Are you retarded?
You're clever enough to realise "it's fucking obvious" but not enough to realise that "it's fucking obvious" is only the first step of the scientific method, and has been wrong many, many times (do you need examples of "common knowledge" and "common sense" that have been wrong?).
You reckon enough has been studied, but in terms of outcomes there's a big difference between reservoir depletion causing earthquakes, and fracking causing earthquakes. One is a complete cessation of extraction, and the other is a change of method.
So you're suggesting there's a critical point/region at which the prevalence of guns would become self-policing against logical crime. I agree that there's merit to that concept, but hopefully you can understand that there are a fuckload of cases in which the usage of the gun (or fists) wasn't logical. Without even considering mental illness, good old rage will ensure plenty of carnage.
Just look at how many crimes (I'm including assaults) are committed without a weapon. You could claim everyone involved is equally armed and the consequences of engaging are lower, yet many people still get away with it. You're telling me that raising the stakes to a significant chance of death (both your own and having to take the perpetrator's life) and tedious legal proceedings is going to get more people responding to a crime in progress? Bullshit.
From the facebook posts and comments that I've seen about carrying laws, I think a couple of the americans I know are carrying. Where I live, none, because it's not legal. Don't let our low gun crime stats get in the way of a good argument about rights though:p
No. Only high frequency currents concentrate towards the surface. And I believe this has nothing to do with cars and lightning; that's just a matter of being enclosed in a conductive cage.
Oh bullshit. Windshear is a problem on approach, when you're near the ground and flying not far from stall speed. For an aircraft at altitude it's just a wild ride.
Those hostile forces aren't individual gun nuts. They have organisation, explosives, rockets, and supply lines. The military would have no problem taking down hobby shooters despite their awesome little tactical lights and custom grips. I'm guessing your logistics would consist of driving your car to walmart for food and ammo, which isn't a very robust supply line in a time of war.
Hopefully we never get to see what would happen, but in the mean time, shitloads of people are getting shot because guns are bloody everywhere. I find guns pretty interesting, but I can see that having an armed population isn't working out so well.
That's silly. Weight classes exist because it's competition, and everyone involved is close to maximising their potential. Given that, a weight disparity makes a big difference to the fight.
However, when considering random person vs random person, making claims based on weight is complete crap. Skill and commitment is a much bigger advantage than strength, let alone weight. I don't recommend it as quality enjoyable viewing, but you need to see some street fights if you think this way.
Even if Zimmerman had some experience, you are making a pretty shaky assumption.
You pretty much missed everything. I would have thought that somebody that's prepared to spend 5 minutes writing a post would have some clue about the topic.
Stupid? Did you misspell useful? No, of course not, but there's a silver lining in every cloud; my company makes heavy use of probably every dangerous VBA feature for our internal automation.
The save more money category has a low saturation point; the IT systems need to support the needs of the business, and investing beyond that gives little return.
The bringing in money category usually has an high saturation point; you can invest in it and get good returns.
I think that's more relevant than any facts IT can present.
Way to miss the point. I believe that the point was to minimise IT expenditure in light of it being a cost centre i.e. pumping money into it rarely benefits the business, OTH pumping money into sales or development does.
There's no logic to your sarcasm.
It's not like I pretended they weren't quotes written by other people!
That's merely what I found today while at work. I have heard for years that race drivers have been unable to outbrake ABS, let alone alone drivers with less skill and inferior vehicles.
The reply to the F430 example is a lack of comprehension. The point is, the rules didn't allow ABS at the Spa 1000, yet with limited time between races, ABS was fitted for the 24 hours of Nurburgring (I'd just like to add that one of the finest moments of my life was doing 8 laps of it on my motorbike:D).
Now I am happy to have contributed to your assertion that ABS = control, because I believe that too; my beef is that you're saying it doesn't deliver shorter stopping distances in a straight line. I maintain it does (I hope you haven't forgotten that you said "ABS does not shorten braking distance, as many people think").
As for the ESP, no! I am *not* talking about ESP. I am talking about multichannel ABS that can modulate individual wheels in response to wheel speed sensors for the purpose of maintaining wheel rotation while braking, NOT in response to yaw sensors and steering angle (which is basic ESP). For example, when one of your front wheels passes a bump while braking, multichannel ABS will unlock only that wheel. The only recourse that the most amazing driver that has ever graced the planet has, is to reduce brake pressure on all wheels in order to recover the one. That's a common straight line braking example.
I don't know what the difference between race and road ABS is, but I've experienced ABS on a variety of cars since the late 90s, and it has definitely improved a *lot* since the old jackhammer lock-unlock. These days on good cars it's more like a skilled driver with 10x faster reflexes and four brake pedals.
Oh shucks, I just noticed the OP said "car". The course was for driving trucks but done in cars.
The swerve training I've done was either at constant speed or the cones were too tight to swerve without slowing down, and all my fast road and track driving/riding didn't involve swerves, so I've never compared the two techniques.
Regardless, I agree that there must be a brake release being left out.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you retarded? You're clever enough to realise "it's fucking obvious" but not enough to realise that "it's fucking obvious" is only the first step of the scientific method, and has been wrong many, many times (do you need examples of "common knowledge" and "common sense" that have been wrong?).
You reckon enough has been studied, but in terms of outcomes there's a big difference between reservoir depletion causing earthquakes, and fracking causing earthquakes. One is a complete cessation of extraction, and the other is a change of method.
"We don't actually know which of these two oil and gas extraction related reasons it is..."
