So your choices are - regular ammunition, with longer range (allowing you the opportunity for better cover and more chance of surprise) and better penetration versus body armor and vehicle armor, versus subsonic ammo, which means you have to be pretty close, very precise (vs. body armor), and WELL within range of your enemies' weapons when they start returning fire.
For a single sniper, I would agree. But if you have one or two people with these types of rounds and other snipers in different positions, who knows. You could easily switch clips loaded w/ different types of ammo also.
Why not use people with normal high powered rifle ammo to shoot at a group as a decoy to get the targets to face in the direction that exposes their weak side to a sniper with subsonic ammo.
Subsonic rounds aren't silent, by any means, either. They're quieter, but I doubt that they'd be so quiet these detectors couldn't "hear" them.
Very true, however another poster indicated that fireworks and other loud sounds did not register as a false reading. Perhaps the detectors are tuned specifically for a sonic boom. In which case subsonic projectiles will not set it off. I have no idea, I'm just speculating. Still it's interesting.
Would they foil this? They're loud. But don't move at the speed of sound.
From TFA, "The sensors are each about the size of a deck of cards and can detect the supersonic sound waves generated by enemy gunfire."
So what happens if they use sub-sonic rounds? They are use by the military, typically special forces, as they are rather quite. I'm sure you can find plenty of info on the net about how to make them at home even.
The problem with that is that science in itself doesn't claim to have 'faith' in anything; Science is about maintaining the most current explanation of how and why the measurable world works. These theories are constantly self correcting (the newer ones will supplant the older ones after being independently tested and proven).
It's not our fault that a certain slice of the (non-scientific) public has a tough time accepting this; if they feel more comfortable believing in absolute explanations of the world regardless of the lack of evidence to support it, then it's no longer science, it's dogma.
Agreed, science itself does not. Unfortunately many people seem to treat science as a sort of pseudo-religion that is better than any other belief. I would guess that there are at least a dozen posts about how stupid Christians are because they all believe the earth is only 6K yeas old. This is just asinine. I don't know anyone that believes this, Christian or other wise. Frankly it's as foolish as a Christian criticizing science for Luminiferous Aether or geocentric theory of the solar system. These were theories that are now considered dis-proven, much like the 6K year old earth crap.
Personally I find it shameful the way radical religious fanatics and religion-bashing scientists/people behave toward each other in general. I was raised a Lutheran, though I don't associate myself with any particular denomination or religion these days. I still have my beliefs. Mainly that we should try to be decent to each other and try to be a "good" person. Basically we should aspire to be something better than we are. I don't see how this affects my understanding of science. I've yet to see anything that would convince me that there is no god. Nor have I experienced anything that would lead me to believe that any scientific discovery contradicts this or vise-versa. "God" could very well be some ancient alien, or group of aliens for all I know. But to act superior because you completely believe that there is no chance of the existence of god because you can't prove it is about as childish as it gets. That's akin to a tribe of people who lived on an island as far back as is known and believing there is nothing else in the world.
Okay, just so we're all in agreement, when no bad iPhone news happens next week, we're supposed to cycle back to the water sensors getting tripped. We haven't used that one in a while so it'll seem like a fresh complaint. Boy it'd make our jobs easier if the people who actually had the phones would just complain about something.
It was a joke. But I guess you haven't found an app that will give you a sense of humor.;-)
Polystyrene foams are very expensive to recycle and at least at the time of the McDonald's phase out were manufactured using CFCs, contributing to Ozone depletion.
A new process was implemented that didn't use CFC's for the manufacturing of the clam-shells prior to McDonalds discontinuing their use. However this still wasn't good enough for the Environmental Defense Fund. I know there was at least one company that used the clam shells to make park benches at profit until they were discontinued. So obviously someone found a way to make it economical.
Reading you're post, I'd say that you're not old enough to remember when styrofoam was in widespread use (or that you're a fucking idiot, or both.)
Yeah, you're so smart. I remember when they used paper originally before styrofoam. Because there were complaints that they were killing trees, they switched to the clam shells. Then that was no good, so it was back to paper, and everyone was happy. I say with you manners it's fortunate you stay in your mother basement.
No, this is still a major improvement. Less oil usage is good. Less food waste in landfills is good. Less dependency on foreign oil is good, at least for the US's economy.
Are you sure about that? How much more energy is it going to take to make these? If it's more, then where is that energy coming from? Are the raw materials heavier to transport than the current ones? What waste by-products are produced in doing this? What can be done with those by-products?
I don't know the answers to any of these questions. Before you make statements like you did, you may want to look into these, and many other questions first. The end result may be that they use even more petroleum products than the current containers. Or create toxic leftovers in the process.
