belt. Those wealthy people who are enjoying Oklahoma's tax breaks - they'll just leave for another place, and Oklahoma will be left with the mess to clean up.
And that's the pity of it all. In my neck of the woods, wind power is very viable. So along the Allegheny Front, turbines are going up like humongous flowers. All the while being poopooed by the traditionalists. Meanwhile, we're just doing it.
There are incredible opportunities for big bucks in energy production at this moment. It's just moving away from where it was. Petrochemical is sputtering like a car running out of gas.
At least my outlook is Petroleum reserves will be drawn down, Natural Gas has life left in it after the big expansion. Marcellus has a lot left, then deeper, there is the Utica Shale. That should be interesting, as Utica Shale underlies more populated areas.
I understand for science to be valid a prediction has to match observation otherwise its not science, end of story. What you are practicing is called religion, faith in something that can't be proven.
Sorry Coward, but it's obvious you didn't read any of what was posted. The observations were wrong. The observer said as much in the end.
The new creationism? One side expects everyone to make personal sacrifices in order to ensure our eternal salvation. We are told to trust and obey the people that interpret the truth and relay it to us in terms the flock can understand. We are forced to tithe to support the interpreters by their enforcers. If we start to stray from official doctrine, we are branded heretics and face exclusion from polite society.
The other side questions authority, remains skeptical, and as a result is branded as being in denial of the true word of the new gods. Open your eyes.
Go read my demolishment of one denialists Research proof. If you are going to be skeptical, you have to be skeptical of yourself as well. His proof - which was a reportage on an anomaly, which teh so called skeptics merely took as refutation of AGW, and didn't question a thing (that's faith in your book as well) later noted that the Tropospher was warming and teh discrepencies were solved.
Old debunked data that is proven wrong some how becomes Fact for denialists, who give the name skeptic a black eye.
But hey, prove me wrong, and give me more of this research that proves AGW as wrong.
Pretty good this year, although rates are down a little, but better than last year.. I have a fair amount more a month more to invest in the first place, which in itself is pretty good. Why some people are hell bent on giving a petroleum company their hard earned money is beyond me.
But it's been proven time and time again that my outlook is considered weird by most people here.
Denialist research Yep, IPCC predictions are old enough you can compare ACTUAL weather data with their predictions, but I see you claim that can't be done. No character assassination, I leave that up to you, I've only presented factual data.
Time for you to say the link is an invalid source instead of debating the data shown. So in other words that would be you refusing to acknowledge actual measurements in order to keep your denial of how science works - hypothesis -> test -> observe results. Its not science if you ignore the observed results part like you appear to be doing.
I'll give you teh tl;dr version first, because I typed as I was doing the research. But you might like to see what I did.
Sorry, Coward - you are wrong follows is my background research on your statement.
Where's the data that the graph came from? That is not a report, it has zero citations. Of what use is work that the only reference is townhall.com?
Where are the cites? I'll grab some info myself, but a chart that I have to fish out the details leads me to this stuff:
Professor and Director, Atmospheric Science Department, University of Alabama at Huntsville
Alabama State Climatologist. Lead Author, 2001 IPCC TAR.
While he now acknowledges that global warming is real and the human contribution is significant, Christy has been a long-time skeptic who previously argued that satellite climate data do not show a trend toward global warming, and even show cooling in some areas. His findings have been widely disputed. Christy now asserts that global warming will have beneficial effects on the planet and that increased CO2 emissions from human activities are a net positive.
some of his key events
17 May, 2000
Testified before Sen. John McCain and the Senate Commerce Committee that there wasn't sufficient evidence of global warming to warrant taking action to reduce emissions.
Source: Transcript, John Christy's testimony before Senate Commerce Committee 5/17/00
8 March, 2007
Appeared in documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
Source: The Great Global Warming Swindle (Documentary)
28 July, 2003
Co-author of Indpendent Institute report "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn't Telling Us" criticizing the EPA's 2001 Climate Action Report.
