99% of the time, they get through all those bends without any help. I think the idea would just give it a little nudge to get it unstuck, perhaps by rotating it to be pointed the right way, then leave it alone and let it continue through normally. Guiding it through all the twists and turns would be extremely difficult, but probably not helpful.
I'm reminded of when a toy is thrown into a tree. It falls through all the branches and twigs, then gets stuck halfway down. So someone throws a tennis ball at it to get it unstuck and then it falls through the remaining part of the tree.
That's an interesting idea. I know that even small, cheap rare earth magnets from the dollar store can move things a couple inches away. YouTube videos of the Magnepull show the technique used to move wires through walls with a magnet, including walls stuffed with insulation. Of course, it could also be dangerous, but it might be worth talking to the doctor about. Maybe show the doctor the Magnepull video.
Rare earth magnets that are SWALLOWED can do damage, but of course that's not what's being discussed here.
For the double-balloon procedure, which end did they enter? If via the colon, I'll have to reference this in the future when BeuHD makes very silly posts a about solar-electric and such.
North Korea isn't the United States. Internet access isn't even available to private citizens. It used only for government purposes.
Foreign guests such as diplomats are of course often granted access to use the North Korean internet to communicate with their home countries. Which falls under the "government purposes" category, because it's not done for the convenience of the foreigners.
North Korea is also a place where merely disagreeing with Dear Leader will get you publicly executed. Nobody in NK is secretly installing backbone cables out of NK to secretly attack the US and Western Europe without permission from the government. If you're going to risk your life illegally accessing the internet, you don't do it for that purpose.
There are criminal hackers in RUSSIA, so when attacks come from Russia we have to try to figure out whether they are state-sponsored or not. Often, is it easy to know, hard to prove. North Korea is nothing like Russia, though. Attacks from North Korea, and generally any packets from North Korea, come from the government network, as part of government operations.
In 1971, official racism was mostly illegal, but yes, there was definitely racial tension. Kids very much tended to hang out with their own racial group. It shouldn't surprise anyone that people at that time were aware of race.
This was ten years before Barak Obama was in college and, according to his autobiography, carefully avoiding being seen with white friends. Instead he made sure to be seen with "the more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."
Parking Space Dimensions. The minimum size of a standard parking space shall be nine feet wide and eighteen feet long. Parking spaces within enclosed garages shall have an interior dimension of at least ten feet wide and twenty feet long. The minimum size of a compact parking space shall be eight feet wide and sixteen feet long
Sizes vary a bit depending on land cost and typical vehicle sizes. In rural Texas, where land is cheap and large pickups are common, parking spaces are larger than in Tokyo, where land is more expensive and vehicles [and the people in them:) ] trend smaller.
Manipulate: 1. To manage or influence skillfully, especially in an unfair manner: to manipulate people's feelings.
Social engineering, manipulating the human part of the system, is the first definition of "manipulate".
Brute forcing very rarely works, so I wonder if you actually mean dictionary attacks. Sometimes people use these terms incorrectly:) A GOOD dictionary attack involves a bit of skill, including figuring out which potential passwords would be allowed by the system, what defense systems are in place, etc.
The last two places I worked, corporate security occasionally sent out a "phishing" or scam email. If you clicked the link in the email, you got a page about email scams. Open an attachment in one of the fake scams, the attachment was a reminder to not open attachments.
If, instead, you clicked the "report this email" button in Outlook, you got a message saying "congratulations, you didn't fall for the scam."
That seems to work. After the first few emails sent by corporate security, the number of people falling for it dropped significantly.
Interestingly, this didn't involve your boss or someone from corpsec saying anything to you. Just the questionable email had a link to a page saying you shouldn't have clicked it.
>> the real cost will inevitably be passed on to its other customers.
> Businesses don't work that way. They set prices to maximize profit. If they could be making more money with higher prices THEY WOULD ALREADY BE DOING IT.
Both are true. Suppose company WU and company MG both produce a product that costs them $3 to make. Company MG charges $5. You are correct that company WU will raise its price to about $5, and not much higher, because that's the point of maximum profit given the competition.
