I stand corrected. I've never actually tried to fit a 5.56 nato round into a.223 rifle. I only needed to see the results photo of one overpressured pistol to keep me away from that sort of gamble.
Calibre numbers don't necessarily have a strict relation to bullet size. 9mm and.357 SIG both fire.355 diameter bullets..223 Remington and 5.56 NATO both fire same diameter bullets, and I'm pretty sure GP is right, at.224.
It isn't a matter of the fired bullets being stuck in the barrel. They won't. But a chamber and barrel designed for.223 Remington need not contain the same pressure that the 5.56 NATO round may generate. Also, the 5.56 NATO round is slightly longer, meaning a.223 Rem bolt will not fully close into battery on a 5.56 NATO round. And that means that the case could rupture explosively out of the breech, rather than channel the explosion down the barrel behind the bullet.
In fact, I've not seen a handgun chambered in.22 other than.22LR. Some revolvers that will fire.22 short, sure. But they're chambered in.22LR and fire.22 short for the same reason that.357 and.44 magnums fire.38 and.44 special rounds, respectively.
No, you didn't. This technology can't protect you from being shot with your own weapon. If an attacker can take your sidearm away, they now have a couple pounds of metal with which to pistol whip you. Then they can leisurely take your watch, put it close to the weapon, and shoot you.
Any failure mode that would lock the pistol in that case, will also lock the pistol in many other cases where you will want to fire. But can't, because you've got to do something to unlock the pistol again.
They wouldn't get to keep less per sale. Unless you can reasonably convince me that ebooks have the same costs of publication as the paper costs, ink costs, binding costs, shipping costs, and repurchase cost of unsold books.
In return, they deliver to me a product that has one less benefit than an actual paper book. I can't loan it to a friend easily.
"Oh noes! Our profit margins will be the same if we lower our prices on ebooks! Thats horrible!" I seem to have misplaced my violin. Its quite small, you see.
Sure. There was always a window of detection. One that would close under certain circumstances such as: 1) the destruction of the human race 2) catastrophic loss of human technical skill 3) destruction of the extraterrestrial species we hope to detect or 4) catastrophic loss of extraterrestrial technical skill. This just means that the window also closes when the extraterrestrial species we hope to detect advances beyond broadcast emissions we can detect.
Since that last bit is unlikely to happen the day after they develop the broadcast technology, there is still a chance. Of course, there was always the chance that they'd just skip right to a more efficient technology that we can't detect. But thats life.
Carriers need to do something deliberate to randomly slow transmission rates for random customers? I would like to know which carrier this is. Are they located in the US?
$/hour isn't a judgement of quality. It is a factual ratio. A game can have a high ratio because it is a short, but very fun game. Or it can have a high ratio because it is a shitty game that everybody quits in a couple of hours. Either way, you can expect to spend more money for the hours you are likely to get out of the game.
Such information may be rubbish to you. It isn't to others. Its certainly a better piece of information than some reviewer's "I give it.. 4 out of 5" or an 87/100.
It is possible for you, in hindsight, to play a meh game out for 30 hours and think that you wouldn't have spent the money on it if you were to face the choice with what you know now. Meaning it was worth the time cost, but not worth the money cost.
But I'm much more likely to believe that, at some earlier point, you'd come to the conclusion that it wasn't worth the money you paid, and is not worth your continued time in playing it either. Attempt to resell the game follows.
How far could he? Probably quite a lot. Given that he is jumping from over 20 miles altitude, I'd guess that he could get over 50 miles horizontal movement if he wished.
But since he is going for speed of fall, his suit and body position are going to attempt to minimize that sort of movement.
That isn't so difficult to accomplish. When you are negotiating for a ticket, tell them that you'll release the funds from escrow when you are safely on the ground.
If you have the kind of money to afford space travel, you can probably swing that sort of arrangement. By the time space travel gets cheap, safety will be more of a proven record, and it won't be necessary.
Interesting opinion.. google news is harmful to large orgs that have the clout to draw viewers..