Source: Independent Institute report 2003
2 May, 2007
Appeared in Glenn Beck May 2, 2007 special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear"
Source: CNN, Glenn Beck special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear," May 2, 2007
Christy was a contributing writer to "Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths," published by Competitive Enterprise Institute in 2002. He spoke at a June 1998 briefing for congressional staff and media, which was sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition.
Okay "Climate of fear, eco myths, what the EPA isn't telling us" right away is a little disturbing. I'm surprised he hasn't written an article named All my Scientific enimies are fucking assholes". Those are terribly disrepectful and rude titles.
Christy short CV PhD University of Illinois, 1987, Atmospheric Science M.S. University of Illinois, 1984, Atmospheric Science M.Div. Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1978 B.A. California State University, Fresno, 1973, Mathematics
This might be an article that was involved - it was publiched in 2010
Christy has done a lot of work with politically based organizations like the Cato Institute.
But a bit of what I could get gives me a few questions. What I could get after separating the science from the politics was that according to the measurements, the issue at hand was that
What? So if my business is, say, making people unable to turn their TVs on, the people in the TV industry should just "adapt" to people being unable to use their product?
Very odd that you are illustrating the exact thing that is happening now to the cable/television industry. You don't have any choice there, and you are treated to a mix of advertisements and programming that is at the 50 percent ad level, and in some cases more advertisement than programming. And such ads they are!
Ads for catheters for men who can't pee, ads for diapers for women who can't stop peeing, ads for lawsuits against stents, pradaxa, some medicine that gives your son big boobs (I shit you not) speaking of that, there are more ads for stuff to make you shit than there is actual shit I think. Ads for calling lawyers to make certain you aren't left out of the joful process of suing somaone anyone, ads for medicine a through Z, each telling you it might kill you or turn you into a murder or commit suicide. Botox treatments for leaky bladders - but don't take it if you aren't willing to catheterize yourself. MESOTHELIOMA!!!!! Half hour long ads for losing weight, or miracle creams that make you look 30 years younger.
At least that was where they were when I cut my television viewing way back. My wife wants to just dump it altogether.
Adblock plus is literally in the process of destroying the business of online advertising.
Not exactly. Adblock is actually a complaint - a gift if you will. The business of online advertising is serving up a very bad product, and it costs the consumers money and time, and in many cases serves th ecomplete opposite function - it causes people to be angry at the people who are trying to get them to buy something.
Whether or not this is a good or bad thing is beside the point; why would a group of advertisers want to have anything to do with them?
Because as an advertiser, they have to realize that they are guests in people's homes! And as such, they should strive to be polite guests, not barge in, demand you pay attention, shit all over the floors, and stay long past their welcome. I am not required to allow this behavior.
A complaint is a gift. And by blocking ads, we are telling the industry we don't like what they are doing. A very undeniable complaint. They dug this hole they are in, and forcing people who watch their shit and accept their malware is not the way to get out of it.
I don't know if you've been to many conferences, but the best ones are where they invite speakers who tell the folks truths they don't want to hear. And they also tend to have the most productive results afterwards even if they piss people off.
Of course not. Now, do understand the inconvenience and annoyance of ads as they are now and have been hasn't reached the level that such behavior of a car is at. The bigger problem is that it won't just be one make or model or browser, all major offerings will adopt this type of practice in a collusion-wrapped way if it serves their interest financially. Such a change may bring additional revenue or reduce legal expenses. Either way, it is money.
The basic user can vote with their presence. Given that ad blocking is now an actual threat to the malware providing networks, because even grandma is using it, trying to make everyone go back to dialup speeds is a pretty dangerous act to pull off for your bottom line. And yes, dialup speeds is what it feels like when I turn off Adblock plus and noscript
Ask Comcast how the "Fuck you, you'll watch what we tell you, and you'll like it." is working. Right now, the majority of my video entertainment is done via computer, and the millenials dont' bother with cable en masse. If the industry says I have to spend my time watching ads for things I'll never buy, I'll find another way to spend my time.