Company MG, through some deal making, manages to cut it's cost to $2 and cuts its price to $3. Meanwhile, Company WU has their costs increase to $6. Company WU will NOT drop it's price to match MG, because they would be losing money
Instead, they'll their price to at least $6, because anything less doesn't generate profit. They will lose a lot of market share, but their revenue has to match their expenses or they exit the business. Company WU will raise their price to $6000, so they only have one customer left, if that's what it takes to meet their expenses - and even set a price so high that they have no customers and exit the business, if their costs are too high.
So the price is a function of not only competition, but also costs. When costs to a business increase, prices increase - even if that results in losing market share.
Losing market share will, of course, mean the fixed costs are borne by fewer customers, thereby pushing prices higher still, until either the company is providing a better product than the competition (or in places there is no competition), or the business fails.
I think you missed #7. The first six are all variants of "cut, crudely". The first definition other than "cut" is:
Computers. A) to modify (a computer program or electronic device) or write (a program) in a skillful or clever way:
B) to circumvent security and break into (a network, computer, file, etc.), usually with malicious intent
As a career "hacker", I'd say that 7b could be refined to better indicate what is meant by "circumvent security" or "break" into. Knowing somebody's password isn't breaking in. That's just going in. Circumventing, breaking into a computer, requires doing something clever or skillful. It is therefore a subset of 7a.
That definition is also overly specific - people hacked the phone system, and specifically pay phones, before they hacked computers. They used the word hacking for that, as well as phreaking.
In my opinion and usage, to hack means to manipulate a system in order to use it in a way very much not intended by the creators of the system. Especially manipulating it to use it in a way that the creators sought to prevent.
Hacking old, out-of-print, unsupported software could be for good motives, such as retrieving data for the user. Hacking Slashdot could be done for bad motives. The commonality is that the creators didn't intend to allow or facilitate the action.
I've modified the compiled binaries of swf files long after the source code was lost, in order to keep a site working. I hacked the files - nobody ever intended for swf files to be updated by directly modifying them, such as with hexedit.
When you get to high school, if not before, you'll learn that you never cite Wikipedia. Like Slashdot, what's written there is whatever some fool decided to post.
Since you apparently haven't yet learned the difference between a reliable source and social media, how about at least read what's on your screen. You'll see right at the top of the Wikipedia article, the tabular summary says:
Sovereign state: United Kingdom
Scroll a tad and you'll see it says the law applicable to England is made by the UK Parliament (not English Parliament, there is no such thing). Another short scroll and you'll see:
-- There has not been a government of England since 1707, when the Acts of Union 1707, putting into effect the terms of the Treaty of Union, joined England and Scotland to form the Kingdom of Great Britain --
So you want to tell me how the non-existent English government, through the non-existent English Parliament, passes laws?
Another pro-tip: before linking to a page while arguing, READ the page you're linking to.
Before the United States became the United States, it was 13 British colonies, called "British America" at the time. The colonies were ruled by a kingdom known as Great Britain, and that's where the law came from.
Great Britain was composed of Scotland, Wales, and England. Later, Great Britain merged with Ireland to form the United Kingdom.
So the colonies got there law from the United Kingdom, not from England, which no longer existed as a country by 1707. The United Kingdom included Scotland.
When correcting someone, it's suggested to make absolutely sure you're right. Otherwise you look like not only an asshole, but also a fool.
Perhaps you aren't aware, but being armed doesn't mean you randomly shoot people. I've been armed every day for years and never shoot anyone. I *almost* had to put a stop to an armed robbery at a store, but fortunately that wasn't necessary.
The proposal which I responded to said sending armed officers to the scene is the wrong response to a 911 call reporting a hostage situation with one person already killed. GGP wasn't entirely clear whether he though 911 should ignore such situations entirely, or send unarmed people look through the house. Why exactly such a proposal is mod +5 is beyond me. Are people REALLY spending so much time in fantasy "rainbows and unicorns" echo chambers that they think the proper response to an active shooter situation is to sing a folk song?
I'm not a Scottish lawyer. On the other hand, US law largely comes from the UK, and I can pretty convincingly play a US lawyer, in court.
