IMHO, Kickstarter should create a two-tier system - in tier #1, projects have to justify every penny they'll spend in mind-numbing detail - and they should be limited by KS themselves to 200% of that goal or $50,000 - whichever is greater.
Yeah, but they won't. They make 5 cents on the dollar, so how would it benefit them as a company to artificially limit revenue? Even with the occasional bad press, it's quite apparent people are still willing to shovel money into the machine.
but jetliners look to me like they have the cockpit windshield on the top half of the nose hemisphere.
Banking turns to reverse direction and line up with the runway come to mind. Last time I flew, the plane made a pretty sharp turn on landing and I could definitely see down into the yards of the houses below. Cockpits have side windows too, and definitely would have allowed line of sight for some asshat down below to shine a laser in there.
Much more will be automated, so it will be cheaper.
Call me a cynic, but the end result will probably be things will be cheaper to produce, but the prices will continue to increase. It's all about maximum profitability, right?
I invite you to leave LA and visit someplace with shitty weather and truly shitty roads. I suggest Detroit.
You will never whine about LA roads again.
I never said we had the worst roads, just that the roads should be fixed before we start installing WiFi on them. LA does have it's share of truly shitty weather though, but the opposite of Detroit. It's always fun when it's 110+ degrees, the wind is blowing the trees sideways while they're also on fire. You've never wanted to see snow more than when the Santa Ana's are blowing through!
This is in Los Angeles. There is no freeze-thaw cycle there, and as a result, few potholes.
I invite you to come down to Los Angeles and drive our beautiful streets, especially the day after any measurable rain. And don't even get me started on the sidewalks, which the ents have been heaving out of the ground for decades.
Go ask Vladimir Komarov about his thoughts regarding the Soviet's concern for cosmonaut safety.
I'm too busy waiting to speak to 14 NASA astronauts since 1986 who seem surprisingly reluctant to talk on the subject of NASA's safety record.
Funny thing is, none of them were convinced they were going to die if they launched. Komarov insisted that he went on that fateful flight in place of Gagarin because he didn't want to watch his friend die. The 14 NASA astronauts and 3 other cosmonauts died in accidents. Komarov was sacrificed. Accidents in pioneering methods of travel are going to happen, and are somewhat acceptable. What the Soviets allowed to happen with Soyuz-1 was downright criminal. You'll have a hard time proving that NASA has done anything half as bad, even with the Challenger loss.
That's why they've had almost every space "first" and are the only nation on earth still consistently capable of sending men into space (and with an almost spotless cosmonaut safety record for the last 40 years, unlike some other nations).
You're right! They had the first space flight fatality. And the second through fourth. Go ask Vladimir Komarov about his thoughts regarding the Soviet's concern for cosmonaut safety. Oh wait, you can't; he's a charcoal briquette.
You also forget that the Chinese are now sending their own astronauts into space. Russia no longer holds the monopoly on manned spaceflight.
In the US it seemed dealers really needed to be able to deliver a car TODAY, not tomorrow or next week.
That's because most Americans want things TODAY, and not tomorrow or next week. We're so used to instant gratification, the requirement to wait any amount of time feels like a personal insult. The dealers are catering to the expectations of the consumers, who seem to be more than willing to take something that isn't quite what they want for more than they wanted to spend as long as they get it NOW. That being said, there's definitely some humor in the reactions of the dealership sales lackeys when you say 'Nah' and walk right out the front door after spending an hour talking numbers.
I suppose for a caliber that commands upwards of $1 per round, it's not surprising that people would suggest that kind of waste is the "logical choice" for government work.
If they started cranking them out in the millions like 5.56, they'd be no more expensive.
You're not going to be able to design a smaller, lighter gun for petite little hands that ALSO has (as the rest of the article explains is needed badly) an increased stopping-power (which is primarily about the kinetic energy striking the target).