You can't just decide that whatever you do, people are going to put up with it.
Well, good thing gas is cheaper than it's been in a long time! That outta spur people into sustainable vehicles and energy usage.
If they are at all smart they will. Rather than buy a 10 mile per gallon vehicle, I just put the money I've saved on gas into my investments. These lower proces are not only saving me money - I'm profiting from them.
Slashdot Mirror
This is one of the reasons why, regardless of the expense, I charter every time it is feasible. Why yes, yes I have had very high powered firearms on an airplane. In fact, I've been in the midst of a whole bunch of us who had high powered firearms in an airplane - and we didn't even have to land in the plane.
Chartering is definitely the way to go. Less stress, show up, load up, and go
They might even let me fly the plane.
Yup, I did that once. Actually it was kind of funny, the pilot knew I was an aviation slut, and had me go through the preflight with him. Then he took off, and at 50 feet said "Here ya go!" The surprise had me white knuckling it for a minute, but then I settled down and had a freaking blast. He sat back and gave me info on trimming the tab and other helpful stuff, then chatted with me the whole way, and only took over again about 300 feet above the landing runway. Basically an inflight lesson for me.
However, I think you might be projecting a bit with that "gun kooks" thing. There are some gun nuts, granted, but they're a very, very tiny majority.
Pre sensitization might be the issue. I've had the occasion to be dealing with a number of them, and had some very unpleasant and public experiences with them. As a firearms owner and user myself, I have zero patience any more for people who would assault me - a presumed friend - because I think that the gun show loophole should be closed.
And even *I* support reasonable regulation. Though we'd probably argue what is reasonable. I can assure you, I do not donate a nickel to the NRA and I do not like them one bit. I do donate to the local and national ACLU however.
For myself, reasonable consists of a few things, like eliminating the gun show loophole. Registering a gun should be considered the same thing as registering a car. People with psych issues should have temporary injunctions against firearm ownership. Convicted felons should have a 5 year injunction, then with a clean record since release, be allowed to legally own firearms again.
That's the "rights" part. Now the responsibilities:
People who let their firearms sit around the house, and one of their children gut shoots a sibling and kills them should be prosecuted for murder. The dude who bought the guns for those assholes in California recently should be responsible for all the murders they committed.
There. I don't think that's terribly restrictive. Felons and people who might be likely to reorganize their towns with a firearm won't have them legally, and one of their favorite routes to get their illegal pieces will be gone. If people want so called assault rifles, they can have one, hell, I don't care if people have fully automatic weapons. I'd fancy building a .22 caliber Gatling gun myself. Now that would be a conversation starter.
Do you remember when the NRA was a hunter's organization?
And no, what I think is reasonable isn't going to stop all gun violence. But I'm not letting perfect be the enemy of good.
Do they still make 10 mile per gallon cars? Are you in America or something?
The rest of us are up to 80 mpg.
And yet, desipte your "all 'murrican iz the evilz" attitude, in 2016, the worst gas milage cars come from Italy, a Lambo and a ferrari at 12 mpg - probably 10 in real life.
In fact, none of them are made in America - All the worst gas milage cars except the Infinti's are made in ........
Get ready for it.........
your 80 miles per gallon, environmentally superior......
Here's the link. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg... Trucks not surprisingly either, won't be getting as good as predicted, but once again, despite Europe having the edge in all things compared to their dull unsophisticated American brethren, the worst truck gas milage for 2016 are two offerings from Mercedes Benz. Where are they located?
Go figure, huh?
Pardon my sarcasm, but you deserve it.
Actually, Air Marshalls carry the .357 SIG, a round that was chosen for its higher penetration than more standard 9mm or .40 SW rounds.
That's true. the birdshot type rounds were used in the 70's and 80's. Regardless, these are supposed to use hollow point rounds to expand upon penetrating the perp.