There are a couple of ways this could play out where people get retrials, or if there is no corroborating evidence, get set free.
One would be for the prosecutor's office to agree to that, perhaps after some media attention. That's not a RIGHT to a retrial, but it could happen.
If there is new evidence, a defendant can move for a new trial. In order for this to be evidence in an unrelated cass, some other case involving the officers would need to come to light, showing a "pattern or practice" of this type of conduct. A single instance of a cop making a false statement in one case probably isn't sufficient evidence that they testified falsely in some other case. If it's shown that that made false statements in two or more cases, that's obviously relevant to their testimony in all cases.
> If only the PTO would bother to only approve those patents that weren't obvious. Like the Eolas patent as a shining example?
I think it's interesting that USPTO rejected that application for obviousness - three times. Each time they sent it back with more documentation, arguments, and perhaps changes to the application, saying why exactly what the patent covered wasn't obvious. It would be interesting to read those submissions. Later, multiple hearings, in court and at USPTO, said it wasn't obvious (after carefully distinguishing between what *was* patented and other things not patented that are somewhat similar). Of course in the end the final determination was that the patent was not valid.
Most patents are fairly clear cut, but that one is weird. Since the patent office rejected it three different times, clearly it wasn't a lazy patent examiner just rubber stamping whatever. The later hearings and court ruling agreeing with the examiner, that the final version wasn't obvious, also suggest the examiner wasn't reckless. Perhaps wrong, but not obviously completely wrong, since multiple courts agreed. I'm not sure exactly where the process broke down on that one.
One possible structural change would be to make it so with each rejection, the standard to reverse the rejection gets higher. That would encourage inventors to first submit something that they expect will approved, rather than starting out shooting for the moon and then submitting a more and more proper version until one eventually gets approved. It would be a bit like the instant replay rule in the NFL - calls can only be reversed if they are clearly wrong, not if it's a close call. A similar rule for patents would encourage inventors to submit a non-obvious version of the patent the first time.
> might very well object to OpenStreetMap because of the non-GPL licensing terms used by the project.
This doesn't make sense to me for two reasons. It seems to conflate open source with GPL, and also the OpenStreetMap software *is* GPL licensed.
Open source does not mean GPL. I'm fact, the people who write and promote the GPL will tell you they support Free Software, NOT open source. They'll gladly explain the difference to you. So open source doesn't mean GPL - in fact, not only can something be open source with being GPL, the two philosophies have some fundamental differences.
Also, the primary software for open street map IS GPL, so I'm not sure why you'd say "no-GPL license". The GPL is of course a software license. The OSM project put the same terms the GPL uses into a database license. It says basically the same thing the GPL says- if you distribute it, whoever you distribute it to gets the same rights you have. That doesn't change if you make some modifications before distributing it - your modified copy is still open license.
> that determination should never be made by anyone holding a weapon
Okay, so one person has apparently been murdered and the perp says two more are about to. The perp says he's probably going to kill everyone - including himself. Your suggestion is to send in people who do NOT have weapon, to check to see if the dead is in fact dead? Then when the person you sent radios in "I've been shot!", you don't believe him. Presumably you send in two more unarmed people to see if he has really been shot?
-- Barrios told the emergency operator that he had killed his father and âoewas holding his mother and brother at gunpoint.â Barriss allegedly gave the operator the West McCormick address. The caller then âoeinformed the dispatcher that he was considering lighting the house on fire before committing suicide,â the indictment stated. --
So you've got one victim dead already, or perhaps the gather isn't quite dead and could still be saved. Two more victims are being held hostage. The perpetrator intends to kill everyone, including himself.
> stop sending swat teams as first response
Would you perhaps send a crossing guard to handle hostage situations? Maybe a meter maid? Who would you send to a hostage situation when the perp has already starting killing people?
âoeNeed to delete everything,â he messaged, the indictment said. âoeThis is a murder case now. ⦠This isnâ(TM)t a joke.â
He wiped his phone and told the other people involved to do the same - while saying "this is a murder case". Intentionally destroying evidence in murder case, knowing it's a murder case, sounds like obstruction of justice. He's being charged with obstruction of justice.
