It was not simply a failure to keep it clean. Armalite designed their AR-15 (militarized by the Army into the M16) to use a very clean burning powder. This appropriate powder may have also been used during evaluation, not 100% sure. However for mass production the Army went with the old ball powder it had been (since late WW2 ?). The powder left far more residue behind. For a direct gas operating mechanism this was a bad idea and greatly increased the amount of fouling and cleaning required.
There *may* have been another problem. I haven't read about it in any official history (like the powder issue above) but I once worked for a man who had been once of the very first Marines sent to the DaNang area and had to trade their M14s in for M16s. Besides the powder residue problem he claimed there was some mechanical component that would break if there was too much full auto fire (heat). There was no corrective action, you had to see the armorer when you got back to base. He said they carried a lot of extra grenades as a result of all this.
But at that range and beyond the lethality of the bullet is already significantly diminished by loss of energy anyway.
The 30'06 of the M1903 Springfield (WW1) and the M1 Garand (WW2) still remained lethal. During WW1 the German commander who was the first to take on US Marines was quite distressed when these green unproven troops fresh off the boat from America were taking out any of him men who dared show themselves at 700 yards. This fire was not coming from snipers but ordinary infantrymen.
Actually it is. Inherent in the M16/M4 design is that a soldier does not really need to pick off another soldier at 700 yards. That they are better served with a smaller more intermediate cartridge that is more limited in range but allows the soldier to carry two to three times the ammo for the same weight. And what justified this logic, the Army's own data from debriefing combat troops at the end of WW2. Despite the M1 Garand's respectable long range accuracy the Army, to their great surprise, discovered that soldiers with Garands almost never fired at a target beyond 100 yards.
...you have an entire division of men (and women) quite capable of accurately hitting targets at ranges you're so eager to dismiss out of hand.
The GP did no such thing, its the US Army that defines the effective range of the M4 to be 500m.
To be fair we Americans are usually referring to French politicians and "elites" in such jokes, not ordinary citizens. We understand that there is often a great disparity in beliefs and actions between a nation's political/social/economic elites and the ordinary citizen... whether that nation is France, Russia, China, Iran, etc.
"France demanded reparations for all their soldiers killed by English bowmen."
England lost more soldiers fighting for France in one day on the Somme (WWI) than the English killed in the whole hundred years war
As someone who grew up around a family member who parachuted into Normandy I certainly understand the sentiment. However how many of those deaths were due to the incompetence of English generals?
A joke I learned from the old paratrooper:
At the start of a mission briefing an officer asks his men what is the number one killer of paratroopers?
One of the men responds, "sir, its generals, usually your own."
The officer then asks what is the number two killer of paratroopers?
While the majority of Germans may not have been Nazi party members the Nazis were given power by the German people in free and open elections. The German people can not wash their hands of the Nazis through a lack of party membership.
And you are not German, you and several generations of your ancestors are Americans.
When my great-uncles went to fight in Europe they were half serious when they joked that they hope they don't shoot any relatives. Being related did not make them think of themselves as Germans rather than Americans.
The state-wide recounts showed Gore winning under all of the state-wide recount scenarios
The state-wide recounts are a fiction. Gore never requested one. The Florida courts only ordered a partial recount of undervotes. The media never had all ballots to do an actual complete statewide recount, thousands of troublesome ballots were never delivered to the media.
Nor does it change that fact that those who claim the winner was declared by the supreme court are misinformed.
Nor does it change the fact that by the rules in place before the election, and by the altered rules requested by Gore, Bush would still have won.
Nor does it change the fact that the controversy and recount are secondary effects, that the true cause for Gore's loss was the ballots designed and deployed by the Democrats.
Which of these facts are you disputing?
All three, they are opinions backed up by incomplete data gathered and reported by partisans.
Then you prove yourself wrong. The Supreme Court did not declare a winner, they let the rulings stand of the state officials who were originally empowered to decide matters of counts and recounts and deadlines. These state officials decided the election, declared the winner, not the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court merely let them perform their appointed roles. And then there is the butterfly ballot designed and deployed by Democrats, with this there would have been no dispute nor recount, and Gore would have won. That you can not accept such simple facts proves you are the person with partisan issues. As for the partisanship of the recounts, it was done by the media, if anything the deck was stacked in Gore's favor.
They'll just reinstitute the gold reserve act and take it all away from us.