The reason a round with better penetration was desired is that it is likely they will have to shoot through a seat and the fact that, despite what Hollywood says, shooting a window on a passenger jet will not explosively decompress the plane and cause people to get sucked out like they are in outer space.
Of course not. But putting a hole in a plane is not just something where they say - "yup a hole in the plane, tthis is good". As well, there are other things in the body of a plane that might not be happy if taken out of commission. they are not mere canisters with nothing else around them. http://www.meriweather.com/fli...
And perhaps this is why the highly trained US Air Marshals have to date have only taken out one person - at least according to my research. You might dispatch a terst, but will probably have collateral deaths as well.
Did I miss the protests where gun rights folks have been demanding that they be allowed to take guns on planes?
You apparenlty missed all the posts in here that have people yapping about how a simple check-in for their pieces is depriving them of their rights. This didn't turn into a gun rights issue because people were for it.
New York City... safest in the country... you're so funny.
Do you even hear the nonsense coming out of your mouth?
New York City was the only American city to crack the world Safe cities index compiled by the Economist. http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/29/... It comes in at number 10, and as no American cities were ranked any higher, his statement is not necessarily nonsense.
Remember, Law and Order and Law and Order Special Victims Unit are fiction, not the news. I admit it doesn't sound truthy, but hey, I've walked around New York City without fear. Then again, I'm not a fearful person.
All the cars will eventually be networked and will, in fact, talk to each other and human drivers will not merely be obsolete but illegal. Eventually 100-120mph down the highway will be the standard cruising speed.
There's a word for that. A train.
The concept of taking an inherently singular activity, and turning it into something that already exists, only with less efficiency, and a metric fuckton more unreliable infrastructure, is perhaps not the ultimate in stupidity, but near enough to be indistinguishable from it.
FYI, air marshals are not on every flight.
Correct, but not my point. You don't want to be busting up airplanes with a .45.
Not that I advocate off body carry, but the mistake is understandable in that example. In a rush, something goes wrong, has to grab a different bag. Forgets in his rush to remove the firearm. It happens, it does not make one irresponsible, maybe a bit too complacent, but not necessarily irresponsible. And it takes a felony conviction to lose the right to buy/possess.
It certainly the fuck damn well does make one irresponsible. Guns are designed to launch projectiles that are designed to kill people, and one should never ever not know exactly where their's are. I know where every one of my pieces are, and there hasn't been a day I haven't.
There's a lot of responsibility to owning one, and not having an idea where it is, is right up their with the unloaded guns kill the most people irresponsibility.
So when they tell a TSA agent that they forgot they had it, they're probably being honest.
One should never ever forget that they are carrying a device whose purpose is to kill people.
Gun ownership is a right. It's also a responsibility. Forgetting that you are carrying is a very bad sign.
You have ALL rights unless a specific limitation is put in place in the constitution granting the government dominion over a particular activity. Do not fall into the trap of saying that if it isn't in the Bill of RIghts, it's not a right.
And taking hull piercing devices into the hull of an easily pierceable thing like a passenger plane is not something that should ever be considered a right.
Gun kooks have become so unhinged that a mere check-in process is considered violating their "rights".
Ever see the firearm check-in process for a flight? Remarkably painless and at least the last time I watched, a lot quicker than my SOP, which was travelling heavy with a lot of equipment.
Actually, the top 5 cities for violent crime are all cities lack gun control (4 of which are legally banned, by state law, from enacting gun control). and cities like New York, with its strict gun control, is actually ranked one of the safest cities in the country.
Damn. So much for your BS.
Not to mention, have the gun nuts become so irrational that a simple check-in process for your firearm become a "They're takin' r Gunz away!!" moment?
You check the gun in, and you get it back when you land. I've watched the process, it's simple, and easy.
I know the typical ammosexual has erotic fantasies of saving a planefull of people by pumping some slugs into a bunch of tersts and saving the day, but really, we don't want to be firing off weapons inside a thin hulled pressurized cabin at 35,000 feet.
Air Marshalls even have special rounds that are designed to not penetrate the walls of the cabin and depressurize the plane. Let them do their job.
