I had heard that Americans were glued to their televisions but I had no idea it was a literal statement. Turn it off if you don't want to see it. You're a god damn adult.
That's what I did. I have no desire to watch these videos, so I didn't. I know that they are out there and if I wanted I could find them (I could probably still do so if they were banned somehow) if other people want to view them for whatever reasons then go ahead. I'd say they should be kept off facebook feeds (or with warnings and no thumbnail etc) and not show the videos on national news programs (talk about them is fine). Seems to me the way it is now is fine.
I mean, fairly priced a kg of top notch hash should cost something like 1 USD (citation: thin air, I'm just guessing), so even with the usual, over the top taxation, a gram would be astonnishingly cheap, and the drugs cartels wouldn't have any business.
What the actual fuck? You pull numbers from nowhere saying a kg of 'top notch' hash should cost a dollar? You cant get a kilo of anything for that. But based on the figures your ass produces that is the reason drug kingpins are so rich and powerful. I'm sure a load of them would love to have a legit product, sell in bulk to suppliers (a lot like they do now) only without worrying about officials from another country fucking with their shit on every level. The price would be set by the market as it is with everything. Sellers want expensive, buyers want cheap, meet in the middle. Drugs are bad yet your doctors prescribe them to loads and loads of people and big chunks of population go out and imbibe large quantities of alcohol (another drug that would be class a if invented today), ok so only illegal drugs are bad and only because they say so?
And how is that different to the mega rich corp execs who sell all kinds of crap, mostly skirting the law or flatout breaking it where possible. Big oil/pharma/tobacco etc etc.
If gov's were actually serious about doing anything about it they would take control themselves. Have regulation and tax the shit out of them. Simultaneously taking in more revenue, decriminalising a large percentage of population, legitimising more businesses, freeing up police etc to deal with real crimes. Plus when you go to the drugshop you know you're getting something that's prepared and made properly not mixed with bleach or brick dust or any other nasty shit middle level dealers put in the increase weight. More money going into shops and the economy instead of the pockets of illegal business, the benefits of legalisation are endless. The benefits of it being illegal lie with the for profit prison system and lawyers.
On or about August 22, 2012, the defendant,
DAVID LAWRENCE HANDEL
did knowingly use and carry a firearm, that is a Glock 26, Serial Number SRP018, during and in relation to a drug trafficking crume for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United....
That looks copied and pasted, but still, a drug trafficking crume? I hope that's a legal term and not a typo in official records or something lol.
The whole point is many skinny people violate this law but do not get obese.
I do and the way I eat absolutely upsets a few larger people I know.
burgers, doughnuts, eating out a lot, snacking all the time, yet I'm a solid 155lbs at 5'11 with a desk job as a software developer sitting all day. Nothing I do changes my weight and I'm a very small framed athletic looking individual who takes about 2 shits a day if it matters to anyone.
I also drink loads of coffee and soda, then sit around idle and program.
So the law is kinda bullshit for some of us.... This whole bacteria talk is about trying to bestow traits like mine unto people who can't lose weight without literally starving it out of them with your "law".
Same here. I eat one good meal a day and drink practically nothing but tea white two. I don't think my body shape has changed since I was 18. I'm 31 now and do wonder if I'm just going to wake up at 40 with an extra 8 inches on the waist.
I'm still struggling to understand how you expect a 3.2kg slug at mach6+ to behave the same as a 1,225kg shell at mach 1+? I am talking about the railgun the US navy has and the guns they have, not a hypothetical replacement of traditional propellants with magnets.
Again this is all from a comment where I said it would be harder to hit an over the horizon target with a railgun than a conventional naval gun. I never said it was impossible, not feasible or anything like that just that it's a harder equation. Never have a seen such willful attacks on an off the cuff comments that are all strawmen and not arguing against what I said instead about how railguns work.
Well why does it fire a 3kg slug at mach 6 inflicting similar damage to a five ton school bus traveling 300 mph? I'm talking about the railgun the navy has now. It's all about small projectiles at high speed not just replacing explosive propellant worth magnets.
Conventional ships guns...and they have about as much range now as they are ever going to get, everyone is agreed there.
Note the Paris Gun. Used in WW1, effective range 130km (80+ miles), muzzle velocity 1640 m/s (comparable to modern DS rounds).