Rifle and shotgun rounds are for stopping power. Handguns are for when you don't have anything better. At that point, ability to get rounds on target trumps everything else. If you miss, it doesn't matter if you're shooting a.25 or a 10MM. You're better off with a gun that fits your hands and you can shoot properly than a hand cannon that you can't hit the ground in front you with.
Also, the difference between the major handgun rounds is negligible; military FMJ rounds will just never deliver the energy to the target in the same way as a hollow point. Stopping power is not about "the kinetic energy striking the target". It's about shot placement and energy dumped INTO the target. The FMJ round has a bad habit of passing through the target without expanding, wasting potential destructive energy. A hollow point is designed to massively deform and expend all of it's energy slowing down within the target, cutting and pulping as it does so. If you can't use hollow points, the best bet is to fill them with as many properly placed holes as possible in the shortest amount of time.
It sounds to more that the problem is more about the local housing market, and less that these companies aren't paying enough. If there's a shortage of living spaces in the area, an increase in wages is just going to drive an increase in rents, because the people will continue to pay out the nose. How do you think they got so high in the first place? It's a supply and demand problem, not a 'corporations are screwing people' problem.
...A box truck is it's own special kind of sad. You can get a serviceable RV for under the $10,000 he spent.
I agree that a box truck was an interesting choice, but if all he's doing is sleeping in it and has acceptable facilities nearby, it's not exactly a "van down by the river" situation. I browse the sale listings for RVs from time to time, and any RV in the 10k range usually looks like somebody died in it and may or may not still be an occupant. A corporate parking lot isn't exactly an idea location for an RV either, with no (legal?) water or power hookups, sewage disposal, or source for gasoline. Just more complexity for someone who obviously seeks simplicity. If this guy is cool with sleeping in a box truck, then more power to him.
He's living with the conscious decision of enduring mild, planned hardship now with the goal of greatly improving his situation in life later. He is taking advantage of the environment and resources available to him to meet his needs, instead of blindly blowing the majority of his income on what others feel should be an acceptable quality of life for him. Why would you consider forward thinking and aggressive budgeting a 'cautionary tale'? He's got a plan and motivation, which a lot more than I can say about most of the people I work with.
The only one consistent effect of banning guns is fewer gun deaths. Not less violence. Not less crime. Not more crime. But fewer suicides by gun and fewer accidents. Sometimes "guns" is the problem.
Nope. The same week as a large shooting in the US (may have been Sandy Hook, not sure) there was a mass stabbing in China. The difference is there was a tiny chance of living if shot in the shooting, and a 100% survival in the school mass stabbing.
So you're saying if we get rid of all the guns, people who would have shot themselves to death would suddenly find the will to live and not try to end their lives by some other method? The mere presence of a gun is causing their suicidal thoughts?
In the latest shooting in Oregon, 9 students were killed and 9 were injured. In that one example alone, there was a 50/50 chance of survival. In one study (http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/news_releases/2014/01/band/) the mortality rate of gunshot wounds was 33% and 7.7% for stabbing. Yes gunshots are statistically more fatal, but your assertion that guns are instant death and stabbings are a minor annoyance is way off the mark.
Bullshit. The vast majority of guns in this country are not used in crimes. It is not the number of guns or gun owners in the country that is the root of the "gun violence" problem, it is the fact that there are those out there willing to commit violence in general, and they are acquiring and using guns as a vehicle for said violence. Until anti-gun Americans realize "gun violence" is "violent actions committed with guns by violent people", instead of "violence perpetrated because of guns by otherwise wholesome folk", they will continue to battle the wrong enemy. Please stop treating guns and gun owners as the problem, and focus on the people who are willing to do harm in the first place. These same people will be stabbing and bludgeoning other human beings if all guns were to somehow vaporize overnight.
We are approaching a point where we no longer need all the people we have to do all the things that need to be done. This will be an interesting challenge for the 21st century, what do we do with all the people who are no longer required to make stuff?
The bigger issue is how do we get people to stop making MORE people that will not have a role in society to fill when they reach adulthood. We're automating the world for the benefit of mankind, but continue to breed like we're all still living off the family farm.
