On the subject of being realistic, using an AK-47 for home defense is just dumb. A 7.62x39 bullet has way too much penetration potential! You run the risk of shooting through both interior walls, some exterior walls, and into neighboring structures.
Indeed.
However, I can attest from personal experience that Kalashnikov's are hella fun to take to the range!
The GOP is a religious organization, whether they want to be or not. So their stance is that everyone else must therefore be atheists or terrist muslims since Evangelism is the only true religion to them.
... as well as
The Democrats are a religious organization, whether they want to be or not. So their stance is that everyone else must therefore be Evangelicals or terrist muslims since State Worship is the only true religion to them.
The fun part is sitting back watching all the rubes convince themselves their part of that tiny fraction of geniuses and that this doesn't apply to them.
However, part of the result of extensive crash testing and frame strengthening is that now the cars themselves are safer to drive, thus helping to prevent accidents, if merely by virtue of being easier to control and maneuver.
Err... umm... maybe... Okay, I might be able to accept that. However, I think that things like the third brake light, traction control/ anti-lock brakes, rumble strips, and higher visibility lane paint contribute much more to accident prevention (granted, the last two are improvements to the road, rather than the vehicle).
The sum of the whole is greater than its parts, friend.
In actual reality people modify their behaviors based on risk. Airbags, seat belts, crumple zones, more resilient car frames, etc. do nothing to prevent accidents.
Sure they do - they make the car safer to drive.
If you don't believe me, try this: take your daily driver around a fairly perilous corner as fast as you're able to without losing control. Then, go get your hands on an older car of similar make, say pre-1980's, and take the same corner at the same speed. According to your hypothesis, they will both take the corner similarly, because, as you say, things like "more resilient car frames... do nothing to prevent accidents."
PS you may want to have the paramedics on hand for when your second run in the 40-year-old auto ends badly... because it will.
When accidents are safer people are more willing to risk them.
Bull-fucking-shit. Case in point, my wife drives a brand new TDI Jetta, one of the safest cars a person can buy; yet she still does everything in her power to avoid getting creamed on the interstate. SO, hypotheses #2 shot out of the water.
Seriously, who have you ever met that said, "hey, this car (I just spent 1/3 of my annual income on) is super safe to drive, so now I have free license to drive like a total fucktard!"?
I was thinking more along the lines of how Germany handles driving licenses* - you have to be first aid certified, take (and pass) required training courses, pass both written and practical exams... all at your own expense.
Now, most people would balk at extending those kind of requirements stateside (I presume because they fear they won't be able to pass), but regardless of opinion there is a strong correlation between "advanced" driver training (and by "advanced" I mean more than the none that many US states require) and lower accident rates.
* For their own citizens; recent reciprocity changes make it a lot easier for some foreigners to trade their home licenses for German ones.
However, part of the result of extensive crash testing and frame strengthening is that now the cars themselves are safer to drive, thus helping to prevent accidents, if merely by virtue of being easier to control and maneuver.
They haven't stopped declining SINCE cellphones became a big thing, either.
... and safety technology hasn't stopped increasing during that time period, either.
Here's my question to you: you say that traffic fatalities have been declining... what about overall accident rates? Unless they've been on the decline as well, and in similar or better numbers than the fatalities, you're really only helping me prove my point.
FWIW, according to this document from the census bureau, overall accident rates have remained fairly steady over the last few decades, with fatalities and serious injuries seeing a slightly higher decrease; in other words, we have about the same amount of wrecks, but less deaths because cars are safer than they used to be.
So then why aren't the same people trying to banning dashboard gauges, clocks and radios?
Because they aren't new fangled technology and trying to blame them won't work because they're not new and scary.
Plus, the gauges/clock/radio in my car don't scream at me through the sound system until I give them my attention. Nor do they require me to enter a 4 digit PIN (on a touchscreen, no less) in order to access the information they provide.
As long as people still believe that they are so highly evolved they can do this without problem, it will continue to be one.
So, 20 years ago, before all this got started, traffic fatality rates were higher (both absolutely and per mile traveled) than they are now.
Do any of these studies explain why it's a problem that accident rates have been DECLINING since long before texting or chatting on a cell while driving became common?
Do they need to? Airbags, crash testing, frame strengthening, and many, many other safety technologies have been around so long (at least since the 1970's), they're kind of a given.
Perhaps part of the problem is that there are laws that impact no one but the person breaking the law. That leads to disrespect for law in general.