Maybe I should've said practical range. Yeah you can shoot further but you need a bigger barrel, more charge etc, but you need to get all that on a boat. The Nazis had a gun that could shoot London from France but it was immobile and couldn't adjust it's aim once built.
By the by, do you know what the primary advantage of a railgun is? No, it's not super-high muzzle velocity. it's elimination of the powder charge. Since the powder charge for a modern (defined as post-WW1) artillery piece is larger than the projectile, that more than doubles (more than triples for most artillery) your ammo capacity. And that's not even counting the space taken up by the fire-suppression system and armor protecting the powder magazines.
It is though, the railgun the navy is testing now shoots a 3.2kg slug at mach 6+. Try firing that the way you shoot a conventional shell. For comparison the paris gun shells weighed in at 106kg, the shell for a 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun weighs up to 1,225 kg ffs with a muzzle velocity of a bit over mach 1. Maybe a different kind of railgun that fires regular shells using magnets instead of charges would be exactly the same math but it's just not the same thing and a target over the horizon needs different math for the arcs this thing will do or a projectile designed to keep a steady height over the curve of the earth. Either that or a way to elevate the thing high enough to see it's target.
Well correct me if I'm wrong but railguns do damage by firing slugs at extremely high speed and using kinetic energy to inflict damage onto the target as opposed to the conventional explosives. If you're sending a railgun slug on the similar arc as a regular shell you're either going to have to shoot it into space so it carries enough energy coming back down or you'll have to send it on a lot flatter arc so it keeps it's energy at impact, but for small target just over the horizon that's going to be harder than a conventional shot. Which is what I said. I made no comment on the possibility or feasibility of it happening.
Conventional ships guns hit targets over the horizon by firing up and then gravity brings it down (hopefully on target) and they have about as much range now as they are ever going to get, everyone is agreed there. All I was implying is it's going to be hard to hit a target over the horizon with a straight shot. If your going to shoot the railgun the same way you shoot conventional guns what's the point?
A chef would rather you enjoy the food instead of dicking around with a camera. In my restaurant, waitstaff are instructed to tell patrons to put their cameras away unless they want them tossed in the deep fryers (which has happened more than once, and when the patrons complain we show them the line in the menu that says " leave your cameras at home, hipsters".
Remind me not to eat there after you've cooked a bunch of cameras because you're the hipster that won't just let people get on with it. I hope you change the oil after you dump plastic and glass and god knows what in it at least.
Well, no. Railguns, like conventional cannon, fire a projectile that obeys the law of gravity. Which means the trajectory is parabolic for those who are exceptionally dense.
So, yes, railguns can hit targets over the horizon.
Which law of gravity is that that allows a projectile with no power of it's own to maintain a constant height for 15-25+ miles? That's going to require some very specific projectile design and a lot of math. Sure the range is doable, but making sure your projectile doesn't gain altitude as the earth curves away beneath it or fall as gravity acts upon it is going to be tricky.
It was more of a tongue in cheek statement rather than saying it's impossible but cheers anyway.
That is what they were saying after WW1 then look what happened. I'm not saying there's a big war round the corner or anything but we need a large decent navy for when we need a large decent navy.
How is that fancy laser going to work when the enemy uses a smoke screen? Or a mirror?
You're making it too complicated.
One EMP burst, and all that fancy hardware will be burned-out scrap.
Strat
Because there's absolutely no defence against EMP:| If it was that simple forces would just EMP each others tech then go back to fighting with mechanical means.
That's funny, because every online dictionary I consulted said that it was grammatically correct to use "comprise" as a synonym for "compose." In fact Merriam Webster has this to say:
Sense 3 : compose, constitute
Usage Discussion of COMPRISE
Although it has been in use since the late 18th century, sense 3 is still attacked as wrong. Why it has been singled out is not clear, but until comparatively recent times it was found chiefly in scientific or technical writing rather than belles lettres. Our current evidence shows a slight shift in usage: sense 3 is somewhat more frequent in recent literary use than the earlier senses. You should be aware, however, that if you use sense 3 you may be subject to criticism for doing so, and you may want to choose a safer synonym such as compose or make up.
I guess someone needs to go though and change them all back and add this citation.
"personally I find it somewhat insulting calling many of them artists. yes without a doubt many have a gifted voice or work hard to produce excellent sounds, but they aren't artists."
The performer is just as important as the composer for a good music, I dont know from which planet you came to think such nonsense.