Of course they apparently aren't using their clout to draw readers, or they don't actually have the clout you think they have. If they had such clout, why aren't they capturing readers? Perhaps because.. a headline and a couple lines of summary are more than enough to indicate that the story isn't interesting. This is not a fault of Google News. This is the good part of Google News. Google News is the shitty-story-masquerading-as-news filter.
Not precisely the same situation, but I flip past CNN occasionally while watching TV. This past week I have seen Anderson Cooper talking about Haiti. A lot. I listen about long enough to hear "people are still buried and dying" or variations of that, and move on. I get it. Bad situation, fragile structures, poor country. People dying. It isn't news anymore. Guess which news channel I'm pretty much guaranteed to not be viewing for the next hour or so, at least? Same thing on the web. Same story, new day? I won't read it. Not surprisingly, a lot of other people won't either.
So.. you're asserting that the DOJ is filing briefs for the defense in every case to ever land in federal court? Somehow, I doubt that is in fact occuring.
This is not the DOJ's case, and the federal government is not a party to the case. The filing is contrary to the supreme law of the land. You know.. the constitution. And the DOJ can either be aware of the Constitution, its previously noted interpretations by the court, and the legal code (in which case it is acting unethcially) or the DOJ can be unaware of some/all of that and thus be acting ineptly. Neither bodes well.
I don't see why the NYT couldn't be replaced. There are still a number of large news organizations out there. Some of them not even owned by News Corp. If we're accessing our news by internet, it isn't like these other news outlets have to set up new branch offices. No need to build new presses or set up a distribution framework. All news readers have to do is enter a new URL, or click a different link in their news aggregators.
All it would take to replace the NYT is some other outlet willing to step up and use the increased revenue from increased readership to do proper journalism.
And there is still Wikileaks, to get raw data out. I'm guessing that pretty much every news organization not implicated by a potential story on Wikileaks will have that story for your reading enjoyment. Some of them will even do it at no additional cost to you.
What difference does it make? Even if every person who voted for every representative, senator, and the president knew in fine detail each one's stance on international trade, it is unlikely that the vote was cast solely on that stance.
This is the ugly nature of representative democracy. Voters compromise between their representative's views on various numbers of international and domestic issues. They choose the least shitty choice to vote for. The representatives then meet and try to compromise their way to a law, treaty, or policy. They negotiate a least shitty document and sign it. The end result is something that no one is really happy with.
And those are under ideal circumstances, which dare I say never occur.
I like the "and emphasizes technology skills" bit myself.
Perhaps a school that seeks to focus on technical skills should hire administrators with same. Ones whose mind will not be blown when, you know, actual technology shows up from its students.
Uh.. if the termination fees were ever about recovering the cost of the phone incurred by the carrier, it would be dependent on the make and model of the phone you select with your service contract. For the most part, that isn't the case. And I can therefore conclude that the fee has mostly nothing to do with recovering said cost.
1) a physical drive is lost, and costs time, effort, and funds to replace. recovering data is further time and effort, and potentially more funds. Digitally stored data need not be an either/or value proposition. It can have value, and still be pirated for the simple reason that the value is less than the cost demanded. When this occurs, and the data is pirated, the content producer has lost nothing. Wealth has, in fact, been generated in the form of consumer surplus. The same way a lot of wealth is derived in many other perfectly legit transactions.
2) It is, perhaps, an overstatement to say that "nobody" will download the restricted media, with an implicit time constraint of the near future. But it is not an overstatement with a longer term view. Children, who very much do have media preferences but lack the funds to legitimately purchase, are the ones most likely to know about pirate torrents. They have the most to gain from learning about them. They are also the least likely to be punished for their knowledge. Children grow up. And they become adults who know about torrents. Further, the vast majority of people consuming media like this (although 'like' is relative.. paid media isn't moving by torrent a lot that I know of) didn't grow up with torrents. They grew up with alternatives. Physical objects containing the media. Vinyl, tapes, discs. But this media technology is teaching even those people about torrents. It is, itself, a torrent. Once that knowledge is in play, people are more likely to learn about other torrents. Including pirate torrents. And digitally delivered media has, thus far, been delivered in many cases at prices close to (sometimes higher than) a disc purchase. Making discs quite valuable. Discs can be loaned and resold. They, for the most part, do not stop working when some company fails, urinates all over a key server, or other such issue. Technology such as this will thrive only by force, or by pricing its goods like the rentals that they are.
