Uh, if you'd watched the movie, you'd note that all the characters were, in fact, Japanese. The cultural disconnect of Japanese people calling each other "nigga" created something that was funny. Sometimes, we call those things that are funny "jokes".
But hey, don't let that get in the way of your knee-jerk reaction.
Oh good. The ugliest cars on the page (two Hondas and a Chevy) were all designed here. And the Volvo and Saab have managed to retain their own identity, because their American parents noticed that they (unlike Detroit) were actually making cars people want to buy.
Woo woo. *waves flag*
At least the new Cadillac roadster looks like nothing else on the road. I'll need to see one in person to say whether I in fact like it.
The thing that gets me is that the hybrids seem to be aggressively ugly.
Look at the Prius. Look at the Insight. Both are HORRIBLY UGLY CARS. Even the Civic Hybrid looks like, well, a civic, which has never won any beauty contests (although the guy on the next street over who's painted his neon green and put a huge wing on the back and an intercooler in the front might disagree...but he's FREAKIN' WRONG).
Come on! Hybrid technology is cool stuff! Why not make a cool, aggressively styled, Jetsons looking future-mobile?
But no. You get a car that looks like a box a car should come in. Lame.
Frankly, I'm very leery of this bicycle. It looks like the wheels are steel-rimmed, which are far less durable and serviceable than alloy. The componentry is cheap, but probably serviceable.
My big concern is that they're taking a $100 department store bike, bolting a $75 drive system onto it, and selling it for $300. I mean, the price looks reasonable for what you get, but you are (in my opinion) getting an un-usefully low-quality bicycle. The thing also weighs fifty pounds, which will be no fun if you have to carry it upstairs.
By comparison, my fourteen year old road bike weighs 24lbs or so (probably cost $500 or so in 1986), and my seven year old entry-level mountain racing bike ($800 in 1994) weighs about 26 lbs.
I also do not trust full-suspension bikes that have not been assembled and inspected by an expert. If there's a big Jesus bolt that holds my bike together, I want to know for sure that somebody who knows what they're doing has installed it properly.
My $.02. Unless you find yourself in very hilly terrain, or you're in the kind of (rather poor) physical condition that I myself am in, the electric drive system is probably more trouble than it's worth. A recreational cyclist can cruise very comfortably at 15-17mph on level terrain basically for as long as they want to go. When I was riding daily on a hilly commute in Austin, my average speed was between 16 and 21 mph (with a crazy-fun downhill run on the way to work at about 55mph...that was a hell of a way to wake up in the morning!)
I'm not qualified to comment on whether the electrical system is any good.
Which, FINALLY, are falling out of favor with the US military as too costly a weapon (in terms of noncombatant casualties) to justify.
Bout darn time.
Yes, there are still some cluster-bomb area denial weapons being employed, but I believe that they are designed to detonate on timers. I need to do some more reading on those.
I know I'm picking nits, but I've got to maintain that the overwhelming majority of firearms were built to kill (or maim or disable) mammals. Yes, there are differences in design and suitability for various tasks, but that's really what they're FOR.
Yes, target weapons, but I'd bet you a quarter that there are more AK-47's on this planet than target weapons.
The M4's versatility is great...but there's no reason you couldn't use the same receiver, even the same handguard, on the M16. Sure, it's not the weapon for going all tunnel-rat, but for having a firefight in a mountain valley, you need some range!
I'm not a big fan of the new OICW. I think it's going to be far too expensive to train soldiers on it appropriately. I mean, it'll be great if a) it doesn't break and b) soldiers get to learn how to use it, but I think the development $$ would have been better spent building a world-beating bullpup assault rifle (with downward ejection!) so you can get a usefully-long barrel with a short overall weapon length.
The British L81 was pretty bad when it came out, but they say it's now been sorted. The Israelis have a new toy too, and of course there's no reason not to just license built the Steyr AUG, which is an altogether superb weapon.
And, for the non-front-line troops, FN P90's for everybody. That is one bad ass SMG.
OK, OK, I surrender. You have several good points, and they're much more clear in your second post. Thanks for taking the time to make 'em.