They don't want to sit in someone else's filth. They don't want their car to drive off, pick up someone who has sex in it or their kid vomits or a pet shits, etc.
Yet millions of people still take public transportation every day.
I currently live under an inbound flight path for LAX, and about 1/2 mile from a freight/AMTRAK line. I hear both if I listen for them, but after about a year I no longer noticed the sound. I'm fairly certain I'll tune out the drones as well.
What I DO find especially obnoxious are those god damn UPS trucks and their loud engines and squeaky brakes. They're impossible to ignore, and my dogs go apeshit every time one comes barreling down the street. I'd happily trade a whirring noise 200 feet above me for the demise of the thundertruck out on the street.
Good customer service is less expensive than bad customer service. A smaller call center staffed with decently trained and compensated CSRs is far more cost effective than watching the headcount continuously grow and churn to deal with the increased call volume due to poorly trained staff dumping calls, permaholds, supervisor escalations, previous callers figuring out they've been lied to, etc. At some point, your call center will outgrow its allotted space, and then you'll have to deal with a costly move or additional locations. Both companies I worked for experienced this, one of them had to move TWICE in 4 years, and the cost was mindblowing. Then, as you lose a lot of your customers, there's the cost of downsizing.. all of which could have been avoided by just properly hiring, training, and compensating a solid, core group of people to take care of your customers and make sure they didn't become unhappy with the thought of giving you their money.
Slashdot Mirror
IMHO, Kickstarter should create a two-tier system - in tier #1, projects have to justify every penny they'll spend in mind-numbing detail - and they should be limited by KS themselves to 200% of that goal or $50,000 - whichever is greater.
Yeah, but they won't. They make 5 cents on the dollar, so how would it benefit them as a company to artificially limit revenue? Even with the occasional bad press, it's quite apparent people are still willing to shovel money into the machine.
but jetliners look to me like they have the cockpit windshield on the top half of the nose hemisphere.
Banking turns to reverse direction and line up with the runway come to mind. Last time I flew, the plane made a pretty sharp turn on landing and I could definitely see down into the yards of the houses below. Cockpits have side windows too, and definitely would have allowed line of sight for some asshat down below to shine a laser in there.
Much more will be automated, so it will be cheaper.
Call me a cynic, but the end result will probably be things will be cheaper to produce, but the prices will continue to increase. It's all about maximum profitability, right?
I invite you to leave LA and visit someplace with shitty weather and truly shitty roads. I suggest Detroit.
You will never whine about LA roads again.
I never said we had the worst roads, just that the roads should be fixed before we start installing WiFi on them. LA does have it's share of truly shitty weather though, but the opposite of Detroit. It's always fun when it's 110+ degrees, the wind is blowing the trees sideways while they're also on fire. You've never wanted to see snow more than when the Santa Ana's are blowing through!
This is in Los Angeles. There is no freeze-thaw cycle there, and as a result, few potholes.
I invite you to come down to Los Angeles and drive our beautiful streets, especially the day after any measurable rain. And don't even get me started on the sidewalks, which the ents have been heaving out of the ground for decades.
Instead of installing internet-connected streetlights (that nobody asked for), can you please FIX THE FUCKING POTHOLES???
Go ask Vladimir Komarov about his thoughts regarding the Soviet's concern for cosmonaut safety.
I'm too busy waiting to speak to 14 NASA astronauts since 1986 who seem surprisingly reluctant to talk on the subject of NASA's safety record.
Funny thing is, none of them were convinced they were going to die if they launched. Komarov insisted that he went on that fateful flight in place of Gagarin because he didn't want to watch his friend die. The 14 NASA astronauts and 3 other cosmonauts died in accidents. Komarov was sacrificed. Accidents in pioneering methods of travel are going to happen, and are somewhat acceptable. What the Soviets allowed to happen with Soyuz-1 was downright criminal. You'll have a hard time proving that NASA has done anything half as bad, even with the Challenger loss.