3) Minimal for anyone. Not to say that anyone could put an minimal amount of effort into bypassing whatever scheme is utilized. But someone will make that effort. For money, for fun.. whatever. It happens. All the time. Once someone has, it becomes pretty minimal effort for anyone else. Drop a torrent into your client. Not really a complex action.
4) Torrents may be funded by the good faith of others. But then media companies have long been funded by the good faith of its consumers. Try getting a refund for your movie ticket when the film sucked. Try it with your digital downloads. I am at the point where I largely don't go to movie theatres. I don't bother with most DVDs or CDs. Those media pushers don't have any faith banked with me any longer, so I don't bother to buy from them. That said, I don't bother with p2p either. The time it takes to find something I'm interested in is largely more than I'm willing to invest. Most music I listen to these days is webradio. Movies, I borrow from friends who own discs. Its, y'know, like I pirated it. But legal. Didn't cost me anything, and no media company got more than they were going to get anyway. Maybe I was abusing the good faith of others, in your opinion.
Well.. if the government does mandate the transition, we won't need to get rid of them. They'll become obsolete and useless. And who cares. Fax machines are scanners bolted onto modems housed inside a printer. Pull out the modem, drop in some cheap network hardware, and tack on an open/free ftp package. Send new design to the manufacturing floor. Won't need to dial, is probably faster, doesn't need its own line (or doesn't require coordinating the use of one line), and the cost difference is tiny. Unless you just have to have an 802.11n/GigE/satellite transceiver as your network hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
I stand corrected. I've never actually tried to fit a 5.56 nato round into a .223 rifle. I only needed to see the results photo of one overpressured pistol to keep me away from that sort of gamble.
Calibre numbers don't necessarily have a strict relation to bullet size. 9mm and .357 SIG both fire .355 diameter bullets. .223 Remington and 5.56 NATO both fire same diameter bullets, and I'm pretty sure GP is right, at .224.
It isn't a matter of the fired bullets being stuck in the barrel. They won't. But a chamber and barrel designed for .223 Remington need not contain the same pressure that the 5.56 NATO round may generate. Also, the 5.56 NATO round is slightly longer, meaning a .223 Rem bolt will not fully close into battery on a 5.56 NATO round. And that means that the case could rupture explosively out of the breech, rather than channel the explosion down the barrel behind the bullet.
In fact, I've not seen a handgun chambered in .22 other than .22LR. Some revolvers that will fire .22 short, sure. But they're chambered in .22LR and fire .22 short for the same reason that .357 and .44 magnums fire .38 and .44 special rounds, respectively.
No, you didn't. This technology can't protect you from being shot with your own weapon. If an attacker can take your sidearm away, they now have a couple pounds of metal with which to pistol whip you. Then they can leisurely take your watch, put it close to the weapon, and shoot you.
Any failure mode that would lock the pistol in that case, will also lock the pistol in many other cases where you will want to fire. But can't, because you've got to do something to unlock the pistol again.
They wouldn't get to keep less per sale. Unless you can reasonably convince me that ebooks have the same costs of publication as the paper costs, ink costs, binding costs, shipping costs, and repurchase cost of unsold books.
In return, they deliver to me a product that has one less benefit than an actual paper book. I can't loan it to a friend easily.
"Oh noes! Our profit margins will be the same if we lower our prices on ebooks! Thats horrible!" I seem to have misplaced my violin. Its quite small, you see.
Sure. There was always a window of detection. One that would close under certain circumstances such as: 1) the destruction of the human race 2) catastrophic loss of human technical skill 3) destruction of the extraterrestrial species we hope to detect or 4) catastrophic loss of extraterrestrial technical skill. This just means that the window also closes when the extraterrestrial species we hope to detect advances beyond broadcast emissions we can detect.
Since that last bit is unlikely to happen the day after they develop the broadcast technology, there is still a chance. Of course, there was always the chance that they'd just skip right to a more efficient technology that we can't detect. But thats life.