He apparently not being charged for taunting the guy after the swat threat, saying oh yeah just try to swat me. My address is...
> For a target, a bullet designed for penetration will not impart all the energy into the target. For a hollow point of the same energy, more will go into the target and will deliver more 'knock back'.
It doesn't matter if it penetrates one inch or six inches. When it comes to rest, all of the energy has been transferred to the target.
This would only matter if the projectile passes all the way through the target, and exits at a significant velocity.
Re-read the first half of the sentence you quoted. Approximately half of the energy of the expanding gas is imparted to the projectile. The other half is gas amd other residue shooting out of the muzzle, at a velocity higher than that of the projectile. A low single-digit percentage is lost to friction.
Handguns and rifles have "rifled" barrels, meaning there are deep grooves in the barrel, through which a round bullet passes. A portion of the expanding gas escapes through the grooves, never imparting any energy on the projectile. The rest of the gas comes exploding out of the barrel behind the bullet. This is especially true for handguns, with there short barrels. A three inch barrel isn't long enough for the gas to slow down, imparting most of it's energy to the projectile.
The recoil is equal to the energy of the projectile PLUS the energy of the gases and solid residue leaving the barrel.
The above ignores miscellaneous forces less than 2%.
Actually Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the presidency at the time it was cancelled. They had total control. The effort to shut it down was led by Democrat Jim Slattery of Kansas.
After I wrote my post, I went off to do some other things and it occurred to me there was more than one link in the summary. I figured I'd better check to see if the other link did in fact say that, because if so - well then I'm an asshole.
Indeed, I was wrong.
Thanks for being so gracious in the manner in which you pointed that out.
Slashdot Mirror
99% of the time, they get through all those bends without any help. I think the idea would just give it a little nudge to get it unstuck, perhaps by rotating it to be pointed the right way, then leave it alone and let it continue through normally. Guiding it through all the twists and turns would be extremely difficult, but probably not helpful.
I'm reminded of when a toy is thrown into a tree. It falls through all the branches and twigs, then gets stuck halfway down. So someone throws a tennis ball at it to get it unstuck and then it falls through the remaining part of the tree.
That's an interesting idea. I know that even small, cheap rare earth magnets from the dollar store can move things a couple inches away. YouTube videos of the Magnepull show the technique used to move wires through walls with a magnet, including walls stuffed with insulation. Of course, it could also be dangerous, but it might be worth talking to the doctor about. Maybe show the doctor the Magnepull video.
Rare earth magnets that are SWALLOWED can do damage, but of course that's not what's being discussed here.
For the double-balloon procedure, which end did they enter? If via the colon, I'll have to reference this in the future when BeuHD makes very silly posts a about solar-electric and such.
North Korea isn't the United States. Internet access isn't even available to private citizens. It used only for government purposes.
Foreign guests such as diplomats are of course often granted access to use the North Korean internet to communicate with their home countries. Which falls under the "government purposes" category, because it's not done for the convenience of the foreigners.
North Korea is also a place where merely disagreeing with Dear Leader will get you publicly executed. Nobody in NK is secretly installing backbone cables out of NK to secretly attack the US and Western Europe without permission from the government. If you're going to risk your life illegally accessing the internet, you don't do it for that purpose.
There are criminal hackers in RUSSIA, so when attacks come from Russia we have to try to figure out whether they are state-sponsored or not. Often, is it easy to know, hard to prove. North Korea is nothing like Russia, though. Attacks from North Korea, and generally any packets from North Korea, come from the government network, as part of government operations.
That should of course say "country", not "company".
> I find it HARD TO BELIEVE that they have the tools necessary to even get hack tools like debuggers, etc
So your theory is that a company which can build nukes can't download these debuggers from Microsoft?
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-...
Are they also unable to download https://x64dbg.com/
And all of these?
https://www.concise-courses.co...
> As someone who works in the cyber industry;
Vernon? There's a reason we fired you.
In 1971, official racism was mostly illegal, but yes, there was definitely racial tension. Kids very much tended to hang out with their own racial group. It shouldn't surprise anyone that people at that time were aware of race.