There, fixed that for you.
Your post would make much more sense if you left out "libertarian". It's a bit like calling anything related to government spending "socialist".
So you're suggesting there's a critical point/region at which the prevalence of guns would become self-policing against logical crime. I agree that there's merit to that concept, but hopefully you can understand that there are a fuckload of cases in which the usage of the gun (or fists) wasn't logical. Without even considering mental illness, good old rage will ensure plenty of carnage.
:p
Just look at how many crimes (I'm including assaults) are committed without a weapon. You could claim everyone involved is equally armed and the consequences of engaging are lower, yet many people still get away with it. You're telling me that raising the stakes to a significant chance of death (both your own and having to take the perpetrator's life) and tedious legal proceedings is going to get more people responding to a crime in progress? Bullshit.
From the facebook posts and comments that I've seen about carrying laws, I think a couple of the americans I know are carrying. Where I live, none, because it's not legal. Don't let our low gun crime stats get in the way of a good argument about rights though
Oh how ironic. You propose filtering based on performance on an article about the optimum login speed to bypass said filtering.
No. Only high frequency currents concentrate towards the surface. And I believe this has nothing to do with cars and lightning; that's just a matter of being enclosed in a conductive cage.
And functionally useless to boot!
Oh bullshit. Windshear is a problem on approach, when you're near the ground and flying not far from stall speed. For an aircraft at altitude it's just a wild ride.
Those hostile forces aren't individual gun nuts. They have organisation, explosives, rockets, and supply lines. The military would have no problem taking down hobby shooters despite their awesome little tactical lights and custom grips. I'm guessing your logistics would consist of driving your car to walmart for food and ammo, which isn't a very robust supply line in a time of war.
Hopefully we never get to see what would happen, but in the mean time, shitloads of people are getting shot because guns are bloody everywhere. I find guns pretty interesting, but I can see that having an armed population isn't working out so well.
Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting it's a crap submission. More along the lines of "truth is stranger than fiction".
That's silly. Weight classes exist because it's competition, and everyone involved is close to maximising their potential. Given that, a weight disparity makes a big difference to the fight.
However, when considering random person vs random person, making claims based on weight is complete crap. Skill and commitment is a much bigger advantage than strength, let alone weight. I don't recommend it as quality enjoyable viewing, but you need to see some street fights if you think this way.
Even if Zimmerman had some experience, you are making a pretty shaky assumption.
This is one of the strangest things I've seen on Slashdot. Heated tail countermeasure causes snakes to give up. W T F.
You pretty much missed everything. I would have thought that somebody that's prepared to spend 5 minutes writing a post would have some clue about the topic.
In office 2010 I can edit and save documents without enabling the macros. I do it all the time.
Stupid? Did you misspell useful? No, of course not, but there's a silver lining in every cloud; my company makes heavy use of probably every dangerous VBA feature for our internal automation.
I just imagined London style riots being incited by turning off the PS3s of bored youths. Sort of funny, sort of not.
On second thought, you appear to be trolling with sarcasm. Got me.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/ending-sentences-with-prepositions Now fuck off.
The save more money category has a low saturation point; the IT systems need to support the needs of the business, and investing beyond that gives little return. The bringing in money category usually has an high saturation point; you can invest in it and get good returns. I think that's more relevant than any facts IT can present.
Way to miss the point. I believe that the point was to minimise IT expenditure in light of it being a cost centre i.e. pumping money into it rarely benefits the business, OTH pumping money into sales or development does. There's no logic to your sarcasm.
Bullshit, they do get cut. You could do with some bean-counter stats to form your argument :p
It's not like I pretended they weren't quotes written by other people! That's merely what I found today while at work. I have heard for years that race drivers have been unable to outbrake ABS, let alone alone drivers with less skill and inferior vehicles.
:D).
The reply to the F430 example is a lack of comprehension. The point is, the rules didn't allow ABS at the Spa 1000, yet with limited time between races, ABS was fitted for the 24 hours of Nurburgring (I'd just like to add that one of the finest moments of my life was doing 8 laps of it on my motorbike
Now I am happy to have contributed to your assertion that ABS = control, because I believe that too; my beef is that you're saying it doesn't deliver shorter stopping distances in a straight line. I maintain it does (I hope you haven't forgotten that you said "ABS does not shorten braking distance, as many people think").
As for the ESP, no! I am *not* talking about ESP. I am talking about multichannel ABS that can modulate individual wheels in response to wheel speed sensors for the purpose of maintaining wheel rotation while braking, NOT in response to yaw sensors and steering angle (which is basic ESP). For example, when one of your front wheels passes a bump while braking, multichannel ABS will unlock only that wheel. The only recourse that the most amazing driver that has ever graced the planet has, is to reduce brake pressure on all wheels in order to recover the one. That's a common straight line braking example.
I don't know what the difference between race and road ABS is, but I've experienced ABS on a variety of cars since the late 90s, and it has definitely improved a *lot* since the old jackhammer lock-unlock. These days on good cars it's more like a skilled driver with 10x faster reflexes and four brake pedals.
As an Australian, you embarrass me.
Oh shucks, I just noticed the OP said "car". The course was for driving trucks but done in cars. The swerve training I've done was either at constant speed or the cones were too tight to swerve without slowing down, and all my fast road and track driving/riding didn't involve swerves, so I've never compared the two techniques. Regardless, I agree that there must be a brake release being left out.
Geez get a fucking imagination; your stupid toy phones aren't the only things using mobile internet.