Where in that quoted section does he say the performer is not as important? He said they weren't the artist. Bit of a difference there.
The point of articles like this is to raise awareness so that artists are more aware of what they're getting into before they sign, so that they negotiate better and might refuse offers if that's in their best interest.
Or the record company just tells them to take a hike and select the next artist in the line.
You can't go for a walk without stumbling over wannabe artists, it's a surprise they get paid at all.
Filling the position of an artist is easier than filling a position at McDonalds. You can't really expect to be paid more during those circumstances.
The average McEmployee does not have the potential to generate millions in revenue.
McDonald's CEO barely has that potential, so no, not really like an artist when it comes to monetary expectations. If I'm a good artist, I'm providing a hell of a lot more than asking if you want fries with that.
The only way your mcpopstar can make a millions in revenue is with millions in advertising. What would you guess is the percentage of artists that generate millions+ to the overall pool of 'artists' signed or unsigned? Not very high at all I'd wager and the ones which can do it don't need the labels. More than ever in these internet self publication days.
So much for freedom of speech. Now, if you don't tolerate my ridiculous threats I'll give you a Kame-Hame-Ha and see how you like that. Maybe follow that up with a dose from my sonic screwdriver, not so high and mighty now are you?
Hehe it's so trendy and clever and witty to observe that a state has lots of people who don't politically agree with you, and then assume they must all be drooling idiot cavemen with large brow ridges who can barely say "unga bunga" while clubbing their lunch to death. I mean obviously whatever you believe is the definition of intelligent enlightenment, leaving no room for anyone to legitimately disagree with you. I wish I could be all smarmy like you, and I regret that I have not yet attained this state of being, and none of this post is sarcastic at all, nosiree.
Most people that work in customer service realise the customer is not having a go at them personal. It might sound like it but they are venting at the company even if they do keep saying 'you'
Slashdot Mirror
I had heard that Americans were glued to their televisions but I had no idea it was a literal statement. Turn it off if you don't want to see it. You're a god damn adult.
That's what I did. I have no desire to watch these videos, so I didn't. I know that they are out there and if I wanted I could find them (I could probably still do so if they were banned somehow) if other people want to view them for whatever reasons then go ahead. I'd say they should be kept off facebook feeds (or with warnings and no thumbnail etc) and not show the videos on national news programs (talk about them is fine). Seems to me the way it is now is fine.
I mean, fairly priced a kg of top notch hash should cost something like 1 USD (citation: thin air, I'm just guessing), so even with the usual, over the top taxation, a gram would be astonnishingly cheap, and the drugs cartels wouldn't have any business.
What the actual fuck? You pull numbers from nowhere saying a kg of 'top notch' hash should cost a dollar? You cant get a kilo of anything for that. But based on the figures your ass produces that is the reason drug kingpins are so rich and powerful. I'm sure a load of them would love to have a legit product, sell in bulk to suppliers (a lot like they do now) only without worrying about officials from another country fucking with their shit on every level. The price would be set by the market as it is with everything. Sellers want expensive, buyers want cheap, meet in the middle. Drugs are bad yet your doctors prescribe them to loads and loads of people and big chunks of population go out and imbibe large quantities of alcohol (another drug that would be class a if invented today), ok so only illegal drugs are bad and only because they say so?
And how is that different to the mega rich corp execs who sell all kinds of crap, mostly skirting the law or flatout breaking it where possible. Big oil/pharma/tobacco etc etc.
If gov's were actually serious about doing anything about it they would take control themselves. Have regulation and tax the shit out of them. Simultaneously taking in more revenue, decriminalising a large percentage of population, legitimising more businesses, freeing up police etc to deal with real crimes. Plus when you go to the drugshop you know you're getting something that's prepared and made properly not mixed with bleach or brick dust or any other nasty shit middle level dealers put in the increase weight. More money going into shops and the economy instead of the pockets of illegal business, the benefits of legalisation are endless. The benefits of it being illegal lie with the for profit prison system and lawyers.
On or about August 22, 2012, the defendant, DAVID LAWRENCE HANDEL did knowingly use and carry a firearm, that is a Glock 26, Serial Number SRP018, during and in relation to a drug trafficking crume for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United ....
That looks copied and pasted, but still, a drug trafficking crume? I hope that's a legal term and not a typo in official records or something lol.