I don't think they banned possession or sale of gold wedding rings. Coins, bullion, sure... but keep in mind that we are discussing what **criminals** will do so the effectiveness of that act would be debatable.
By the way, in the movie the rings were traded/pawned one at a time as if the ring were the alien's one and only.
It is a false urban myth that Gore would have won the recount.
Your urban myth. Fact is, press recounts showed Gore winning a state-wide recount under any scenario.
Press accounts from back in the day and wiki easily prove otherwise. Gore loses in many recount scenarios, specifically the scenario he was requesting. If he had his way he would have still lost. And various other scenarios proposed by democrats too.
I remember speaking with an economist years ago who said if you wanted to eliminate crime nearly overnight just make the largest bill $10. Very difficult for Tony Soprano to transact crime if $50,000 was a half-a-million pieces of paper.
I recently watched The Man Who Fell to Earth staring David Bowie. This alien visitor had a stash of hundreds of gold wedding rings that he bartered/pawned as needed. I suppose we'll have to serialize, register and track all sorts of highly portable valuable items too.
Typical, the economist is an idiot who can't think outside the small box his teaching has kept him in. In the absence of cash, an alternative untraceable currency will simply take its place. Necessity is the mother of all invention.
Economists come in many forms, from student to BA to MA to PhD to professor. When speaking with the later in say a graduate level microeconomics class one will spend a lot of time investigating adaptation of individuals and unexpected consequences. Personally I don't consider people who took some econ classes or even have a BA in economics to be economists. Although they may play one on TV.
What Bush did was ask SCOTUS to intervene and issue a ruling on the results of a disputed election, when what would have otherwise probably happened is that it would have gone to the US legislature, according to constitutional procedure.
Actually the US Supreme Court decided not to allow intervention, to let the Florida state officials who had the authority to rule on counts and recounts and filing deadlines determine what would happen. Intervention would have been taking away the decision making authority from the state officials, the Florida Secretary of State, etc.
It would only become an issue for the US Legislature if the State officials had said there are no valid results. The State officials were not saying that. They were saying they had lawful results and an approaching deadline.
All of this is buried in so much lies, puffery. misdirection and general "hurray for our side" partisan story spinning that the only thing anyone can really be sure of is this: the election was close, damn close. It was probably within the margin of normal error close. If you think you know "the true story," you're kidding yourself.
The fact that the election was a statistical tie does not change the fact that a winner still needs to be declared for practical reasons.
Nor does it change that fact that those who claim the winner was declared by the supreme court are misinformed.
Nor does it change the fact that by the rules in place before the election, and by the altered rules requested by Gore, Bush would still have won.
Nor does it change the fact that the controversy and recount are secondary effects, that the true cause for Gore's loss was the ballots designed and deployed by the Democrats.
Which of these facts are you disputing?
Oh, and facts do not display partisanship nor misdirection. They merely recall history. That *you* find a bit of history distasteful does not change the facts. And the ultimate fact of 2000 was that the democratic designed ballot(s) cost Gore the election. To say otherwise is denial.
I didn't move the goal post. Gore lost by the rules established before the election. And Gore would have lost by the new goal posts **he requested**.
The simple truth remains unchallenged. The Democrats did it to themselves with the ballots they designed. The counts and recounts were a side effect of this fatal flaw.
Did your magic eight ball tell you all this? You're clearly making shit up.
Actually you are living in your bubble of denial. Gore would have lost according to the recount standard he requested.
"After the election, recounts conducted by various United States news media organizations indicated that Bush would have won if certain recounting methods had been used (including the one favored by Gore at the time of the Supreme Court decision)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
A false urban myth.. that's such a loaded a silly way to try to phrase your opinion.
"For example, 21,188 of the Florida overvotes, or nearly one-fifth of the total, originated from Duval County, where the presidential race was split across two pages. Voters were instructed to "vote every page". Half of the overvotes in Duval County had one presidential candidate marked on each page, making their vote illegal under Florida law. Salvado says that this error alone cost Gore the election." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Sorry, it was the ballot designs. Get over your denial. The Democrats did it to themselves.
She did...and made $100k on $10k investment in a day.
Funny how only the governor's wife gets invited into such investment opportunities.
Her fortune and her career and her fame are all from riding Bill's coattails. And she's the choice of modern feminists? I guess modern feminist leaders really are just democratic party stooges.