I suspect in the end, autonomy is going to look a little different than the predicticationaies are predicticating.
Some of this stuff is tremendous technology. Lane assist, automatic parking, anti-tailgating radar collision avoidance. All tremendous stuff. rerouting information
But a fully autonomous car? Probably not. The killer? Maybe not what you think.
I'm trying to imagine everyone planning out their route every day. It reminds me of the programmable thermostats. I tried them, but my schedule isn't the same from day to day, so I found myself just setting it on manual, and dialing in the temp I wanted when I got home.
"Let's go look at the Christmas lights honey."
"Okay, give me a half hour to plan a route" "Oh - look at the lights on that street - Let's go there." "Now I gotta re-program? Let's save that for a different evening, dear".
Almost none of the present day autonomous car utopia scenarios are very practical. The concept of you kickin' back and reading the paper while your car drives down the interstate to work at 80 mph while following the person ahead of you at three feet behind just isn't going to work (do all cars have the same stopping distance? are all cars maintained to that presumed same difference.
And in the Utopian autonomous car vision, the cars know what each other are doing, so they become a huge part of the Internet of Things. And sitting at the ready behind the wheel, always alert, always ready to take over, is completely ridonkulous. Is MADD going to start agitating for criminalization of people with slightly slower reflexes?
What I am seeing is a whole lot of different technology that will make driving safer, all allowing the driver to be safer, while not requiring that the driver pre-plan, or be so bored they fall asleep waiting for that one moment they might need to take over.
What I want evidence of is how all GMO can be blanket assumed to be safe
That isn't remotely possible. For the same reason that genetic manipulation the old fashioned way cannot be blanket assumed to be safe
Witness the Lenape Potato http://boingboing.net/2013/03/...
Anything we eat should be tested, especially new food sources never touched by the hand of man. Never contaminated by any other than the natural gene pool the plant was born with.
Which of course leads us back to the topic at hand, that when the piece of evidence that has been cited so often by the Anti-GMO people is shown to be fabricated, to be fraudulent, Are you going to accept that as legitimate? Do you believe that in pursuit of what you believe, that the outcome justifies fraud?
I don't know if you looked at the investigation work, but it is damning. Pretty amateurish as well. Anti-GMO advocates might try the conspiracy defense. 8^)
You might be amused to know I eat almost all organic. I think it tastes better. I'd not be upset if I had an ear of Roundup Ready corn though. My family and I were foodies long before it was fashionable. Do my own charcuterie, sausage and bacon from properly raised - you know, no antibiotics, field roaming - animals and can my fresh organic veggies. You haven't lived until you've tasted my Hungarian sausage, or if vegan, my assortment of picked and canned in a morning veggies and pickled stuff as well. I can afford it, much of the rest of the world cannot. For good or evil we're on an experiment to determine the loading capacity of the planet. So its GMO or 6 feet below for most of the world.
I'm neither pro nor anti-GMO. I am interested in truth, not wishful thinking. But I cannot abide fraud.
I like how we didn't get two posts into this thread without the Alarmist throwing out the "denier" term......
The other terms for denialists are not terribly polite.
Are the laws of physics alarming for you?
Awaiting your proof it isn't real.
When almost all the actual evidence points one way, and another side uses unsourced claims that can be found to be false, and uses personal attacks on climate scientists and institutions for the rest, I think it fair to call that side denialists. There are also skeptics, who can actually be convinced by the evidence. They aren't denialists.
And how. I hear how "Michael Mann is an asshole, therefore there is no such thing as global warming" BS all the time. First off, his personality is not the determinant true or false of the laws of physics, and second, he actually isn't an asshole. He fights back.
Being skeptical is a true positive trait. But the intellectual dishonesty of people who call themselves "Global warming skeptics" is not even wrong. As pointed out in the thread, one replied to my query for some true evidence, gave a link and strut around like a little cock-a-hoop showing the tool that I am as wrong.