Are you old enough to remember the styrofoam clam-shells McDonalds sandwiches were served in? Those were just "evil" according to environmentalists. Except they kept you food warmer and could be recycled into all kinds of things. But they were replaced by wax coated paper that could not be recycled. The environmentalists were happier with the paper that could go nowhere other than a landfill and the food is not only crappy, but gets cold even sooner.
Duh! What did you think happened to the planet between Mars and Jupiter? Too bad they miscalculated the energy needs of the main gun and then got stuck in Saturn's orbit, a long time ago... Lucas changed the location (supposedly to protect "the innocent"). But as you know, he's prone to doing things like that. Mostly the changing, not so much protecting.
Do you have FlashBlock extension? If so, then it is doing that.:(
I do, but FlashBlock doesn't keep you from playing Flash, it just makes you start it by clicking on it first. This is what happened at the link I gave as well, except the video played. The link in TFA just kept saying it was loading.
"Seagate claims to be shipping a 3TB flavor of its Barracuda XT, but we haven't been able to find one that's actually for sale."
You can find them here. You can also find an article at Anantech called,The World's First 3TB HDD: Seagate GoFlex Desk 3TB Review here. There's a description about how to open the case and use them as internal drive. The Seagate external version is also $20 cheaper than the internal Hitachi 3TB.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess Con Edison should have waited just a few more years. Apparently 125 was not quite enough.
"IBM has revealed that graphene can't fully replace silicon inside CPUs, as a graphene transistor can't actually be completely switched off."
Subsonic ammunition = lower velocity = shorter effective range.
So your choices are - regular ammunition, with longer range (allowing you the opportunity for better cover and more chance of surprise) and better penetration versus body armor and vehicle armor, versus subsonic ammo, which means you have to be pretty close, very precise (vs. body armor), and WELL within range of your enemies' weapons when they start returning fire.
For a single sniper, I would agree. But if you have one or two people with these types of rounds and other snipers in different positions, who knows. You could easily switch clips loaded w/ different types of ammo also.
Why not use people with normal high powered rifle ammo to shoot at a group as a decoy to get the targets to face in the direction that exposes their weak side to a sniper with subsonic ammo.
Subsonic rounds aren't silent, by any means, either. They're quieter, but I doubt that they'd be so quiet these detectors couldn't "hear" them.
Very true, however another poster indicated that fireworks and other loud sounds did not register as a false reading. Perhaps the detectors are tuned specifically for a sonic boom. In which case subsonic projectiles will not set it off. I have no idea, I'm just speculating. Still it's interesting.
Would they foil this? They're loud. But don't move at the speed of sound.
From TFA, "The sensors are each about the size of a deck of cards and can detect the supersonic sound waves generated by enemy gunfire."
So what happens if they use sub-sonic rounds? They are use by the military, typically special forces, as they are rather quite. I'm sure you can find plenty of info on the net about how to make them at home even.
The problem with that is that science in itself doesn't claim to have 'faith' in anything; Science is about maintaining the most current explanation of how and why the measurable world works. These theories are constantly self correcting (the newer ones will supplant the older ones after being independently tested and proven).
It's not our fault that a certain slice of the (non-scientific) public has a tough time accepting this; if they feel more comfortable believing in absolute explanations of the world regardless of the lack of evidence to support it, then it's no longer science, it's dogma.
Agreed, science itself does not. Unfortunately many people seem to treat science as a sort of pseudo-religion that is better than any other belief. I would guess that there are at least a dozen posts about how stupid Christians are because they all believe the earth is only 6K yeas old. This is just asinine. I don't know anyone that believes this, Christian or other wise. Frankly it's as foolish as a Christian criticizing science for Luminiferous Aether or geocentric theory of the solar system. These were theories that are now considered dis-proven, much like the 6K year old earth crap.
Personally I find it shameful the way radical religious fanatics and religion-bashing scientists/people behave toward each other in general. I was raised a Lutheran, though I don't associate myself with any particular denomination or religion these days. I still have my beliefs. Mainly that we should try to be decent to each other and try to be a "good" person. Basically we should aspire to be something better than we are. I don't see how this affects my understanding of science. I've yet to see anything that would convince me that there is no god. Nor have I experienced anything that would lead me to believe that any scientific discovery contradicts this or vise-versa. "God" could very well be some ancient alien, or group of aliens for all I know. But to act superior because you completely believe that there is no chance of the existence of god because you can't prove it is about as childish as it gets. That's akin to a tribe of people who lived on an island as far back as is known and believing there is nothing else in the world.
I wasn't blaming you, I was saying the tone of your post was altered by a dippy with a mod point.
Actually that was meant as a joke as well, but I got an 'Overrated" as well. So I guess it all balances out in the end.
Your sig. is hilarious btw.
It was a joke. But I guess you haven't found an app that will give you a sense of humor. ;-)
Sorry, the 'Insightful' mod broke your punchline.
I'll try to leave that out next time.