The supreme court selected Republican Establishment George Bush instead of the people's popular vote?
No. The US Supreme Court said that the Florida government officials empowered before the election to make decisions regarding counts and recounts and submission deadlines would have their decisions stand.
Plus there is the pesky detail that the newspapers did their own recounts afterwards and found that Bush would still have won.
Plus there is that other pesky detail that the "popular vote" was never the agreed upon criteria for selecting a President. It was always the electoral college and both sides designed their campaigns with that in mind, not the popular vote. If the popular vote was the goal then both sides would have run very different campaigns.
It is a false urban myth that Gore would have won the recount. The election was "stolen" from Gore not by the Florida Governor nor the Florida Secretary of State nor the Florida Supreme Court nor the US Supreme Court. It was "stolen" by the Democratic Party officials who designed and deployed the butterfly ballot that confused Democratic voters into accidentally voting for Pat Buchanan. Gore lost due to his party's error. Painful but true. To say otherwise is denial.
Someone will eventually realize what a dumb idea it was. What a waste of resources...
Actually people within the cryptocurrency community already realize that. These individuals support currencies based on Proof-of-Stake rather than Proof-of-Work with respect to constructing the blockchain.
Most people use electricity for utility: fridge, stove, ac, lights, heater, washer, dryer, entertainment, etc. But bitcoin mining is of zero utility.
Untrue, bitcoin mining is also heating. Depending on the weather it is of great utility. Think of it as a space heater that might pay for itself. Probably not, but it might.
Are they going to apply this same logic to data centers?
They are not targeting miners specifically. They are targeting "high density users (more than 250kW per square foot)".
I can understand that the Utility Company wants to get back what they would spend to upgrade the infrastructure to support the BTC miners. Why can't they just state that up front, bill them for the upgrades, and work out some sort of contract for payment? That's what they do if you want utilities run to some place where they don't exist.
That have stated it up front. They are billing/contracting for the infrastructure costs, using a higher rate. As they point out miners can come and go pretty quickly so they need to recovers costs more quickly than usual.
Slashdot Mirror
It was not simply a failure to keep it clean. Armalite designed their AR-15 (militarized by the Army into the M16) to use a very clean burning powder. This appropriate powder may have also been used during evaluation, not 100% sure. However for mass production the Army went with the old ball powder it had been (since late WW2 ?). The powder left far more residue behind. For a direct gas operating mechanism this was a bad idea and greatly increased the amount of fouling and cleaning required.
There *may* have been another problem. I haven't read about it in any official history (like the powder issue above) but I once worked for a man who had been once of the very first Marines sent to the DaNang area and had to trade their M14s in for M16s. Besides the powder residue problem he claimed there was some mechanical component that would break if there was too much full auto fire (heat). There was no corrective action, you had to see the armorer when you got back to base. He said they carried a lot of extra grenades as a result of all this.
But at that range and beyond the lethality of the bullet is already significantly diminished by loss of energy anyway.
The 30'06 of the M1903 Springfield (WW1) and the M1 Garand (WW2) still remained lethal. During WW1 the German commander who was the first to take on US Marines was quite distressed when these green unproven troops fresh off the boat from America were taking out any of him men who dared show themselves at 700 yards. This fire was not coming from snipers but ordinary infantrymen.
...except war isn't quite that organized.
Actually it is. Inherent in the M16/M4 design is that a soldier does not really need to pick off another soldier at 700 yards. That they are better served with a smaller more intermediate cartridge that is more limited in range but allows the soldier to carry two to three times the ammo for the same weight. And what justified this logic, the Army's own data from debriefing combat troops at the end of WW2. Despite the M1 Garand's respectable long range accuracy the Army, to their great surprise, discovered that soldiers with Garands almost never fired at a target beyond 100 yards.
The GP did no such thing, its the US Army that defines the effective range of the M4 to be 500m.
I'm still waiting for an M16/M4 rifle that doesn't jam often.
Its been done. HK416 type stuff with a piston rather than direct gas.
To be fair we Americans are usually referring to French politicians and "elites" in such jokes, not ordinary citizens. We understand that there is often a great disparity in beliefs and actions between a nation's political/social/economic elites and the ordinary citizen ... whether that nation is France, Russia, China, Iran, etc.
"France demanded reparations for all their soldiers killed by English bowmen."
