If it could take my 45 minute commute and turn it into a 10 minute commute, I'm all for it.
Do we really want this? I imagine a huge number of people would respond to this situation by saying "Hey, that means I can live *anywhere* inside a 500-mile radius and still have a normal commute time!" Then they'd start looking for 5 or 10 unspoiled acres way out in the country to live on, knowing they're just a brief flight from civilization. I can imagine overwhelming economic pressure on every nature preserve anywhere near a major city to subdivide into ranchettes to meet the demand from yuppies who always wanted a country home and a city job and now find they have the means to have both.
After flying cars become a reality, the urban sprawl that would follow would be horrific, a major environmental disaster. Imagine no more forests, just miniature estates every mile, each with a flying car parked out front, over half the land area of the country. The thought makes me shudder.
Oddly enough, after I read your answer I checked the TSA web site and they've updated the firearms procedures page since the last time I read it. It's now pretty sensible. For a while, it certainly wasn't.
The new page, which completely backs up what you've said, is here.
OK, you offered so I'll take you up on it for two questions.
1. In the newsmagazine story, the screener touched the person being searched without asking permission. Under the laws of my state, that constitutes assault. What is the proper procedure?
2. I haven't flown with firearms since before 9/11. TSA says leave your bags unlocked. Common sense and the airline web sites say that luggage containing firearms should be locked. I would not be happy if the TSA damaged my $700 custom aluminimum travel case by forcing it open but I'm also not at all happy about the prospect of leaving the thing unlocked with nothing to prevent any moron from lifting out a $3000 target pistol. So what's right - locked or unlocked?
It's been almost a decade ago, so I guess I can admit it now.
Somehow my name got passed around various chat rooms. It became known in some circles that I was not only a literate old guy but also enjoyed, shall we say, highly personalized verbal interaction with young ladies. Almost out of the blue (I have my suspicions about the origin of this first transaction but the story isn't germane here), I got an email asking me for assistance with a paper and offering a trade. The first transaction went very well for both parties. The word spread. For a couple of years, a substantial minority of all the English papers submitted by female students at a certain small, prestigious east coast liberal arts college were written by me.
Eventually I started turning down work from the rising percentage of young women who waited till literally a day or two before an assignment was due to call me. I simply can't turn out quality work that fast. They got pissed and badmouthed me to their friends. The work fell off. Since all my clients were at that single location, my little hobby just sorta dried up. I moved on to other outlets for my creativity.
Sometimes it is. The Rio Grande moves around and people have been known to get up in arms about it. Try this link for info about a dispute that wasn't settled until the 1960s.
It is definitely possible to make yourself physically sick if you are mentally convinced you are sick.
Right on.
A long, long time ago, a guy at her job grabbed my mom's ass and when she pulled away he just laughed. She's hard to offend and highly tolerant of immature males, but this pissed her off.
So she gets together with all the ladies in the office (and even a couple of guys joined in) and implemented a plan. *Everybody* that passed by Mr. Assgrabbers desk would say "Hi, Jim, how's it going?" Then they'd follow up with "You feeling ok? You look a little pale/tired/queasy/whatever." Everyone demonstrated genuine concern for the guy's health.
You know what? After just 6 or 8 people had innocently asked this guy if he was feeling all right, he became convinced he was sick. He called his boss and took the day off. He didn't come in the next day, either. IOW, he threw away two hard-earned vacation days just because he had convinced himself he was sick. And since, back then, a two-day suspension would be about the maximum penalty an offensive assgrabber could expect from management (assuming management would have paid any attention at all to my mom's complaint), that seemed like a fair punishment for being a dick.
I think that's fair proof you're right about this thing.
Wouldn't it be cool if Serenity were released on the same day as EpIII? You could have those long lines of people waiting to see the latest Star Wars while the Joss fans stream out of the theater loudly telling everyone within earshot "If you want some good sci-fi, see the *other* movie!" Everybody that can't get tickets to sold-out Star Wars screenings will see Serenity, instead, creating a whole new class of fans who'll talk up the movie to their friends. The critics could do double-feature reviews, complete with David and Goliath metaphors. By being better quality, by having the testicular fortitude to go up against the Star Wars franchise head-to-head, and by virtue of the great word of mouth, the second week of Serenity would kick ass in box office receipts as Star Wars drops precipitously.