So you want your driver's license taken away because one of your neighbors killed someone while texting behind the wheel?
No, no, no... I want your driver's license taken away until you can prove that you're not a selfish fuckhead who is incapable of operating 2 tons of Rolling Steel Death without endangering everyone around you.
Pauley ruled, in accordance with criteria laid out by the U.S. Department of Labor, that unpaid internships should be educational in nature and specifically structured to the benefit of the intern, and reasoned that if interns are going to do grunt work like regular employees, then they should be paid like regular employees."
All this judge did was rule in accordance to existing law - that interns are there to be taught the tricks of the trade, not be your goddamn coffee mule, and if you're going to utilize them as such, they must be paid for their efforts (and rightfully so).
For fuck's sake, guys, learn to read at least the damn summary before you go off on a nonsensical tangent; perhaps you'll learn to think better of it.
Looks like the passengers in the pods wouldn't be able to get to the cockpit, so they couldn't take over flying the aircraft. So they could blow up the plane, but not fly it into $avatar_of_the_great_satan. So this probably would fly, security-wise.
Your first mistake: thinking that security theater has anything to do with actual security.
I'll tell you one thing I am happy to see - more and more folks are starting to see through that facade of omniscience that's typically afforded the SCOTUS, and noting the institution for what it really is: The strong-armed bully of the federal government.
PS - read the article you linked to, and all I could think the whole time was, "man, how much more fucked could it... Oh, that much more!"
Slashdot Mirror
On the subject of being realistic, using an AK-47 for home defense is just dumb. A 7.62x39 bullet has way too much penetration potential! You run the risk of shooting through both interior walls, some exterior walls, and into neighboring structures.
Indeed.
However, I can attest from personal experience that Kalashnikov's are hella fun to take to the range!
The GOP is a religious organization, whether they want to be or not. So their stance is that everyone else must therefore be atheists or terrist muslims since Evangelism is the only true religion to them.
... as well as
The Democrats are a religious organization, whether they want to be or not. So their stance is that everyone else must therefore be Evangelicals or terrist muslims since State Worship is the only true religion to them.
A good number of people think they can speak for everyone.
FTFY.
wouldn't "hammer and axe" make more sense? A saw can be guided to and then used to cut without the use of vision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_play
A little bit, yea.
lol
The fun part is sitting back watching all the rubes convince themselves their part of that tiny fraction of geniuses and that this doesn't apply to them.
Hee hee;
You're right, it is fun!
Makes sense, thanks for the straight answer.
Unberfuckingbelievable!
Not sure if the superfluous 'r' (or maybe it was the 'n'?) was placed in there on purpose or accident... but I dig it.
Unberfuckingbelievable is my new favorite word.
Airbags.. OK, you've got me there.
However, part of the result of extensive crash testing and frame strengthening is that now the cars themselves are safer to drive, thus helping to prevent accidents, if merely by virtue of being easier to control and maneuver.
Err... umm... maybe... Okay, I might be able to accept that. However, I think that things like the third brake light, traction control/ anti-lock brakes, rumble strips, and higher visibility lane paint contribute much more to accident prevention (granted, the last two are improvements to the road, rather than the vehicle).
The sum of the whole is greater than its parts, friend.
I live in actual reality.
In actual reality people modify their behaviors based on risk. Airbags, seat belts, crumple zones, more resilient car frames, etc. do nothing to prevent accidents.
Sure they do - they make the car safer to drive.
If you don't believe me, try this: take your daily driver around a fairly perilous corner as fast as you're able to without losing control. Then, go get your hands on an older car of similar make, say pre-1980's, and take the same corner at the same speed. According to your hypothesis, they will both take the corner similarly, because, as you say, things like "more resilient car frames... do nothing to prevent accidents."
PS you may want to have the paramedics on hand for when your second run in the 40-year-old auto ends badly... because it will.
When accidents are safer people are more willing to risk them.
Bull-fucking-shit. Case in point, my wife drives a brand new TDI Jetta, one of the safest cars a person can buy; yet she still does everything in her power to avoid getting creamed on the interstate. SO, hypotheses #2 shot out of the water.
Seriously, who have you ever met that said, "hey, this car (I just spent 1/3 of my annual income on) is super safe to drive, so now I have free license to drive like a total fucktard!"?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say Zero.
I was thinking more along the lines of how Germany handles driving licenses* - you have to be first aid certified, take (and pass) required training courses, pass both written and practical exams... all at your own expense.