England lost more soldiers fighting for France in one day on the Somme (WWI) than the English killed in the whole hundred years war
As someone who grew up around a family member who parachuted into Normandy I certainly understand the sentiment. However how many of those deaths were due to the incompetence of English generals?
A joke I learned from the old paratrooper:
At the start of a mission briefing an officer asks his men what is the number one killer of paratroopers?
One of the men responds, "sir, its generals, usually your own."
The officer then asks what is the number two killer of paratroopers?
While the majority of Germans may not have been Nazi party members the Nazis were given power by the German people in free and open elections. The German people can not wash their hands of the Nazis through a lack of party membership.
And you are not German, you and several generations of your ancestors are Americans.
When my great-uncles went to fight in Europe they were half serious when they joked that they hope they don't shoot any relatives. Being related did not make them think of themselves as Germans rather than Americans.
The state-wide recounts showed Gore winning under all of the state-wide recount scenarios
The state-wide recounts are a fiction. Gore never requested one. The Florida courts only ordered a partial recount of undervotes. The media never had all ballots to do an actual complete statewide recount, thousands of troublesome ballots were never delivered to the media.
Nor does it change that fact that those who claim the winner was declared by the supreme court are misinformed. Nor does it change the fact that by the rules in place before the election, and by the altered rules requested by Gore, Bush would still have won. Nor does it change the fact that the controversy and recount are secondary effects, that the true cause for Gore's loss was the ballots designed and deployed by the Democrats.
Which of these facts are you disputing?
All three, they are opinions backed up by incomplete data gathered and reported by partisans.
Then you prove yourself wrong. The Supreme Court did not declare a winner, they let the rulings stand of the state officials who were originally empowered to decide matters of counts and recounts and deadlines. These state officials decided the election, declared the winner, not the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court merely let them perform their appointed roles. And then there is the butterfly ballot designed and deployed by Democrats, with this there would have been no dispute nor recount, and Gore would have won. That you can not accept such simple facts proves you are the person with partisan issues. As for the partisanship of the recounts, it was done by the media, if anything the deck was stacked in Gore's favor.
They'll just reinstitute the gold reserve act and take it all away from us.
I don't think they banned possession or sale of gold wedding rings. Coins, bullion, sure ... but keep in mind that we are discussing what **criminals** will do so the effectiveness of that act would be debatable.
By the way, in the movie the rings were traded/pawned one at a time as if the ring were the alien's one and only.
Your urban myth. Fact is, press recounts showed Gore winning a state-wide recount under any scenario.
Press accounts from back in the day and wiki easily prove otherwise. Gore loses in many recount scenarios, specifically the scenario he was requesting. If he had his way he would have still lost. And various other scenarios proposed by democrats too.
Better yet, make cash go away.
I remember speaking with an economist years ago who said if you wanted to eliminate crime nearly overnight just make the largest bill $10. Very difficult for Tony Soprano to transact crime if $50,000 was a half-a-million pieces of paper.
I recently watched The Man Who Fell to Earth staring David Bowie. This alien visitor had a stash of hundreds of gold wedding rings that he bartered/pawned as needed. I suppose we'll have to serialize, register and track all sorts of highly portable valuable items too.
Typical, the economist is an idiot who can't think outside the small box his teaching has kept him in. In the absence of cash, an alternative untraceable currency will simply take its place. Necessity is the mother of all invention.
Economists come in many forms, from student to BA to MA to PhD to professor. When speaking with the later in say a graduate level microeconomics class one will spend a lot of time investigating adaptation of individuals and unexpected consequences. Personally I don't consider people who took some econ classes or even have a BA in economics to be economists. Although they may play one on TV.
It is a false urban myth
Unlike those true urban myths...
Some are true, watch Mythbusters. :-)
What Bush did was ask SCOTUS to intervene and issue a ruling on the results of a disputed election, when what would have otherwise probably happened is that it would have gone to the US legislature, according to constitutional procedure.
Actually the US Supreme Court decided not to allow intervention, to let the Florida state officials who had the authority to rule on counts and recounts and filing deadlines determine what would happen. Intervention would have been taking away the decision making authority from the state officials, the Florida Secretary of State, etc.
It would only become an issue for the US Legislature if the State officials had said there are no valid results. The State officials were not saying that. They were saying they had lawful results and an approaching deadline.
All of this is buried in so much lies, puffery. misdirection and general "hurray for our side" partisan story spinning that the only thing anyone can really be sure of is this: the election was close, damn close. It was probably within the margin of normal error close. If you think you know "the true story," you're kidding yourself.