Besides the awful job performance thus far, the biggest thing that turned me into an ABB (Anybody But Bush) type was just listening to the guy talk. I can't help but think that anybody who is qualified to lead the U.S. should have a fairly orderly mind. Shrub's difficulty putting words together fairly screams that something very basic is wrong.
OK, I know that I shouldn't expect every competent person to be silver-tongued. We all know plenty of good, smart people whose verbal interaction skills are poor. But I'm not asking George W. to write software for me. We need him to lead. Shouldn't leaders be able to coherently express their thoughts?
I'm not really trying to make a joke, here. I am sincerely wondering how much weight I should place on a candidate's ability to talk to people. I see the job of president as one that requires orderly thought and the ability to express those thoughts verbally. By that measure, Bush comes up short.
Or am I placing far too much emphasis on this one small part of being a leader?
I am sincerely confused on this. Anybody have any thoughts?
Thanks so much. That was a good read. I think I might have to join in with some of those folks. I haven't been involved in a fan community for decades, though, so if you'll suffer another favor for me - Where would I find gatherings of Firefly fans? You've shown me fireflyfans.net. Are there others that you would recommend?
But the vast majority of guns that are used at all are used to commit crimes. Period.
You're kidding, right? There are few hundreds or thousands of rounds fired in the course of criminal misdeeds in this country each year. There are literally billions of rounds fired by recreational shooters and in law enforcement each year. The criminal misuse of guns is such a vanishingly small percentage of total use that if we didn't see it on the news every night we'd have to consider it statistically insignificant.
Ah, but isn't illeagal to own heavy machine guns in most parts of the counrty?
I don't think so. I guess it all depends on how you measure "most parts of the country." Land area? Population? No matter, I think your statement is a red herring because pretty much anyone who wants to and can pass a background investigation can own a heavy machine gun in the USA. They are, however, too much trouble and too damn expensive for very many people to actually want one, though.
They aren't illegal everywhere; it's on a state-by-state basis. IIRC, there's only one state that has them as currently legal for civilians. Oregon, I think, but don't quote me on that. Also, for active duty military and police they're legal just about everywhere. Some very nice automatic knives are being manufactured these days.
Sidearms modeled after long-barreled cap and ball Smith and Wesson revolvers
Just what sidearm is the foundation for that thing that Mal carries? I keep looking, but I just can't figure it out.
revolvers, worn low on the hip in gunslinger rigs,
Which is irritating as all hell, because those rigs aren't "old west." They're pure "1950s television western."
I would be happy to sit for hours and watch Jewel Staite do anything, anything at all
I was happy for her, and all that, but somehow pissed off when I found out she had gotten married. Lucky bastard. I wonder if there's any possibility some of their homemade naughty videos might leak onto the net?
HEY! Don't look at me like that! It's happened to other famous people. Can't a guy have a little hope?:-)
That's the first theory I've heard with even a glimmer of possibility. I don't think it's right since I don't think the tiny bit of air normally inside a cartridge case could expand sufficiently or forcefully enough to damage or dislodge a primer or bullet. However, I want to thank you, my anonymous friend, for giving me back at least a little of that "willing suspension of disbelief" that I was grieving. Yours is the first theory that could inspire me to seek experimental test results, if only I had the facilities
So - Anybody around here have a vacuum chamber? Would you like to throw a couple of mil-spec rounds inside, pump out the air, and see what happens? (An SS109 round would do fine.) If so, please post back.:-)
So it would need to have an explosive charge to make the bullets fire.
I'm not quite sure where to start with this. How about just a quick list of the many things you've got wrong. ONE - I never said that Vera was any kind of Glock. However, for the people (like you) who don't know how firearms work, this was an example illustrating the fact that firearms don't require environmental oxygen to work. TWO - Virtually no firearms today need to have an explosive charge. Gunpowder is not an explosive. It is, IIRC, a class B flammable solid, meaning that it supplies its own oxygen and will burn very fast even without environmental oxygen. In doing so, it releases large quantities of gas that propel the bullet. There is NO explosion. THREE - What makes me think that Vera wouldn't need air is that Vera is clearly an AR-pattern semi-auto rifle. Those don't need air today and it just strikes me as supremely wrong that a space-faring race would adopt technology more backward that wouldn't work in space if they didn't have to.
I could go on, but I hope I don't have to.