That's why they've had almost every space "first" and are the only nation on earth still consistently capable of sending men into space (and with an almost spotless cosmonaut safety record for the last 40 years, unlike some other nations).
You're right! They had the first space flight fatality. And the second through fourth. Go ask Vladimir Komarov about his thoughts regarding the Soviet's concern for cosmonaut safety. Oh wait, you can't; he's a charcoal briquette. You also forget that the Chinese are now sending their own astronauts into space. Russia no longer holds the monopoly on manned spaceflight.
In the US it seemed dealers really needed to be able to deliver a car TODAY, not tomorrow or next week.
That's because most Americans want things TODAY, and not tomorrow or next week. We're so used to instant gratification, the requirement to wait any amount of time feels like a personal insult. The dealers are catering to the expectations of the consumers, who seem to be more than willing to take something that isn't quite what they want for more than they wanted to spend as long as they get it NOW. That being said, there's definitely some humor in the reactions of the dealership sales lackeys when you say 'Nah' and walk right out the front door after spending an hour talking numbers.
I suppose for a caliber that commands upwards of $1 per round, it's not surprising that people would suggest that kind of waste is the "logical choice" for government work.
If they started cranking them out in the millions like 5.56, they'd be no more expensive.
You're not going to be able to design a smaller, lighter gun for petite little hands that ALSO has (as the rest of the article explains is needed badly) an increased stopping-power (which is primarily about the kinetic energy striking the target).
Rifle and shotgun rounds are for stopping power. Handguns are for when you don't have anything better. At that point, ability to get rounds on target trumps everything else. If you miss, it doesn't matter if you're shooting a .25 or a 10MM. You're better off with a gun that fits your hands and you can shoot properly than a hand cannon that you can't hit the ground in front you with.
Also, the difference between the major handgun rounds is negligible; military FMJ rounds will just never deliver the energy to the target in the same way as a hollow point. Stopping power is not about "the kinetic energy striking the target". It's about shot placement and energy dumped INTO the target. The FMJ round has a bad habit of passing through the target without expanding, wasting potential destructive energy. A hollow point is designed to massively deform and expend all of it's energy slowing down within the target, cutting and pulping as it does so. If you can't use hollow points, the best bet is to fill them with as many properly placed holes as possible in the shortest amount of time.
It sounds to more that the problem is more about the local housing market, and less that these companies aren't paying enough. If there's a shortage of living spaces in the area, an increase in wages is just going to drive an increase in rents, because the people will continue to pay out the nose. How do you think they got so high in the first place? It's a supply and demand problem, not a 'corporations are screwing people' problem.
...A box truck is it's own special kind of sad. You can get a serviceable RV for under the $10,000 he spent.
I agree that a box truck was an interesting choice, but if all he's doing is sleeping in it and has acceptable facilities nearby, it's not exactly a "van down by the river" situation. I browse the sale listings for RVs from time to time, and any RV in the 10k range usually looks like somebody died in it and may or may not still be an occupant. A corporate parking lot isn't exactly an idea location for an RV either, with no (legal?) water or power hookups, sewage disposal, or source for gasoline. Just more complexity for someone who obviously seeks simplicity. If this guy is cool with sleeping in a box truck, then more power to him.
He's living with the conscious decision of enduring mild, planned hardship now with the goal of greatly improving his situation in life later. He is taking advantage of the environment and resources available to him to meet his needs, instead of blindly blowing the majority of his income on what others feel should be an acceptable quality of life for him. Why would you consider forward thinking and aggressive budgeting a 'cautionary tale'? He's got a plan and motivation, which a lot more than I can say about most of the people I work with.
The only one consistent effect of banning guns is fewer gun deaths. Not less violence. Not less crime. Not more crime. But fewer suicides by gun and fewer accidents. Sometimes "guns" is the problem.