I think we're going to wind up arguing similar points, and we're certainly on the same side of the second amendment, so let's talk some more about modern firearms.
My argument hinges on the point that "assault rifles" or any issue military rifle is no more or less "deadly" than commonly available "sport rifles". My contention is that any distinction one tries to make between such weapons is used to undermine the intent of the Second Amendment (which, as I'm sure you'll agree, has nothing to do with the right to shoot animals).
You are absolutely right. Battle rifles are designed for extended carrying with large ammunition loads, and have several features that are not necessary (or even very useful) to a sport shooter. However, none of those features have anything to do with their/lethality/.
Case in point: I just read an article on how the M4 carbine's very short (14"?) barrel is very ineffective in the ground war in Afghanistan.
Me, I'm wondering what the hell the troops are doing with a CQB weapon for fighting in the mountains, but I'm not a quartermaster. What the heck do I know? (Except which gun I'd want in the same situation: Gimme an M-16A2 or an H&K G3)
I'm certain your situation will get much better when your local Baby Bell kills whatever other DSL companies may be in your region (although not at your home).
While there are dozens of rifle cartridges on the market, the 7.62mm NATO round is very very popular with hunters, and is very common in battle rifles and light machine guns all over the world. If you're a decent shot, it doesn't take a larger round to take down an elk versus a man. The vital areas are about the same size.
In other words, trying to separate hunting rifles from "assault weapons" or military rifles is just silly, and meaningless. When you talk about pistol grips and flash hiders, you're talking about items that are almost exclusively cosmetic enhancements. (Anybody who uses a pistol grip rifle to fire from the hip isn't at all interested in hitting anything, and flash hiders are only vaguely useful in their designed function of protecting the shooter's night vision from the hot gas plume coming out the front of the weapon)
The bottom line is, for each of the criteria you list, I can come up with a weapon that breaks those rules. The difference between one rifle and another (with the exception of light "plinking" rifles) is much smaller than the difference between two shooters.
In other words, I'd rather be shot at by an incompetent boob behind a PSG-1 than a professional marksman with a cheap Romanian AK-47, although the PSG-1 is a far more accurate and slightly more powerful weapon.
It's equally disingenuous to try to argue that guns are designed to kill. As a matter of fact, one of the "advantages" to the 5.56mm round the US Army (and USMC) use is that it's supposed to wound, rather than kill outright, its target. By administering a grave wound, the theory goes, not only do you disable the target, but you disable two of his friends who now have to take him off the battlefield to get medical attention. Three for one.
Please explain the difference between a gun designed to kill a person and a gun designed to kill animals. Be specific.
I am a huge proponent of the second amendment, but splitting hairs about what guns are "designed" to do weakens the case. It also makes stupid laws like tha "assault weapons" ban.
More to the point, I believe we should preferentially reward innovators and inventors over large conglomerates who can easily duplicate somebody else's ideas.
Yes, patents should exist IFF they promote science and the arts. The mechanism by which patents should do that is by granting time-limited monopolies on ideas to inventors.
Note: I don't think that the inventor should be able to sell that patent. Yes, license it, but not exclusively to any party. There's a different conversation entirely.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that this is the case today, but there's a baby in that patenty-bathwater.
Yeah, i use a separate grinder for spices, but that rice thing is a good idea if you don't want cinnamon to taste like black pepper.
Any other kitchen tips? I love finding new kitchen geeks. Let me know if you're interested, and I'll send you my friends' recipe database URL. Has good stuff.
I disagree, but you get full marks for using "begs the question" correctly. Good job.
I think that patents on specific mechanisms are a Good Idea. I think it's nice when somebody who thinks up something clever, and non-obvious, gets rewarded.
That's not to say that I think our current intellectual property system is anything other than COMPLETELY fucked up. Right now, you can patent the use of the word patent when discussing patents, and I think that's just catastrophically stupid (and, in fact, violates your parent poster's condition that patents not be handed out like condoms).
I think that a patent can and should be awarded for a non-obvious mechanical object. I think I could see my way clear to agreeing that a software "mechanism" might be patent-able too, but work-alike mechanisms that produce the same results through different means should be explicitly allowed.