And all it took was about 45 minutes to go through the completely unattributed graph to find out who made it, look up his information and publications, and find out that the graph that supposedly proved AGW as bullshit not only did no such thing, all it did was cast possible doubt on the model used by scientists , and then some time later was found that the measurements were in error, not the model.
And duly noted as such by the author of their so called incrminiating evidence against AGW.
But there they are using flawed and outdated data , brandishing it as a bludgeon against the forces of evil as they blindly see it.
No skeptics these, merely useful tools for those who have a pecuniary interest in the continued use of the largest greenhouse gase emitters.
The times have changed - the internet is a fine research tool to fact check. And a skeptic fact checks, not blindly accepts data that agrees with how he wants physics to operate.
the guys being laid from the oil/gas companies are going to have a hard time pulling the same maneuver.
We did the gas exploration/drilling thing recently where I live. The locals who were promised these good jobs were hired as independent contractors and terminated as soon as the wells came on line.
the states that run on an oil dependent economy are also going to have trouble pulling it off as they watch their budgets crater.
Oklahoma is projecting a 900 million hole this year. this after last years much smaller price drops caused a 600 million hole that they -barely- handled by cutting tons of services (couldn't cancel the oddly coincidental 600+ odd million in poorly timed tax cuts after all). this year, they wont be likely to be able to skate by again; they're already talking laying off loads teachers....in the worst and most underpaid state education system in the country.
There are some - including myself - who believe that a state has to avoid relying on volatile resources such as petrochemicals as the basis of their economy. The money is nice when it happens, but all it takes is a look at oil prices over the long term to see that they tend towards feast or famine. Building an economy on that is foolish.
As well, Oklahoma's politicians do not help matters. It's getting difficult to do their job - blame liberals - when there aren't any left. The easy days of pumping a valuable resource out of the ground and patting yourself on the back for being brilliant are over.
so ya. enjoy your cheap gas.
I'm enjoying the ability to bank the money I'm not spending. I've not changed my driving habits, nor my penchant for driving vehicles that get good gas mileage. I sure as hell don't have any sympathy for the folks who are buying their 60 K 10 mile per gallon pickup trucks during this temporary downturn.
I'm just waiting for an all electric Jeep.
(yes, im a green enviro whacko who wants to see a prius or better in every garage, but I also know the consequences of cratering oil prices.
Then you should understand that the times are a changing. Reading your post, it appears you do, but you have to take that last step. It isn't a good time to be working in coal either. Petrochemicals are going to contract into a niche market eventually, where their portable high energy density can't be easily served by other means - Think airplanes for instance.
There will be disruptions - it is up to us to be proactive.
the sharper the disruption to the status quo, the shaper the economic shock to states that depend on oil, coal, etc, and most of them aren't prepared to shift en masse to the newer technologies. imo they should be, and should be investing in them heavily cause they should be able to see it coming...but these states are completely averse to state spending on pretty much anything, so they refuse to do it)
Oh yeah, and no doubt. But they will have to, unless they want to become the new rust belt. Those wealthy people who are enjoying Oklahoma's tax breaks - they'll just leave for another place, and Oklahoma will be left with the mess to clean up.
And that's the pity of it all. In my neck of the woods, wind power is very viable. So along the Allegheny Front, turbines are going up like humongous flowers. All the while being poopooed by the traditionalists. Meanwhile, we're just doing it.
There are incredible opportunities for big bucks in energy production at this moment. It's just moving away from where it was. Petrochemical is sputtering like a car running out of gas.
At least my outlook is Petroleum reserves will be drawn down, Natural Gas has life left in it after the big expansion. Marcellus has a lot left, then deeper, there is the Utica Shale. That should be interesting, as Utica Shale underlies more populated areas.
Sorry American, your to Stupid to know; just ask the princess.
Sorry American, you're to Stupid to know; just ask the princess. (Damn spell checkers. An American product?)
Congratulations, LifesABeach - you've got more than one mistake in there, and still missing one of them.