Nope. The same week as a large shooting in the US (may have been Sandy Hook, not sure) there was a mass stabbing in China. The difference is there was a tiny chance of living if shot in the shooting, and a 100% survival in the school mass stabbing.
So you're saying if we get rid of all the guns, people who would have shot themselves to death would suddenly find the will to live and not try to end their lives by some other method? The mere presence of a gun is causing their suicidal thoughts? In the latest shooting in Oregon, 9 students were killed and 9 were injured. In that one example alone, there was a 50/50 chance of survival. In one study (http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/news_releases/2014/01/band/) the mortality rate of gunshot wounds was 33% and 7.7% for stabbing. Yes gunshots are statistically more fatal, but your assertion that guns are instant death and stabbings are a minor annoyance is way off the mark.
Less guns means less gun violence.
Bullshit. The vast majority of guns in this country are not used in crimes. It is not the number of guns or gun owners in the country that is the root of the "gun violence" problem, it is the fact that there are those out there willing to commit violence in general, and they are acquiring and using guns as a vehicle for said violence. Until anti-gun Americans realize "gun violence" is "violent actions committed with guns by violent people", instead of "violence perpetrated because of guns by otherwise wholesome folk", they will continue to battle the wrong enemy. Please stop treating guns and gun owners as the problem, and focus on the people who are willing to do harm in the first place. These same people will be stabbing and bludgeoning other human beings if all guns were to somehow vaporize overnight.
What about the rights of the 100's of thousands of people that have been murdered by gun in America - what about them?
Well, perhaps if they had all been carrying guns, they would not all have been murdered. Just sayin....
We are approaching a point where we no longer need all the people we have to do all the things that need to be done. This will be an interesting challenge for the 21st century, what do we do with all the people who are no longer required to make stuff?
The bigger issue is how do we get people to stop making MORE people that will not have a role in society to fill when they reach adulthood. We're automating the world for the benefit of mankind, but continue to breed like we're all still living off the family farm.
The Viking Age didn't begin until roughly 800AD. These "wankers" were not vikings in any sense of the word.
They don't want to sit in someone else's filth. They don't want their car to drive off, pick up someone who has sex in it or their kid vomits or a pet shits, etc.
Yet millions of people still take public transportation every day.
And how many assassination attempts have been made on recent presidents? Zero.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots
Obama's on the list. So is Dubya. And Clinton. And Bush Sr. And Reagan, obviously. And Carter. On and on.
Just because nobody has recently pulled something as high profile as a Hinckley doesn't mean there haven't been attempts.
'Artisanal' is just a bait word to pique the interest of hipsters. And with just as much effect on society as a whole, it can be read 'art is anal'.
I currently live under an inbound flight path for LAX, and about 1/2 mile from a freight/AMTRAK line. I hear both if I listen for them, but after about a year I no longer noticed the sound. I'm fairly certain I'll tune out the drones as well. What I DO find especially obnoxious are those god damn UPS trucks and their loud engines and squeaky brakes. They're impossible to ignore, and my dogs go apeshit every time one comes barreling down the street. I'd happily trade a whirring noise 200 feet above me for the demise of the thundertruck out on the street.
They won't ship a CNC mill for the above stated reason, yet they'll gladly ship functional firearms on a regular basis?
Good customer service is expensive.
Good customer service is less expensive than bad customer service. A smaller call center staffed with decently trained and compensated CSRs is far more cost effective than watching the headcount continuously grow and churn to deal with the increased call volume due to poorly trained staff dumping calls, permaholds, supervisor escalations, previous callers figuring out they've been lied to, etc. At some point, your call center will outgrow its allotted space, and then you'll have to deal with a costly move or additional locations. Both companies I worked for experienced this, one of them had to move TWICE in 4 years, and the cost was mindblowing. Then, as you lose a lot of your customers, there's the cost of downsizing.. all of which could have been avoided by just properly hiring, training, and compensating a solid, core group of people to take care of your customers and make sure they didn't become unhappy with the thought of giving you their money.