As a f'rinstance, I think a href="http://www.hoberman.com/fold/hoberman_new.ht m">Chuck Hoberman's deceptively simple mechanical linkages are patentable, but the novelty-gadget with the multiple scissors links that extends out and grabs something when you squeeze the handles, should not be patentable.
Obviously, it would take a lot of work to codify these principles, but I think it's high time we started thinking about it.
Fair enough. My experience was colored by a Sony Sports walkman I bought, and it disintegrated (although I did beat the hell out of it...but that was why I bought the Sports model!)
My dad has one of Sony's amps that seems to die at the faintest suggestion of a lightning strike (yes, it's behind a good surge protector).
But, on the third hand, I've got a 17" Trinitron monitor that will certainly be the last CRT I buy.
There are zillions of search engines. They're free to use whatever search algorithm they want to. I happen to prefer google (I switched from altavista while google was still beta=testing itself, and I never looked back).
Why does Google's patent keep other people from creating search engines? I mean, it's not like they patented the idea of a search engine...
There are lots and lots of ridiculous patents. There are also some absurdly clever and innovative ones.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, if you'd watched the movie, you'd note that all the characters were, in fact, Japanese. The cultural disconnect of Japanese people calling each other "nigga" created something that was funny. Sometimes, we call those things that are funny "jokes".
But hey, don't let that get in the way of your knee-jerk reaction.
I can't figure out how the Civic Hybrid with the CVT doesn't get good gas mileage.
Guess the thing just turns all that extra efficiency into waste heat. How lame.
Oh good. The ugliest cars on the page (two Hondas and a Chevy) were all designed here. And the Volvo and Saab have managed to retain their own identity, because their American parents noticed that they (unlike Detroit) were actually making cars people want to buy.
Woo woo. *waves flag*
At least the new Cadillac roadster looks like nothing else on the road. I'll need to see one in person to say whether I in fact like it.
Meh. Looks like a doorstop, and the engine does NOTHING until you spool it up to 7000rpm.
I mean, it's a capable sports car, but it's nothing special.
The thing that gets me is that the hybrids seem to be aggressively ugly.
Look at the Prius. Look at the Insight. Both are HORRIBLY UGLY CARS. Even the Civic Hybrid looks like, well, a civic, which has never won any beauty contests (although the guy on the next street over who's painted his neon green and put a huge wing on the back and an intercooler in the front might disagree...but he's FREAKIN' WRONG).
Come on! Hybrid technology is cool stuff! Why not make a cool, aggressively styled, Jetsons looking future-mobile?
But no. You get a car that looks like a box a car should come in. Lame.
Frankly, I'm very leery of this bicycle. It looks like the wheels are steel-rimmed, which are far less durable and serviceable than alloy. The componentry is cheap, but probably serviceable.
My big concern is that they're taking a $100 department store bike, bolting a $75 drive system onto it, and selling it for $300. I mean, the price looks reasonable for what you get, but you are (in my opinion) getting an un-usefully low-quality bicycle. The thing also weighs fifty pounds, which will be no fun if you have to carry it upstairs.
By comparison, my fourteen year old road bike weighs 24lbs or so (probably cost $500 or so in 1986), and my seven year old entry-level mountain racing bike ($800 in 1994) weighs about 26 lbs.
I also do not trust full-suspension bikes that have not been assembled and inspected by an expert. If there's a big Jesus bolt that holds my bike together, I want to know for sure that somebody who knows what they're doing has installed it properly.
My $.02. Unless you find yourself in very hilly terrain, or you're in the kind of (rather poor) physical condition that I myself am in, the electric drive system is probably more trouble than it's worth. A recreational cyclist can cruise very comfortably at 15-17mph on level terrain basically for as long as they want to go. When I was riding daily on a hilly commute in Austin, my average speed was between 16 and 21 mph (with a crazy-fun downhill run on the way to work at about 55mph...that was a hell of a way to wake up in the morning!)
I'm not qualified to comment on whether the electrical system is any good.
Which, FINALLY, are falling out of favor with the US military as too costly a weapon (in terms of noncombatant casualties) to justify.
