Geekoid, I did move the goal post. I am affirm believer if I have to deal with 20 different sports seasons, 150 comedies and dramas, that dammit. I deserve at least on !@#$% show in "space".
Okay, so I desperately want HBO to produce the "Man-Kzin wars after Game of Thrones"
As for not a true Scotsman, dammit, you found me out. I am a clan member, but through adoption. Which the clans recognize...but not by blood.:-|
Seriously, JMS gave us the first major space TV series to use physics...
Zero G fighters, rotational ship/station compartments.
Granted a lot of typical sci-fantasy. But dang, it was leaps and bounds above Star Wars/Trek science. And he was one of the earlier internet fandoms to interact with his fans. Heck, even gave nods to internet culture "Lurkers".
Nah, JMS = J Michael Staczynski - he is far more cooler, nerdier, than Java Messaging Service.
weather = freezing cold = evidence of global warming
weather = no snow = evidence of global warming
weather = record snow = evidence of global warming
Global Warming Skeptic exclaims "weather not correlating to global warming" = Global Warming Advocate "weather isn't an indicator of climate change" Weather hot, no snow, etc. And suddenly, Global Warming Advocates use weather as an indication of global warming. Which is it?
Global Warming Advocacy argues ALL changes in weather point to, and are explained by global warming. The only proof we can possibly have against global warming, would be a decade long period in which zero change in average temp, percipitation, ice, or what not occurred. (And frankly, I'd laugh my butt off if that actually happened and we went through 10 years with zero climate change - I'd also say there'd be proof that there is a God and that he has a warped sense of humor.)
But the reality is, that global warming advocates put forth a non-testable hypothesis that can explain everything. And has zero way of being countered per scientific method. And all of this is over a mere 1/2 to 1 1/2 degree variation in temperature. With questionable records at that. Furthermore, we know it was much warmer 150,000 years ago when much of the arctic ice was gone
Just some comments per Wikipedia
"NASA, found that the “rate of warming in the Arctic over the last 20 years is eight times the rate of warming over the last 100 years" [Okay, a 120 years geologically speaking is a blink in the record.]
"In September 2012, sea ice reached its smallest size ever." [Really, history records it as having disappeared completely a number of times. Do we mean smallest in modern history? Cause scientific evidence has shown the ice cap has had significant melts several times over the last 2.8 millions years (which is still a short time span geologically speaking)]
Bills of Rights are Amendments to the Constitution, and as such are Constitutional law. And thus, yes, the Constitution as Amended does declare a right of privacy from searches. And that FUCKING includes digital ones.
Yes, our government is fast approaching the point where the 2nd Amendment may be realized as a necessity.
I didn't say count Adobe out....but they're headed toward Corel territory if they're not careful.
The issue is that Adobe saw in HTML5 a change to get out from under the burden of development of Flash (that costs money, developers, etc). Adobe likes to be a tool maker. So they dumped Flash and left her a jaded lover. Dumb.
It had its issues, but had a lot going for it, and a fair sized developer community. Rather, they should have open sourced, not just Flex, but Flash and the Flash engine. Adobe should have turned around and then wrote code that would let Flash talk directly to the browser DOM in a custom webkit browser, but released it freely.
Providing the web with a strongly typed. object oriented scripting language that could be used within HTML as well.
To clarify, yes there is recoil, blowback, gas operated semi-automatics. Maybe even a few unique others. But essentially, all use the force of the expanding gas of the propellant to implement action of chambering the next wound.
blowback - "energy from the motion of the cartridge case as it is pushed to the rear by expanding gases created by the ignition of the propellant charge." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(arms)
recoil - "The same forces that cause the ejecta of a firearm (the projectile(s), propellant gas, wad, sabot, etc.) to move down the barrel also cause all or a portion of the firearm to move in the opposite direction" [Remember, it's the expanding gas that is creating the force, that provides the ensuing recoil.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil_operation
Really, I think you need to research a little more. That recoil is derived from the expanding gasses of the gun powder as it burns.
Now I think some may be misinterpreting my statement of gas, the gas is the exploding/burning powder which drives everything you're mentioning (recoil, blowback, gas-operated). All of these are basic subsets of the fact that the force of the expanding gases cause a reaction, which we all know has a re-action. And those forces are utilized by various means to re-chamber the round.
As opposed to a bolt-action, muzzle loader, single shot, etc. In which case the forces of the expanding gas is simply discharged.
ALL semi-autos are gas operated. The explosive gasses from the gun powder burning, provides the force to operate the re-chambering mechanism (usually a slide).
Recoil, blow-back, is all from the gun powder's explosive gasses.