This was ten years before Barak Obama was in college and, according to his autobiography, carefully avoiding being seen with white friends. Instead he made sure to be seen with "the more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."
From a typical US municipal code:
Parking Space Dimensions.
The minimum size of a standard parking space shall be nine feet wide and eighteen feet long. Parking spaces within enclosed garages shall have an interior dimension of at least ten feet wide and twenty feet long. The minimum size of a compact parking space shall be eight feet wide and sixteen feet long
Sizes vary a bit depending on land cost and typical vehicle sizes. In rural Texas, where land is cheap and large pickups are common, parking spaces are larger than in Tokyo, where land is more expensive and vehicles [and the people in them :) ] trend smaller.
Manipulate:
1. To manage or influence skillfully, especially in an unfair manner:
to manipulate people's feelings.
Social engineering, manipulating the human part of the system, is the first definition of "manipulate".
Brute forcing very rarely works, so I wonder if you actually mean dictionary attacks. Sometimes people use these terms incorrectly :) A GOOD dictionary attack involves a bit of skill, including figuring out which potential passwords would be allowed by the system, what defense systems are in place, etc.
The last two places I worked, corporate security occasionally sent out a "phishing" or scam email. If you clicked the link in the email, you got a page about email scams. Open an attachment in one of the fake scams, the attachment was a reminder to not open attachments.
If, instead, you clicked the "report this email" button in Outlook, you got a message saying "congratulations, you didn't fall for the scam."
That seems to work. After the first few emails sent by corporate security, the number of people falling for it dropped significantly.
Interestingly, this didn't involve your boss or someone from corpsec saying anything to you. Just the questionable email had a link to a page saying you shouldn't have clicked it.
>> the real cost will inevitably be passed on to its other customers.
> Businesses don't work that way. They set prices to maximize profit. If they could be making more money with higher prices THEY WOULD ALREADY BE DOING IT.
Both are true. Suppose company WU and company MG both produce a product that costs them $3 to make. Company MG charges $5. You are correct that company WU will raise its price to about $5, and not much higher, because that's the point of maximum profit given the competition.
Company MG, through some deal making, manages to cut it's cost to $2 and cuts its price to $3. Meanwhile, Company WU has their costs increase to $6. Company WU will NOT drop it's price to match MG, because they would be losing money
Instead, they'll their price to at least $6, because anything less doesn't generate profit. They will lose a lot of market share, but their revenue has to match their expenses or they exit the business. Company WU will raise their price to $6000, so they only have one customer left, if that's what it takes to meet their expenses - and even set a price so high that they have no customers and exit the business, if their costs are too high.
So the price is a function of not only competition, but also costs. When costs to a business increase, prices increase - even if that results in losing market share.
Losing market share will, of course, mean the fixed costs are borne by fewer customers, thereby pushing prices higher still, until either the company is providing a better product than the competition (or in places there is no competition), or the business fails.
I think you missed #7. The first six are all variants of "cut, crudely". The first definition other than "cut" is:
Computers.
A) to modify (a computer program or electronic device) or write (a program) in a skillful or clever way:
B) to circumvent security and break into (a network, computer, file, etc.), usually with malicious intent
As a career "hacker", I'd say that 7b could be refined to better indicate what is meant by "circumvent security" or "break" into. Knowing somebody's password isn't breaking in. That's just going in. Circumventing, breaking into a computer, requires doing something clever or skillful. It is therefore a subset of 7a.
That definition is also overly specific - people hacked the phone system, and specifically pay phones, before they hacked computers. They used the word hacking for that, as well as phreaking.
In my opinion and usage, to hack means to manipulate a system in order to use it in a way very much not intended by the creators of the system. Especially manipulating it to use it in a way that the creators sought to prevent.
Hacking old, out-of-print, unsupported software could be for good motives, such as retrieving data for the user. Hacking Slashdot could be done for bad motives. The commonality is that the creators didn't intend to allow or facilitate the action.
I've modified the compiled binaries of swf files long after the source code was lost, in order to keep a site working. I hacked the files - nobody ever intended for swf files to be updated by directly modifying them, such as with hexedit.