Thank you kindly for the laugh.
I understand for science to be valid a prediction has to match observation otherwise its not science, end of story. What you are practicing is called religion, faith in something that can't be proven.
Sorry Coward, but it's obvious you didn't read any of what was posted. The observations were wrong. The observer said as much in the end.
The new creationism? One side expects everyone to make personal sacrifices in order to ensure our eternal salvation. We are told to trust and obey the people that interpret the truth and relay it to us in terms the flock can understand. We are forced to tithe to support the interpreters by their enforcers. If we start to stray from official doctrine, we are branded heretics and face exclusion from polite society.
The other side questions authority, remains skeptical, and as a result is branded as being in denial of the true word of the new gods. Open your eyes.
Go read my demolishment of one denialists Research proof. If you are going to be skeptical, you have to be skeptical of yourself as well. His proof - which was a reportage on an anomaly, which teh so called skeptics merely took as refutation of AGW, and didn't question a thing (that's faith in your book as well) later noted that the Tropospher was warming and teh discrepencies were solved.
Old debunked data that is proven wrong some how becomes Fact for denialists, who give the name skeptic a black eye.
But hey, prove me wrong, and give me more of this research that proves AGW as wrong.
I triple dog dare ya!
How have your investments being doing lately?
Pretty good this year, although rates are down a little, but better than last year.. I have a fair amount more a month more to invest in the first place, which in itself is pretty good. Why some people are hell bent on giving a petroleum company their hard earned money is beyond me.
But it's been proven time and time again that my outlook is considered weird by most people here.
Denialist research Yep, IPCC predictions are old enough you can compare ACTUAL weather data with their predictions, but I see you claim that can't be done. No character assassination, I leave that up to you, I've only presented factual data.
Time for you to say the link is an invalid source instead of debating the data shown. So in other words that would be you refusing to acknowledge actual measurements in order to keep your denial of how science works - hypothesis -> test -> observe results. Its not science if you ignore the observed results part like you appear to be doing.
I'll give you teh tl;dr version first, because I typed as I was doing the research. But you might like to see what I did.
Sorry, Coward - you are wrong follows is my background research on your statement.
Where's the data that the graph came from? That is not a report, it has zero citations. Of what use is work that the only reference is townhall.com?
Where are the cites? I'll grab some info myself, but a chart that I have to fish out the details leads me to this stuff:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss...
Professor and Director, Atmospheric Science Department, University of Alabama at Huntsville Alabama State Climatologist. Lead Author, 2001 IPCC TAR.
While he now acknowledges that global warming is real and the human contribution is significant, Christy has been a long-time skeptic who previously argued that satellite climate data do not show a trend toward global warming, and even show cooling in some areas. His findings have been widely disputed. Christy now asserts that global warming will have beneficial effects on the planet and that increased CO2 emissions from human activities are a net positive. some of his key events
17 May, 2000 Testified before Sen. John McCain and the Senate Commerce Committee that there wasn't sufficient evidence of global warming to warrant taking action to reduce emissions.
Source: Transcript, John Christy's testimony before Senate Commerce Committee 5/17/00
8 March, 2007
Appeared in documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
Source: The Great Global Warming Swindle (Documentary)
28 July, 2003
Co-author of Indpendent Institute report "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn't Telling Us" criticizing the EPA's 2001 Climate Action Report.
Source: Independent Institute report 2003
2 May, 2007
Appeared in Glenn Beck May 2, 2007 special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear"
Source: CNN, Glenn Beck special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear," May 2, 2007
Christy was a contributing writer to "Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths," published by Competitive Enterprise Institute in 2002. He spoke at a June 1998 briefing for congressional staff and media, which was sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition.
Okay "Climate of fear, eco myths, what the EPA isn't telling us" right away is a little disturbing. I'm surprised he hasn't written an article named All my Scientific enimies are fucking assholes". Those are terribly disrepectful and rude titles.