***
I think you might be getting confused by M16/M4/AR15, direct gas impingement system. Versus most semi-automatics which utilize a piston system to drive the mechanism.
But there is no recoil without the powder explosion. There is no blow-back without the powder explosion. And the inertia you speak of, comes from the powder explosion. Those gasses drive the semi-automatic (and automatic) systems.
Basically, every anti-gun group when pressed has pretty much wanted confiscation of nearly all firearms (usually, handguns and semi-automatics, and pump action shotguns).
So yes, it is a predominant thread of gun banners. Why else would an adjustable stock be a criteria for a so-called assault weapon. Or a barrel shroud (safety feature).
Because (answer is simple), what you described are not small arms/personal arms.
And that is a deciding element. Did you know it wasn't uncommon for a town or city to own a few cannon? You see, it might not even be wrong for the city of New York to have some surface to air missiles. (And believe it or not, there are ways for a private citizen to pretty much own most of that stuff anyways.)
But the common citizen, who forms the able bodied militia, should have the means to stand up against the professional soldier.
Really, cowardly idiots who have no clue what they're talking about. The parts they are making are not illegal. Restricted in that one has to be an FFL to make and sell them, yes. That's it...
The truth is, a fully automatic rifle is far easier to manufacture than a semi-automatic.
Think of it as a) unit with a free wheel mechanism vs b) unit with a timing system. The latter is more complicated. In truth, were one to have to make a simple working gun you would likely build either a single shot or a fully automatic design.
Slashdot Mirror
Geekoid, I did move the goal post. I am affirm believer if I have to deal with 20 different sports seasons, 150 comedies and dramas, that dammit. I deserve at least on !@#$% show in "space".
Okay, so I desperately want HBO to produce the "Man-Kzin wars after Game of Thrones"
As for not a true Scotsman, dammit, you found me out. I am a clan member, but through adoption. Which the clans recognize...but not by blood. :-|
I'd love to see a Mars Colony drama series...
Seriously, JMS gave us the first major space TV series to use physics...
Zero G fighters, rotational ship/station compartments.
Granted a lot of typical sci-fantasy. But dang, it was leaps and bounds above Star Wars/Trek science. And he was one of the earlier internet fandoms to interact with his fans. Heck, even gave nods to internet culture "Lurkers".
Nah, JMS = J Michael Staczynski - he is far more cooler, nerdier, than Java Messaging Service.
Seriously,
weather = super hot = evidence of global warming
weather = freezing cold = evidence of global warming
weather = no snow = evidence of global warming
weather = record snow = evidence of global warming
Global Warming Skeptic exclaims "weather not correlating to global warming" = Global Warming Advocate "weather isn't an indicator of climate change" Weather hot, no snow, etc. And suddenly, Global Warming Advocates use weather as an indication of global warming. Which is it?
Global Warming Advocacy argues ALL changes in weather point to, and are explained by global warming. The only proof we can possibly have against global warming, would be a decade long period in which zero change in average temp, percipitation, ice, or what not occurred. (And frankly, I'd laugh my butt off if that actually happened and we went through 10 years with zero climate change - I'd also say there'd be proof that there is a God and that he has a warped sense of humor.)
But the reality is, that global warming advocates put forth a non-testable hypothesis that can explain everything. And has zero way of being countered per scientific method. And all of this is over a mere 1/2 to 1 1/2 degree variation in temperature. With questionable records at that. Furthermore, we know it was much warmer 150,000 years ago when much of the arctic ice was gone
Just some comments per Wikipedia
"NASA, found that the “rate of warming in the Arctic over the last 20 years is eight times the rate of warming over the last 100 years"
[Okay, a 120 years geologically speaking is a blink in the record.]
"In September 2012, sea ice reached its smallest size ever."
[Really, history records it as having disappeared completely a number of times. Do we mean smallest in modern history? Cause scientific evidence has shown the ice cap has had significant melts several times over the last 2.8 millions years (which is still a short time span geologically speaking)]
Stargate Universe died in 2010. It's been three years since we've had ANY space sci-fi shows.
Yes there have been some sci-fantasy shows, but really most of that is SF lite. It'd be great if Netflix would consider a space series.
JMS was JMS before Java Messaging Service. And probably has more internet acclaim than java messaging does as well.
Dang, JMS was on GEnie yes, before the world wide web was even popular. Hell, JMS predates Java itself
Sorry your failed at your nerdiness...
My understanding is Netflix is producing as exclusive, but then planning to syndicate to other networks.
Crusade was basically TN mucking with everything until the point that JMS was exasperated.