Bout darn time.
Yes, there are still some cluster-bomb area denial weapons being employed, but I believe that they are designed to detonate on timers. I need to do some more reading on those.
Yes. We have come full circle.
I know I'm picking nits, but I've got to maintain that the overwhelming majority of firearms were built to kill (or maim or disable) mammals. Yes, there are differences in design and suitability for various tasks, but that's really what they're FOR.
Yes, target weapons, but I'd bet you a quarter that there are more AK-47's on this planet than target weapons.
The M4's versatility is great...but there's no reason you couldn't use the same receiver, even the same handguard, on the M16. Sure, it's not the weapon for going all tunnel-rat, but for having a firefight in a mountain valley, you need some range!
I'm not a big fan of the new OICW. I think it's going to be far too expensive to train soldiers on it appropriately. I mean, it'll be great if a) it doesn't break and b) soldiers get to learn how to use it, but I think the development $$ would have been better spent building a world-beating bullpup assault rifle (with downward ejection!) so you can get a usefully-long barrel with a short overall weapon length.
The British L81 was pretty bad when it came out, but they say it's now been sorted. The Israelis have a new toy too, and of course there's no reason not to just license built the Steyr AUG, which is an altogether superb weapon.
And, for the non-front-line troops, FN P90's for everybody. That is one bad ass SMG.
OK, OK, I surrender. You have several good points, and they're much more clear in your second post. Thanks for taking the time to make 'em.
/lethality/.
I think we're going to wind up arguing similar points, and we're certainly on the same side of the second amendment, so let's talk some more about modern firearms.
My argument hinges on the point that "assault rifles" or any issue military rifle is no more or less "deadly" than commonly available "sport rifles". My contention is that any distinction one tries to make between such weapons is used to undermine the intent of the Second Amendment (which, as I'm sure you'll agree, has nothing to do with the right to shoot animals).
You are absolutely right. Battle rifles are designed for extended carrying with large ammunition loads, and have several features that are not necessary (or even very useful) to a sport shooter. However, none of those features have anything to do with their
Case in point: I just read an article on how the M4 carbine's very short (14"?) barrel is very ineffective in the ground war in Afghanistan.
Me, I'm wondering what the hell the troops are doing with a CQB weapon for fighting in the mountains, but I'm not a quartermaster. What the heck do I know? (Except which gun I'd want in the same situation: Gimme an M-16A2 or an H&K G3)
I'm certain your situation will get much better when your local Baby Bell kills whatever other DSL companies may be in your region (although not at your home).
I'm sure they'll get right on it.
Way to be totally long-winded, and wrong.
While there are dozens of rifle cartridges on the market, the 7.62mm NATO round is very very popular with hunters, and is very common in battle rifles and light machine guns all over the world. If you're a decent shot, it doesn't take a larger round to take down an elk versus a man. The vital areas are about the same size.
In other words, trying to separate hunting rifles from "assault weapons" or military rifles is just silly, and meaningless. When you talk about pistol grips and flash hiders, you're talking about items that are almost exclusively cosmetic enhancements. (Anybody who uses a pistol grip rifle to fire from the hip isn't at all interested in hitting anything, and flash hiders are only vaguely useful in their designed function of protecting the shooter's night vision from the hot gas plume coming out the front of the weapon)
The bottom line is, for each of the criteria you list, I can come up with a weapon that breaks those rules. The difference between one rifle and another (with the exception of light "plinking" rifles) is much smaller than the difference between two shooters.
In other words, I'd rather be shot at by an incompetent boob behind a PSG-1 than a professional marksman with a cheap Romanian AK-47, although the PSG-1 is a far more accurate and slightly more powerful weapon.
It's equally disingenuous to try to argue that guns are designed to kill. As a matter of fact, one of the "advantages" to the 5.56mm round the US Army (and USMC) use is that it's supposed to wound, rather than kill outright, its target. By administering a grave wound, the theory goes, not only do you disable the target, but you disable two of his friends who now have to take him off the battlefield to get medical attention. Three for one.
Please explain the difference between a gun designed to kill a person and a gun designed to kill animals. Be specific.