When you get to high school, if not before, you'll learn that you never cite Wikipedia. Like Slashdot, what's written there is whatever some fool decided to post.
Since you apparently haven't yet learned the difference between a reliable source and social media, how about at least read what's on your screen. You'll see right at the top of the Wikipedia article, the tabular summary says:
Sovereign state: United Kingdom
Scroll a tad and you'll see it says the law applicable to England is made by the UK Parliament (not English Parliament, there is no such thing). Another short scroll and you'll see:
--
There has not been a government of England since 1707, when the Acts of Union 1707, putting into effect the terms of the Treaty of Union, joined England and Scotland to form the Kingdom of Great Britain
--
So you want to tell me how the non-existent English government, through the non-existent English Parliament, passes laws?
Another pro-tip: before linking to a page while arguing, READ the page you're linking to.
Before the United States became the United States, it was 13 British colonies, called "British America" at the time. The colonies were ruled by a kingdom known as Great Britain, and that's where the law came from.
Great Britain was composed of Scotland, Wales, and England. Later, Great Britain merged with Ireland to form the United Kingdom.
So the colonies got there law from the United Kingdom, not from England, which no longer existed as a country by 1707. The United Kingdom included Scotland.
When correcting someone, it's suggested to make absolutely sure you're right. Otherwise you look like not only an asshole, but also a fool.
Perhaps you aren't aware, but being armed doesn't mean you randomly shoot people. I've been armed every day for years and never shoot anyone. I *almost* had to put a stop to an armed robbery at a store, but fortunately that wasn't necessary.
The proposal which I responded to said sending armed officers to the scene is the wrong response to a 911 call reporting a hostage situation with one person already killed. GGP wasn't entirely clear whether he though 911 should ignore such situations entirely, or send unarmed people look through the house. Why exactly such a proposal is mod +5 is beyond me. Are people REALLY spending so much time in fantasy "rainbows and unicorns" echo chambers that they think the proper response to an active shooter situation is to sing a folk song?
I'm not a Scottish lawyer. On the other hand, US law largely comes from the UK, and I can pretty convincingly play a US lawyer, in court.
There are a couple of ways this could play out where people get retrials, or if there is no corroborating evidence, get set free.
One would be for the prosecutor's office to agree to that, perhaps after some media attention. That's not a RIGHT to a retrial, but it could happen.
If there is new evidence, a defendant can move for a new trial. In order for this to be evidence in an unrelated cass, some other case involving the officers would need to come to light, showing a "pattern or practice" of this type of conduct. A single instance of a cop making a false statement in one case probably isn't sufficient evidence that they testified falsely in some other case. If it's shown that that made false statements in two or more cases, that's obviously relevant to their testimony in all cases.
A pardon is possible, but rare, in the UK.
Here's some information that may be relevant:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-g...
If there are any UK lawyers reading this, I welcome your feedback.
> If only the PTO would bother to only approve those patents that weren't obvious. Like the Eolas patent as a shining example?
I think it's interesting that USPTO rejected that application for obviousness - three times. Each time they sent it back with more documentation, arguments, and perhaps changes to the application, saying why exactly what the patent covered wasn't obvious. It would be interesting to read those submissions. Later, multiple hearings, in court and at USPTO, said it wasn't obvious (after carefully distinguishing between what *was* patented and other things not patented that are somewhat similar). Of course in the end the final determination was that the patent was not valid.
Most patents are fairly clear cut, but that one is weird. Since the patent office rejected it three different times, clearly it wasn't a lazy patent examiner just rubber stamping whatever. The later hearings and court ruling agreeing with the examiner, that the final version wasn't obvious, also suggest the examiner wasn't reckless. Perhaps wrong, but not obviously completely wrong, since multiple courts agreed. I'm not sure exactly where the process broke down on that one.
One possible structural change would be to make it so with each rejection, the standard to reverse the rejection gets higher. That would encourage inventors to first submit something that they expect will approved, rather than starting out shooting for the moon and then submitting a more and more proper version until one eventually gets approved. It would be a bit like the instant replay rule in the NFL - calls can only be reversed if they are clearly wrong, not if it's a close call. A similar rule for patents would encourage inventors to submit a non-obvious version of the patent the first time.