No, it'll be more like Babylon 5 Seasons 1-4 and Jeremiah seasons 1-1.5
In the end, Netflix, will compete with HBO and then be purchased by Disney after their contract runs out.
"privacy from searches"
Bills of Rights are Amendments to the Constitution, and as such are Constitutional law. And thus, yes, the Constitution as Amended does declare a right of privacy from searches. And that FUCKING includes digital ones.
Yes, our government is fast approaching the point where the 2nd Amendment may be realized as a necessity.
The Wireless Mainframe Terminal...
WOOT!!!!
Really, I don't see much difference between Hitler's attempt at controlling people. And Apple's attempt at controlling software on iOS.
And frankly, the Flash debate has run for nearly a decade now. I think I'm justified in enacted Godwin's Law.
I didn't say count Adobe out....but they're headed toward Corel territory if they're not careful.
The issue is that Adobe saw in HTML5 a change to get out from under the burden of development of Flash (that costs money, developers, etc). Adobe likes to be a tool maker. So they dumped Flash and left her a jaded lover. Dumb.
It had its issues, but had a lot going for it, and a fair sized developer community. Rather, they should have open sourced, not just Flex, but Flash and the Flash engine. Adobe should have turned around and then wrote code that would let Flash talk directly to the browser DOM in a custom webkit browser, but released it freely.
Providing the web with a strongly typed. object oriented scripting language that could be used within HTML as well.
To clarify, yes there is recoil, blowback, gas operated semi-automatics. Maybe even a few unique others. But essentially, all use the force of the expanding gas of the propellant to implement action of chambering the next wound.
gas operated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas-operated_reloading
blowback - "energy from the motion of the cartridge case as it is pushed to the rear by expanding gases created by the ignition of the propellant charge."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(arms)
recoil - "The same forces that cause the ejecta of a firearm (the projectile(s), propellant gas, wad, sabot, etc.) to move down the barrel also cause all or a portion of the firearm to move in the opposite direction" [Remember, it's the expanding gas that is creating the force, that provides the ensuing recoil.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil_operation
Really, I think you need to research a little more. That recoil is derived from the expanding gasses of the gun powder as it burns.
Now I think some may be misinterpreting my statement of gas, the gas is the exploding/burning powder which drives everything you're mentioning (recoil, blowback, gas-operated). All of these are basic subsets of the fact that the force of the expanding gases cause a reaction, which we all know has a re-action. And those forces are utilized by various means to re-chamber the round.
As opposed to a bolt-action, muzzle loader, single shot, etc. In which case the forces of the expanding gas is simply discharged.
ALL semi-autos are gas operated. The explosive gasses from the gun powder burning, provides the force to operate the re-chambering mechanism (usually a slide).
Recoil, blow-back, is all from the gun powder's explosive gasses.
***
I think you might be getting confused by M16/M4/AR15, direct gas impingement system. Versus most semi-automatics which utilize a piston system to drive the mechanism.
But there is no recoil without the powder explosion. There is no blow-back without the powder explosion. And the inertia you speak of, comes from the powder explosion. Those gasses drive the semi-automatic (and automatic) systems.
Basically, every anti-gun group when pressed has pretty much wanted confiscation of nearly all firearms (usually, handguns and semi-automatics, and pump action shotguns).
So yes, it is a predominant thread of gun banners. Why else would an adjustable stock be a criteria for a so-called assault weapon. Or a barrel shroud (safety feature).
Because (answer is simple), what you described are not small arms/personal arms.
And that is a deciding element. Did you know it wasn't uncommon for a town or city to own a few cannon? You see, it might not even be wrong for the city of New York to have some surface to air missiles. (And believe it or not, there are ways for a private citizen to pretty much own most of that stuff anyways.)
But the common citizen, who forms the able bodied militia, should have the means to stand up against the professional soldier.
Right, so let's deal with "rational" debate, and accept that humanity is not "logical", and therefore...it's okay to make slippery slope arguments. ;-)
Really, cowardly idiots who have no clue what they're talking about. The parts they are making are not illegal. Restricted in that one has to be an FFL to make and sell them, yes. That's it...
But the C&R is not a manufacturing FFL which is what they got.
Why?
A gang banger needs a mere 10 rounds to do their drive buy. Actually sport shooters can need a 1,000 in a month easy.
That's only for imported firearms
The truth is, a fully automatic rifle is far easier to manufacture than a semi-automatic.
Think of it as a) unit with a free wheel mechanism vs b) unit with a timing system. The latter is more complicated. In truth, were one to have to make a simple working gun you would likely build either a single shot or a fully automatic design.