I am a huge proponent of the second amendment, but splitting hairs about what guns are "designed" to do weakens the case. It also makes stupid laws like tha "assault weapons" ban.
Why is what Lebed did any different than what all the stock brokers do?
He wasn't even misrepresenting the stock. Yes, he was CAUSING it to climb in price, but he didn't defraud anybody by falsifying records.
I guess I just don't understand why anybody thinks the stock market is ever any different than this. It's ALL a Ponzi scheme.
It's nice to know that might still makes right.
Hey! We should use that idea in international politics! Quick, run for President!
Yeah, but anybody who does all the things you did, but does not happen to have friends or social skills, well, those losers deserve whatever they get.
Right?
There are lots of people who don't get calculus. There are lots of people who don't get interpersonal relationships.
Why is the second one a capital offense in middle schools?
Ah. So if you're weak, and disliked, and maybe not on your guard all day every day, you're fucked?
How is this possibly an acceptable way for anyone to have to live?
More to the point, I believe we should preferentially reward innovators and inventors over large conglomerates who can easily duplicate somebody else's ideas.
Yes, patents should exist IFF they promote science and the arts. The mechanism by which patents should do that is by granting time-limited monopolies on ideas to inventors.
Note: I don't think that the inventor should be able to sell that patent. Yes, license it, but not exclusively to any party. There's a different conversation entirely.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that this is the case today, but there's a baby in that patenty-bathwater.
Yeah, i use a separate grinder for spices, but that rice thing is a good idea if you don't want cinnamon to taste like black pepper.
Any other kitchen tips? I love finding new kitchen geeks. Let me know if you're interested, and I'll send you my friends' recipe database URL. Has good stuff.
First of all, how do you know? How can you tell what the archival life for media that are only (at the ragged outside) 20 years old is going to be?
My big concern with CD-R is how susceptible it is to scratching the label side and destroying data.
This is great fun, but not so good for archival purposes...
Uh, who should we use as a benchmark for memorable performances? Halle Berry, or Russell Crowe?
Just checking.
Hmmm...never considered that. I usually use a scouring pad, or sand if it's REALLY nasty.
Rock salt, huh? Just put that under a rag and scrub away? Do I need to re-season afterwards?
Thanks for the tip!
Dammit, I SWEAR I hit preview. Here is an unfunked link to Mr. Hoberman's site.
I disagree, but you get full marks for using "begs the question" correctly. Good job.
t m">Chuck Hoberman's deceptively simple mechanical linkages are patentable, but the novelty-gadget with the multiple scissors links that extends out and grabs something when you squeeze the handles, should not be patentable.
I think that patents on specific mechanisms are a Good Idea. I think it's nice when somebody who thinks up something clever, and non-obvious, gets rewarded.
That's not to say that I think our current intellectual property system is anything other than COMPLETELY fucked up. Right now, you can patent the use of the word patent when discussing patents, and I think that's just catastrophically stupid (and, in fact, violates your parent poster's condition that patents not be handed out like condoms).
I think that a patent can and should be awarded for a non-obvious mechanical object. I think I could see my way clear to agreeing that a software "mechanism" might be patent-able too, but work-alike mechanisms that produce the same results through different means should be explicitly allowed.
As a f'rinstance, I think a href="http://www.hoberman.com/fold/hoberman_new.h
Obviously, it would take a lot of work to codify these principles, but I think it's high time we started thinking about it.
Fair enough. My experience was colored by a Sony Sports walkman I bought, and it disintegrated (although I did beat the hell out of it...but that was why I bought the Sports model!)
My dad has one of Sony's amps that seems to die at the faintest suggestion of a lightning strike (yes, it's behind a good surge protector).
But, on the third hand, I've got a 17" Trinitron monitor that will certainly be the last CRT I buy.
There are zillions of search engines. They're free to use whatever search algorithm they want to. I happen to prefer google (I switched from altavista while google was still beta=testing itself, and I never looked back).
Why does Google's patent keep other people from creating search engines? I mean, it's not like they patented the idea of a search engine...
There are lots and lots of ridiculous patents. There are also some absurdly clever and innovative ones.