The whole point is many skinny people violate this law but do not get obese.
I do and the way I eat absolutely upsets a few larger people I know.
burgers, doughnuts, eating out a lot, snacking all the time, yet I'm a solid 155lbs at 5'11 with a desk job as a software developer sitting all day. Nothing I do changes my weight and I'm a very small framed athletic looking individual who takes about 2 shits a day if it matters to anyone.
I also drink loads of coffee and soda, then sit around idle and program.
So the law is kinda bullshit for some of us.... This whole bacteria talk is about trying to bestow traits like mine unto people who can't lose weight without literally starving it out of them with your "law".
Same here. I eat one good meal a day and drink practically nothing but tea white two. I don't think my body shape has changed since I was 18. I'm 31 now and do wonder if I'm just going to wake up at 40 with an extra 8 inches on the waist.
Could you say they are figuratively literally working for them? In a literary, poetic sort of way.....
Is there a word for that? When it's both, like in French or something?
Violence is never the answer but sometimes it is the question and sometimes the answer is yes.
I'm still struggling to understand how you expect a 3.2kg slug at mach6+ to behave the same as a 1,225kg shell at mach 1+? I am talking about the railgun the US navy has and the guns they have, not a hypothetical replacement of traditional propellants with magnets.
Again this is all from a comment where I said it would be harder to hit an over the horizon target with a railgun than a conventional naval gun. I never said it was impossible, not feasible or anything like that just that it's a harder equation. Never have a seen such willful attacks on an off the cuff comments that are all strawmen and not arguing against what I said instead about how railguns work.
Well why does it fire a 3kg slug at mach 6 inflicting similar damage to a five ton school bus traveling 300 mph? I'm talking about the railgun the navy has now. It's all about small projectiles at high speed not just replacing explosive propellant worth magnets.
Note the Paris Gun. Used in WW1, effective range 130km (80+ miles), muzzle velocity 1640 m/s (comparable to modern DS rounds).
Maybe I should've said practical range. Yeah you can shoot further but you need a bigger barrel, more charge etc, but you need to get all that on a boat. The Nazis had a gun that could shoot London from France but it was immobile and couldn't adjust it's aim once built.
By the by, do you know what the primary advantage of a railgun is? No, it's not super-high muzzle velocity. it's elimination of the powder charge. Since the powder charge for a modern (defined as post-WW1) artillery piece is larger than the projectile, that more than doubles (more than triples for most artillery) your ammo capacity. And that's not even counting the space taken up by the fire-suppression system and armor protecting the powder magazines.
It is though, the railgun the navy is testing now shoots a 3.2kg slug at mach 6+. Try firing that the way you shoot a conventional shell. For comparison the paris gun shells weighed in at 106kg, the shell for a 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun weighs up to 1,225 kg ffs with a muzzle velocity of a bit over mach 1. Maybe a different kind of railgun that fires regular shells using magnets instead of charges would be exactly the same math but it's just not the same thing and a target over the horizon needs different math for the arcs this thing will do or a projectile designed to keep a steady height over the curve of the earth. Either that or a way to elevate the thing high enough to see it's target.
Well correct me if I'm wrong but railguns do damage by firing slugs at extremely high speed and using kinetic energy to inflict damage onto the target as opposed to the conventional explosives. If you're sending a railgun slug on the similar arc as a regular shell you're either going to have to shoot it into space so it carries enough energy coming back down or you'll have to send it on a lot flatter arc so it keeps it's energy at impact, but for small target just over the horizon that's going to be harder than a conventional shot. Which is what I said. I made no comment on the possibility or feasibility of it happening.
Keep in mind, anything you could hit with a navel gun is even easier to hit with a rail gun.
Apart from targets over the horizon.
Which is true and not what you're arguing against.
Conventional ships guns hit targets over the horizon by firing up and then gravity brings it down (hopefully on target) and they have about as much range now as they are ever going to get, everyone is agreed there. All I was implying is it's going to be hard to hit a target over the horizon with a straight shot. If your going to shoot the railgun the same way you shoot conventional guns what's the point?
Just take the photo with your phone then take a photo of the photo with the dslr when you get home. Jobs a good'un.
A chef would rather you enjoy the food instead of dicking around with a camera. In my restaurant, waitstaff are instructed to tell patrons to put their cameras away unless they want them tossed in the deep fryers (which has happened more than once, and when the patrons complain we show them the line in the menu that says " leave your cameras at home, hipsters".