Now, most people would balk at extending those kind of requirements stateside (I presume because they fear they won't be able to pass), but regardless of opinion there is a strong correlation between "advanced" driver training (and by "advanced" I mean more than the none that many US states require) and lower accident rates.
* For their own citizens; recent reciprocity changes make it a lot easier for some foreigners to trade their home licenses for German ones.
No, seriously - thank you.
Somebody had to have the balls to point this out to the ignorant masses.
Airbags.. OK, you've got me there.
However, part of the result of extensive crash testing and frame strengthening is that now the cars themselves are safer to drive, thus helping to prevent accidents, if merely by virtue of being easier to control and maneuver.
All of the technologies you mention would increase rather than decrease accident rates. Something like anti-lock brakes would decrease it.
What???
In what insane, backwards form of reality do you exist, where airbags and crash-testing cause accidents???
I mean, saying they don't do anything to prevent accidents I could buy as an argument... but causing them? You're grasping, Broseph.
/sighs
They haven't stopped declining SINCE cellphones became a big thing, either.
... and safety technology hasn't stopped increasing during that time period, either.
Here's my question to you: you say that traffic fatalities have been declining... what about overall accident rates? Unless they've been on the decline as well, and in similar or better numbers than the fatalities, you're really only helping me prove my point.
FWIW, according to this document from the census bureau, overall accident rates have remained fairly steady over the last few decades, with fatalities and serious injuries seeing a slightly higher decrease; in other words, we have about the same amount of wrecks, but less deaths because cars are safer than they used to be.
The problem is many people are dangerous even without the cell phone or texting.
Uh-huh.
Note the distinct lack of the terms 'cell phone' and 'texting' in my post - I wrote it in general terms for a reason.
So then why aren't the same people trying to banning dashboard gauges, clocks and radios?
Because they aren't new fangled technology and trying to blame them won't work because they're not new and scary.
Plus, the gauges/clock/radio in my car don't scream at me through the sound system until I give them my attention. Nor do they require me to enter a 4 digit PIN (on a touchscreen, no less) in order to access the information they provide.
Unlike a cell phone.
So, 20 years ago, before all this got started, traffic fatality rates were higher (both absolutely and per mile traveled) than they are now.
Do any of these studies explain why it's a problem that accident rates have been DECLINING since long before texting or chatting on a cell while driving became common?
Do they need to? Airbags, crash testing, frame strengthening, and many, many other safety technologies have been around so long (at least since the 1970's), they're kind of a given.
Perhaps part of the problem is that there are laws that impact no one but the person breaking the law. That leads to disrespect for law in general.
So you want your driver's license taken away because one of your neighbors killed someone while texting behind the wheel?
No, no, no... I want your driver's license taken away until you can prove that you're not a selfish fuckhead who is incapable of operating 2 tons of Rolling Steel Death without endangering everyone around you.
I hear similar complaints from businesses all the time: "Employees cost me X amount of money every year!"
In fact, I hear it so often, I've taken to asking them, "Then why do you have any, if all they ever do is cost you money?"
Never have gotten a straight answer...
From TFS:
Pauley ruled, in accordance with criteria laid out by the U.S. Department of Labor, that unpaid internships should be educational in nature and specifically structured to the benefit of the intern, and reasoned that if interns are going to do grunt work like regular employees, then they should be paid like regular employees."
All this judge did was rule in accordance to existing law - that interns are there to be taught the tricks of the trade, not be your goddamn coffee mule, and if you're going to utilize them as such, they must be paid for their efforts (and rightfully so).
For fuck's sake, guys, learn to read at least the damn summary before you go off on a nonsensical tangent; perhaps you'll learn to think better of it.
Looks like the passengers in the pods wouldn't be able to get to the cockpit, so they couldn't take over flying the aircraft. So they could blow up the plane, but not fly it into $avatar_of_the_great_satan. So this probably would fly, security-wise.
Your first mistake: thinking that security theater has anything to do with actual security.
One you missed:
"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry." -- Thomas Jefferson
If that was the case then the NSA slides would not have listed both Google and Facebook as being onboard and partners in their PRISM system.
Unless that 'revelation' was intentional misdirection.
I'll tell you one thing I am happy to see - more and more folks are starting to see through that facade of omniscience that's typically afforded the SCOTUS, and noting the institution for what it really is: The strong-armed bully of the federal government.
PS - read the article you linked to, and all I could think the whole time was, "man, how much more fucked could it... Oh, that much more!"