Carriers need to do something deliberate to randomly slow transmission rates for random customers? I would like to know which carrier this is. Are they located in the US?
Author's life is a limited time. It is also an indefinite time. These are not mutually exclusive terms.
Unless authors lived forever. In which case, it would be neither limited nor indefinite.
Best part.. lawmaking is a service that can be offered. Your attempt at law makes itself illegal by restricting the service of crafting laws.
$/hour isn't a judgement of quality. It is a factual ratio. A game can have a high ratio because it is a short, but very fun game. Or it can have a high ratio because it is a shitty game that everybody quits in a couple of hours. Either way, you can expect to spend more money for the hours you are likely to get out of the game.
Such information may be rubbish to you. It isn't to others. Its certainly a better piece of information than some reviewer's "I give it.. 4 out of 5" or an 87/100.
Well.. sort of.
It is possible for you, in hindsight, to play a meh game out for 30 hours and think that you wouldn't have spent the money on it if you were to face the choice with what you know now. Meaning it was worth the time cost, but not worth the money cost.
But I'm much more likely to believe that, at some earlier point, you'd come to the conclusion that it wasn't worth the money you paid, and is not worth your continued time in playing it either. Attempt to resell the game follows.
How far could he? Probably quite a lot. Given that he is jumping from over 20 miles altitude, I'd guess that he could get over 50 miles horizontal movement if he wished.
But since he is going for speed of fall, his suit and body position are going to attempt to minimize that sort of movement.
That isn't so difficult to accomplish. When you are negotiating for a ticket, tell them that you'll release the funds from escrow when you are safely on the ground.
If you have the kind of money to afford space travel, you can probably swing that sort of arrangement. By the time space travel gets cheap, safety will be more of a proven record, and it won't be necessary.
Interesting opinion.. google news is harmful to large orgs that have the clout to draw viewers..
Of course they apparently aren't using their clout to draw readers, or they don't actually have the clout you think they have. If they had such clout, why aren't they capturing readers? Perhaps because.. a headline and a couple lines of summary are more than enough to indicate that the story isn't interesting. This is not a fault of Google News. This is the good part of Google News. Google News is the shitty-story-masquerading-as-news filter.
Not precisely the same situation, but I flip past CNN occasionally while watching TV. This past week I have seen Anderson Cooper talking about Haiti. A lot. I listen about long enough to hear "people are still buried and dying" or variations of that, and move on. I get it. Bad situation, fragile structures, poor country. People dying. It isn't news anymore. Guess which news channel I'm pretty much guaranteed to not be viewing for the next hour or so, at least? Same thing on the web. Same story, new day? I won't read it. Not surprisingly, a lot of other people won't either.
So.. you're asserting that the DOJ is filing briefs for the defense in every case to ever land in federal court? Somehow, I doubt that is in fact occuring.
This is not the DOJ's case, and the federal government is not a party to the case. The filing is contrary to the supreme law of the land. You know.. the constitution. And the DOJ can either be aware of the Constitution, its previously noted interpretations by the court, and the legal code (in which case it is acting unethcially) or the DOJ can be unaware of some/all of that and thus be acting ineptly. Neither bodes well.
I don't see why the NYT couldn't be replaced. There are still a number of large news organizations out there. Some of them not even owned by News Corp. If we're accessing our news by internet, it isn't like these other news outlets have to set up new branch offices. No need to build new presses or set up a distribution framework. All news readers have to do is enter a new URL, or click a different link in their news aggregators.
All it would take to replace the NYT is some other outlet willing to step up and use the increased revenue from increased readership to do proper journalism.
And there is still Wikileaks, to get raw data out. I'm guessing that pretty much every news organization not implicated by a potential story on Wikileaks will have that story for your reading enjoyment. Some of them will even do it at no additional cost to you.
What difference does it make? Even if every person who voted for every representative, senator, and the president knew in fine detail each one's stance on international trade, it is unlikely that the vote was cast solely on that stance.
This is the ugly nature of representative democracy. Voters compromise between their representative's views on various numbers of international and domestic issues. They choose the least shitty choice to vote for. The representatives then meet and try to compromise their way to a law, treaty, or policy. They negotiate a least shitty document and sign it. The end result is something that no one is really happy with.