Okay, just so we're all in agreement, when no bad iPhone news happens next week, we're supposed to cycle back to the water sensors getting tripped. We haven't used that one in a while so it'll seem like a fresh complaint. Boy it'd make our jobs easier if the people who actually had the phones would just complain about something.
It was a joke. But I guess you haven't found an app that will give you a sense of humor. ;-)
Maybe they weren't holding the iPhone correctly.
Wow, that beats everything on this list, except for scorpion venom ($38,858,507.46/gal.).
When the hell is someone worth a fuck going to make a Ringworld movie?
Agreed. That would be awesome if done right, However I suspect it has a better chance of being tragically bad.
There's so much great SF that no one will touch; Heinlein got raped with Starship Troopers,
I guess you never saw the 1994 version of The Puppet Masters.
A new process was implemented that didn't use CFC's for the manufacturing of the clam-shells prior to McDonalds discontinuing their use
Cite or your full o' shite.
I know there was at least one company that used the clam shells to make park benches at profit until they were discontinued.
Cite or your full o' shite.
I'm not writing a paper, I'm commenting on Slashdot. Obviously you are either such a lazy ass or are too stupid to use Google to educate yourself. So here's the first link Google found about the non-CFC thing: http://www.citeman.com/5078-mcdonald%E2%80%99s-greening-the-golden-arches/
Polystyrene foams are very expensive to recycle and at least at the time of the McDonald's phase out were manufactured using CFCs, contributing to Ozone depletion.
A new process was implemented that didn't use CFC's for the manufacturing of the clam-shells prior to McDonalds discontinuing their use. However this still wasn't good enough for the Environmental Defense Fund. I know there was at least one company that used the clam shells to make park benches at profit until they were discontinued. So obviously someone found a way to make it economical.
Reading you're post, I'd say that you're not old enough to remember when styrofoam was in widespread use (or that you're a fucking idiot, or both.)
Yeah, you're so smart. I remember when they used paper originally before styrofoam. Because there were complaints that they were killing trees, they switched to the clam shells. Then that was no good, so it was back to paper, and everyone was happy. I say with you manners it's fortunate you stay in your mother basement.
No, this is still a major improvement. Less oil usage is good. Less food waste in landfills is good. Less dependency on foreign oil is good, at least for the US's economy.
Are you sure about that? How much more energy is it going to take to make these? If it's more, then where is that energy coming from? Are the raw materials heavier to transport than the current ones? What waste by-products are produced in doing this? What can be done with those by-products?
I don't know the answers to any of these questions. Before you make statements like you did, you may want to look into these, and many other questions first. The end result may be that they use even more petroleum products than the current containers. Or create toxic leftovers in the process.
Are you old enough to remember the styrofoam clam-shells McDonalds sandwiches were served in? Those were just "evil" according to environmentalists. Except they kept you food warmer and could be recycled into all kinds of things. But they were replaced by wax coated paper that could not be recycled. The environmentalists were happier with the paper that could go nowhere other than a landfill and the food is not only crappy, but gets cold even sooner.
I love this idea. It means I can tell my wife she's stifling my artistic studies when she nags me to stop playing that video game at 3:30 am. ;-)
It's a space station!
Or was I the only one who noticed? @~1:34
Duh! What did you think happened to the planet between Mars and Jupiter? Too bad they miscalculated the energy needs of the main gun and then got stuck in Saturn's orbit, a long time ago... Lucas changed the location (supposedly to protect "the innocent"). But as you know, he's prone to doing things like that. Mostly the changing, not so much protecting.
Why isn't this in Idle?
Oh yeah, never mind.
Do you have FlashBlock extension? If so, then it is doing that. :(
I do, but FlashBlock doesn't keep you from playing Flash, it just makes you start it by clicking on it first. This is what happened at the link I gave as well, except the video played. The link in TFA just kept saying it was loading.
I couldn't get the video to play at the link in TFA. But this one did: http://vimeo.com/11386048
Also, new=knew
Yes, thank you. I can't believe I missed that one too.
"Seagate claims to be shipping a 3TB flavor of its Barracuda XT, but we haven't been able to find one that's actually for sale."
You can find them here. You can also find an article at Anantech called,The World's First 3TB HDD: Seagate GoFlex Desk 3TB Review here. There's a description about how to open the case and use them as internal drive. The Seagate external version is also $20 cheaper than the internal Hitachi 3TB.
From someone whose Hitachi backup drive just saved his bacon when his 4th WDC drive this year failed, I'd say this is bad news.
Maybe its time to buy a shedload of these 3Tb drives before WDC gets their hands on them and they become Deathstars again.
Newegg sells them in a 20 PK for $3700.
Damn it, I hate when a troll proof reads better than I do; posses=possesses
So that's what happens when James Joyce posses a troll. Who new?
Ahhh Bill, we'll never let you live that one down ;)
Speaking as one of the many who had to deal with the repercussions of that decision, no I won't.