The fact that the election was a statistical tie does not change the fact that a winner still needs to be declared for practical reasons.
Nor does it change that fact that those who claim the winner was declared by the supreme court are misinformed.
Nor does it change the fact that by the rules in place before the election, and by the altered rules requested by Gore, Bush would still have won.
Nor does it change the fact that the controversy and recount are secondary effects, that the true cause for Gore's loss was the ballots designed and deployed by the Democrats.
Which of these facts are you disputing?
Oh, and facts do not display partisanship nor misdirection. They merely recall history. That *you* find a bit of history distasteful does not change the facts. And the ultimate fact of 2000 was that the democratic designed ballot(s) cost Gore the election. To say otherwise is denial.
I didn't move the goal post. Gore lost by the rules established before the election. And Gore would have lost by the new goal posts **he requested**.
The simple truth remains unchallenged. The Democrats did it to themselves with the ballots they designed. The counts and recounts were a side effect of this fatal flaw.
Did your magic eight ball tell you all this? You're clearly making shit up.
Actually you are living in your bubble of denial. Gore would have lost according to the recount standard he requested.
"After the election, recounts conducted by various United States news media organizations indicated that Bush would have won if certain recounting methods had been used (including the one favored by Gore at the time of the Supreme Court decision)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
A false urban myth.. that's such a loaded a silly way to try to phrase your opinion.
"For example, 21,188 of the Florida overvotes, or nearly one-fifth of the total, originated from Duval County, where the presidential race was split across two pages. Voters were instructed to "vote every page". Half of the overvotes in Duval County had one presidential candidate marked on each page, making their vote illegal under Florida law. Salvado says that this error alone cost Gore the election."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Sorry, it was the ballot designs. Get over your denial. The Democrats did it to themselves.
She did...and made $100k on $10k investment in a day.
Funny how only the governor's wife gets invited into such investment opportunities.
Her fortune and her career and her fame are all from riding Bill's coattails. And she's the choice of modern feminists? I guess modern feminist leaders really are just democratic party stooges.
The supreme court selected Republican Establishment George Bush instead of the people's popular vote?
No. The US Supreme Court said that the Florida government officials empowered before the election to make decisions regarding counts and recounts and submission deadlines would have their decisions stand.
Plus there is the pesky detail that the newspapers did their own recounts afterwards and found that Bush would still have won.
Plus there is that other pesky detail that the "popular vote" was never the agreed upon criteria for selecting a President. It was always the electoral college and both sides designed their campaigns with that in mind, not the popular vote. If the popular vote was the goal then both sides would have run very different campaigns.
It is a false urban myth that Gore would have won the recount. The election was "stolen" from Gore not by the Florida Governor nor the Florida Secretary of State nor the Florida Supreme Court nor the US Supreme Court. It was "stolen" by the Democratic Party officials who designed and deployed the butterfly ballot that confused Democratic voters into accidentally voting for Pat Buchanan. Gore lost due to his party's error. Painful but true. To say otherwise is denial.
Someone will eventually realize what a dumb idea it was. What a waste of resources ...
Actually people within the cryptocurrency community already realize that. These individuals support currencies based on Proof-of-Stake rather than Proof-of-Work with respect to constructing the blockchain.
Most people use electricity for utility: fridge, stove, ac, lights, heater, washer, dryer, entertainment, etc. But bitcoin mining is of zero utility.
Untrue, bitcoin mining is also heating. Depending on the weather it is of great utility. Think of it as a space heater that might pay for itself. Probably not, but it might.
Are they going to apply this same logic to data centers?
They are not targeting miners specifically. They are targeting "high density users (more than 250kW per square foot)".
I can understand that the Utility Company wants to get back what they would spend to upgrade the infrastructure to support the BTC miners. Why can't they just state that up front, bill them for the upgrades, and work out some sort of contract for payment? That's what they do if you want utilities run to some place where they don't exist.
That have stated it up front. They are billing/contracting for the infrastructure costs, using a higher rate. As they point out miners can come and go pretty quickly so they need to recovers costs more quickly than usual.
Bitcoin miners are only making money speculatively.
Actually they tend to lose money speculatively.
HFT is even more useless. At least Bitcoin has some utility insofar as it can actually be used to move money.
HFT is moving assets/money. :-)