Remind me not to eat there after you've cooked a bunch of cameras because you're the hipster that won't just let people get on with it. I hope you change the oil after you dump plastic and glass and god knows what in it at least.
Well, no. Railguns, like conventional cannon, fire a projectile that obeys the law of gravity. Which means the trajectory is parabolic for those who are exceptionally dense.
So, yes, railguns can hit targets over the horizon.
Which law of gravity is that that allows a projectile with no power of it's own to maintain a constant height for 15-25+ miles? That's going to require some very specific projectile design and a lot of math. Sure the range is doable, but making sure your projectile doesn't gain altitude as the earth curves away beneath it or fall as gravity acts upon it is going to be tricky.
It was more of a tongue in cheek statement rather than saying it's impossible but cheers anyway.
What do we need a large navy for now?
That is what they were saying after WW1 then look what happened. I'm not saying there's a big war round the corner or anything but we need a large decent navy for when we need a large decent navy.
How is that fancy laser going to work when the enemy uses a smoke screen? Or a mirror?
You're making it too complicated.
One EMP burst, and all that fancy hardware will be burned-out scrap.
Strat
Because there's absolutely no defence against EMP :| If it was that simple forces would just EMP each others tech then go back to fighting with mechanical means.
Keep in mind, anything you could hit with a navel gun is even easier to hit with a rail gun.
Apart from targets over the horizon.
That's funny, because every online dictionary I consulted said that it was grammatically correct to use "comprise" as a synonym for "compose." In fact Merriam Webster has this to say:
Sense 3 : compose, constitute
Usage Discussion of COMPRISE Although it has been in use since the late 18th century, sense 3 is still attacked as wrong. Why it has been singled out is not clear, but until comparatively recent times it was found chiefly in scientific or technical writing rather than belles lettres. Our current evidence shows a slight shift in usage: sense 3 is somewhat more frequent in recent literary use than the earlier senses. You should be aware, however, that if you use sense 3 you may be subject to criticism for doing so, and you may want to choose a safer synonym such as compose or make up.
I guess someone needs to go though and change them all back and add this citation.
"personally I find it somewhat insulting calling many of them artists. yes without a doubt many have a gifted voice or work hard to produce excellent sounds, but they aren't artists." The performer is just as important as the composer for a good music, I dont know from which planet you came to think such nonsense.
Where in that quoted section does he say the performer is not as important? He said they weren't the artist. Bit of a difference there.
I disagree, delivery can make even the most mundane statements hilarious.
The point of articles like this is to raise awareness so that artists are more aware of what they're getting into before they sign, so that they negotiate better and might refuse offers if that's in their best interest.
Or the record company just tells them to take a hike and select the next artist in the line. You can't go for a walk without stumbling over wannabe artists, it's a surprise they get paid at all. Filling the position of an artist is easier than filling a position at McDonalds. You can't really expect to be paid more during those circumstances.
The average McEmployee does not have the potential to generate millions in revenue.
McDonald's CEO barely has that potential, so no, not really like an artist when it comes to monetary expectations. If I'm a good artist, I'm providing a hell of a lot more than asking if you want fries with that.
The only way your mcpopstar can make a millions in revenue is with millions in advertising. What would you guess is the percentage of artists that generate millions+ to the overall pool of 'artists' signed or unsigned? Not very high at all I'd wager and the ones which can do it don't need the labels. More than ever in these internet self publication days.
So much for freedom of speech. Now, if you don't tolerate my ridiculous threats I'll give you a Kame-Hame-Ha and see how you like that. Maybe follow that up with a dose from my sonic screwdriver, not so high and mighty now are you?
Hehe it's so trendy and clever and witty to observe that a state has lots of people who don't politically agree with you, and then assume they must all be drooling idiot cavemen with large brow ridges who can barely say "unga bunga" while clubbing their lunch to death. I mean obviously whatever you believe is the definition of intelligent enlightenment, leaving no room for anyone to legitimately disagree with you. I wish I could be all smarmy like you, and I regret that I have not yet attained this state of being, and none of this post is sarcastic at all, nosiree.
Well, here's one Texan.
Most people that work in customer service realise the customer is not having a go at them personal. It might sound like it but they are venting at the company even if they do keep saying 'you'