Christy short CV PhD University of Illinois, 1987, Atmospheric Science M.S. University of Illinois, 1984, Atmospheric Science M.Div. Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1978 B.A. California State University, Fresno, 1973, Mathematics
This might be an article that was involved - it was publiched in 2010
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/...
Christy has done a lot of work with politically based organizations like the Cato Institute.
But a bit of what I could get gives me a few questions. What I could get after separating the science from the politics was that according to the measurements, the issue at hand was that
What? So if my business is, say, making people unable to turn their TVs on, the people in the TV industry should just "adapt" to people being unable to use their product?
Very odd that you are illustrating the exact thing that is happening now to the cable/television industry. You don't have any choice there, and you are treated to a mix of advertisements and programming that is at the 50 percent ad level, and in some cases more advertisement than programming. And such ads they are!
Ads for catheters for men who can't pee, ads for diapers for women who can't stop peeing, ads for lawsuits against stents, pradaxa, some medicine that gives your son big boobs (I shit you not) speaking of that, there are more ads for stuff to make you shit than there is actual shit I think. Ads for calling lawyers to make certain you aren't left out of the joful process of suing somaone anyone, ads for medicine a through Z, each telling you it might kill you or turn you into a murder or commit suicide. Botox treatments for leaky bladders - but don't take it if you aren't willing to catheterize yourself. MESOTHELIOMA!!!!! Half hour long ads for losing weight, or miracle creams that make you look 30 years younger.
At least that was where they were when I cut my television viewing way back. My wife wants to just dump it altogether.
Adblock plus is literally in the process of destroying the business of online advertising.
Not exactly. Adblock is actually a complaint - a gift if you will. The business of online advertising is serving up a very bad product, and it costs the consumers money and time, and in many cases serves th ecomplete opposite function - it causes people to be angry at the people who are trying to get them to buy something.
Whether or not this is a good or bad thing is beside the point; why would a group of advertisers want to have anything to do with them?
Because as an advertiser, they have to realize that they are guests in people's homes! And as such, they should strive to be polite guests, not barge in, demand you pay attention, shit all over the floors, and stay long past their welcome. I am not required to allow this behavior.
A complaint is a gift. And by blocking ads, we are telling the industry we don't like what they are doing. A very undeniable complaint. They dug this hole they are in, and forcing people who watch their shit and accept their malware is not the way to get out of it.
I don't know if you've been to many conferences, but the best ones are where they invite speakers who tell the folks truths they don't want to hear. And they also tend to have the most productive results afterwards even if they piss people off.
Would you buy a car that slammed on the brakes
Of course not. Now, do understand the inconvenience and annoyance of ads as they are now and have been hasn't reached the level that such behavior of a car is at. The bigger problem is that it won't just be one make or model or browser, all major offerings will adopt this type of practice in a collusion-wrapped way if it serves their interest financially. Such a change may bring additional revenue or reduce legal expenses. Either way, it is money.
The basic user can vote with their presence. Given that ad blocking is now an actual threat to the malware providing networks, because even grandma is using it, trying to make everyone go back to dialup speeds is a pretty dangerous act to pull off for your bottom line. And yes, dialup speeds is what it feels like when I turn off Adblock plus and noscript
Ask Comcast how the "Fuck you, you'll watch what we tell you, and you'll like it." is working. Right now, the majority of my video entertainment is done via computer, and the millenials dont' bother with cable en masse. If the industry says I have to spend my time watching ads for things I'll never buy, I'll find another way to spend my time.
You can't just decide that whatever you do, people are going to put up with it.
The only way to get rid of him is sudo rm -rf --no-preserve-root / and then pull out the hard disk and burn it on a pyre of sage and thermite.
Sage advice there. I just love the smell of thermite in the morning.
Well, good thing gas is cheaper than it's been in a long time! That outta spur people into sustainable vehicles and energy usage.
If they are at all smart they will. Rather than buy a 10 mile per gallon vehicle, I just put the money I've saved on gas into my investments. These lower proces are not only saving me money - I'm profiting from them.