> might very well object to OpenStreetMap because of the non-GPL licensing terms used by the project.
This doesn't make sense to me for two reasons. It seems to conflate open source with GPL, and also the OpenStreetMap software *is* GPL licensed.
Open source does not mean GPL. I'm fact, the people who write and promote the GPL will tell you they support Free Software, NOT open source. They'll gladly explain the difference to you. So open source doesn't mean GPL - in fact, not only can something be open source with being GPL, the two philosophies have some fundamental differences.
Also, the primary software for open street map IS GPL, so I'm not sure why you'd say "no-GPL license". The GPL is of course a software license. The OSM project put the same terms the GPL uses into a database license. It says basically the same thing the GPL says- if you distribute it, whoever you distribute it to gets the same rights you have. That doesn't change if you make some modifications before distributing it - your modified copy is still open license.
> that determination should never be made by anyone holding a weapon
Okay, so one person has apparently been murdered and the perp says two more are about to. The perp says he's probably going to kill everyone - including himself. Your suggestion is to send in people who do NOT have weapon, to check to see if the dead is in fact dead? Then when the person you sent radios in "I've been shot!", you don't believe him. Presumably you send in two more unarmed people to see if he has really been shot?
--
Barrios told the emergency operator that he had killed his father and âoewas holding his mother and brother at gunpoint.â Barriss allegedly gave the operator the West McCormick address. The caller then âoeinformed the dispatcher that he was considering lighting the house on fire before committing suicide,â the indictment stated.
--
So you've got one victim dead already, or perhaps the gather isn't quite dead and could still be saved. Two more victims are being held hostage. The perpetrator intends to kill everyone, including himself.
> stop sending swat teams as first response
Would you perhaps send a crossing guard to handle hostage situations? Maybe a meter maid? Who would you send to a hostage situation when the perp has already starting killing people?
âoeNeed to delete everything,â he messaged, the indictment said. âoeThis is a murder case now. ⦠This isnâ(TM)t a joke.â
He wiped his phone and told the other people involved to do the same - while saying "this is a murder case". Intentionally destroying evidence in murder case, knowing it's a murder case, sounds like obstruction of justice.
He's being charged with obstruction of justice.
He apparently not being charged for taunting the guy after the swat threat, saying oh yeah just try to swat me. My address is ...
> For a target, a bullet designed for penetration will not impart all the energy into the target. For a hollow point of the same energy, more will go into the target and will deliver more 'knock back'.
It doesn't matter if it penetrates one inch or six inches. When it comes to rest, all of the energy has been transferred to the target.
This would only matter if the projectile passes all the way through the target, and exits at a significant velocity.
Re-read the first half of the sentence you quoted.
Approximately half of the energy of the expanding gas is imparted to the projectile. The other half is gas amd other residue shooting out of the muzzle, at a velocity higher than that of the projectile. A low single-digit percentage is lost to friction.
Handguns and rifles have "rifled" barrels, meaning there are deep grooves in the barrel, through which a round bullet passes. A portion of the expanding gas escapes through the grooves, never imparting any energy on the projectile. The rest of the gas comes exploding out of the barrel behind the bullet. This is especially true for handguns, with there short barrels. A three inch barrel isn't long enough for the gas to slow down, imparting most of it's energy to the projectile.
The recoil is equal to the energy of the projectile PLUS the energy of the gases and solid residue leaving the barrel.
The above ignores miscellaneous forces less than 2%.
Actually Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the presidency at the time it was cancelled. They had total control. The effort to shut it down was led by Democrat Jim Slattery of Kansas.
You are of course correct, the summary links multiple articles. I apologize. I was both wrong and rude.
Normally I have mod points but today I don't, so I can't mod myself down. :)
After I wrote my post, I went off to do some other things and it occurred to me there was more than one link in the summary. I figured I'd better check to see if the other link did in fact say that, because if so - well then I'm an asshole.
Indeed, I was wrong.
Thanks for being so gracious in the manner in which you pointed that out.
I'm sorry, Jodka. I was both wrong AND rude.