And those are under ideal circumstances, which dare I say never occur.
I like the "and emphasizes technology skills" bit myself.
Perhaps a school that seeks to focus on technical skills should hire administrators with same. Ones whose mind will not be blown when, you know, actual technology shows up from its students.
Uh.. if the termination fees were ever about recovering the cost of the phone incurred by the carrier, it would be dependent on the make and model of the phone you select with your service contract. For the most part, that isn't the case. And I can therefore conclude that the fee has mostly nothing to do with recovering said cost.
You can't have government employees doing good!
Translation:
This gives everybody the wrong fucking idea. Like we work for the good of the people or something. Makes the rest of us look bad!
1) a physical drive is lost, and costs time, effort, and funds to replace. recovering data is further time and effort, and potentially more funds. Digitally stored data need not be an either/or value proposition. It can have value, and still be pirated for the simple reason that the value is less than the cost demanded. When this occurs, and the data is pirated, the content producer has lost nothing. Wealth has, in fact, been generated in the form of consumer surplus. The same way a lot of wealth is derived in many other perfectly legit transactions.
2) It is, perhaps, an overstatement to say that "nobody" will download the restricted media, with an implicit time constraint of the near future. But it is not an overstatement with a longer term view. Children, who very much do have media preferences but lack the funds to legitimately purchase, are the ones most likely to know about pirate torrents. They have the most to gain from learning about them. They are also the least likely to be punished for their knowledge. Children grow up. And they become adults who know about torrents. Further, the vast majority of people consuming media like this (although 'like' is relative.. paid media isn't moving by torrent a lot that I know of) didn't grow up with torrents. They grew up with alternatives. Physical objects containing the media. Vinyl, tapes, discs. But this media technology is teaching even those people about torrents. It is, itself, a torrent. Once that knowledge is in play, people are more likely to learn about other torrents. Including pirate torrents. And digitally delivered media has, thus far, been delivered in many cases at prices close to (sometimes higher than) a disc purchase. Making discs quite valuable. Discs can be loaned and resold. They, for the most part, do not stop working when some company fails, urinates all over a key server, or other such issue. Technology such as this will thrive only by force, or by pricing its goods like the rentals that they are.
3) Minimal for anyone. Not to say that anyone could put an minimal amount of effort into bypassing whatever scheme is utilized. But someone will make that effort. For money, for fun.. whatever. It happens. All the time. Once someone has, it becomes pretty minimal effort for anyone else. Drop a torrent into your client. Not really a complex action.
4) Torrents may be funded by the good faith of others. But then media companies have long been funded by the good faith of its consumers. Try getting a refund for your movie ticket when the film sucked. Try it with your digital downloads. I am at the point where I largely don't go to movie theatres. I don't bother with most DVDs or CDs. Those media pushers don't have any faith banked with me any longer, so I don't bother to buy from them. That said, I don't bother with p2p either. The time it takes to find something I'm interested in is largely more than I'm willing to invest. Most music I listen to these days is webradio. Movies, I borrow from friends who own discs. Its, y'know, like I pirated it. But legal. Didn't cost me anything, and no media company got more than they were going to get anyway. Maybe I was abusing the good faith of others, in your opinion.
No argument to any of those points.
However, they are all orthogonal to Nadaka saying that trademarks must be registered. I was correcting a patently (hah!) false statement.
No, trademarks do not need to be registered.
Which is why there are both TM and R markings. TM is unregistered, R is registered.
Lots of asteroids out there are winning the lottery too. Every day. None of those impacts are destroying life on earth.
Well.. if the government does mandate the transition, we won't need to get rid of them. They'll become obsolete and useless. And who cares. Fax machines are scanners bolted onto modems housed inside a printer. Pull out the modem, drop in some cheap network hardware, and tack on an open/free ftp package. Send new design to the manufacturing floor. Won't need to dial, is probably faster, doesn't need its own line (or doesn't require coordinating the use of one line), and the cost difference is tiny. Unless you just have to have an 802.11n/GigE/satellite transceiver as your network hardware.