Despite all the deep thinking going on around here about cultural and philosophical stuff, the notion that multiple levels of technology can exist side-by-side where they are appropriate is the reason I thought the old west settings were being used. IOW, the outlying planets look like the old west because that's the level of technology they can self-sustain, given the way they're so poorly connected to the central planets. So if Vera looks like a given level of technology, why would that technology have undergone such a regressive evolution as to require environmental oxygen to function? It just makes no sense.
Tonite, I'll rewatch the segment on the gangway where Jayne tries to trade the rifle to Mal. I didn't see or hear anything during that segment the last dozen times I watched it, but it never hurts to try again.
I don't know much about guns, but wouldn't they need oxygen for the propellant to burn
No, guns don't need oxygen. The gunpowder in the cartridge contains all the elements required for combustion. Guns are often fired in environments without oxygen, such as underwater. That was my reference to the Glock "sub aqua" models; they have a design change or two that makes them work better underwater. But even a regular Glock fires underwater just fine.
Given the lack of air resistance and low gravity in space, conventional firearms of today would have far better performance in space. No resistance equals faster bullet velocity in a straight line that just keeps going on forever. In an atmosphere, air drag slows down the bullet, gravity pulls on it, and the result is that it becomes less effective with increasing range, follows a curved trajectory that complicates aiming, and eventually just falls to the ground harmlessly. In space, none of those limiting factors exist. Firearm performance would be fantastic.
Man, this thing is really bugging me again, all over again.
Thanks for the really funny post. I'd throw you mod points if I had them.
Just a comment, though, on the viability of the movie and the inclusion of the "airhead slut." Here goes: If Whedon wants to guarantee that the movie is a smash hit with much of the current fan base, all he has to do is emphasize that "slut" stuff.
Even in her work before Firefly, Jewel Stait just makes me drool...
The lack of sound in space as depicted in the series is a good thing, sho nuff. But am I the only one who was irritated by the assertion that Vera (that over-accessorized tart of a rifle) required air to function? They put the thing inside a space suit, fer cryin' out loud, in order to shoot it in a vacuum.
Firearms work fine in a vacuum. In fact, if you think it through, they'd work far *better* in a vacuum. If you don't want to think it through, just look up the Glock "sub aqua" pistol variants to find pistols that work fine without air while submerged.
Maybe there was a reason Vera needed air but I've been through the DVDs with a fine-toothed comb and I don't see any explanation about why.
My "willing suspension of disbelief" has taken a big hit here. Can anybody help me get it back?
You're kidding, right? Elevators do tend to make occasional stops when traveling between widely separated floors. That takes a little time. In this case there were two or three stops. I don't remember, exactly; I was too busy paying attention to the PC. People got on and off. Some were sick and slow; it was a hospital, after all. The whole trip lasted somewhere around about 90 seconds.
Other than drawing-related tasks, I've never thought tablets were good for much. However, I was in a hospital elevator with a pharmaceutical company salesperson a couple of days ago and she whipped a small tablet PC (about 8 inch screen, I'd guess) from her purse, popped out the stylus and started tapping and scribbling away. It was running XP. Apparently she was able to document her last sales call and check her to-do list between the 5th and 21st floor. It was obvious she was accustomed to using it in short bursts, whenever she had, literally, 90 seconds to spare. I thought it was kinda neat, actually.
When a tablet is used like this, as a sort of super PDA, I'm sure it's more readable and, for some, more comfortable. I'm not sure I'd have any use for one of them, but I no longer think of tablet PCs as silly and useless devices. For some people, obviously, they're the bees knees.
Slashdot Mirror
Leave it to an overly-literal AC to fail to recognize when a touch of hyperbole is being used to make a point.
Do we really want this? I imagine a huge number of people would respond to this situation by saying "Hey, that means I can live *anywhere* inside a 500-mile radius and still have a normal commute time!" Then they'd start looking for 5 or 10 unspoiled acres way out in the country to live on, knowing they're just a brief flight from civilization. I can imagine overwhelming economic pressure on every nature preserve anywhere near a major city to subdivide into ranchettes to meet the demand from yuppies who always wanted a country home and a city job and now find they have the means to have both.
After flying cars become a reality, the urban sprawl that would follow would be horrific, a major environmental disaster. Imagine no more forests, just miniature estates every mile, each with a flying car parked out front, over half the land area of the country. The thought makes me shudder.
I might actually be able to get a date!
Thanks.
Oddly enough, after I read your answer I checked the TSA web site and they've updated the firearms procedures page since the last time I read it. It's now pretty sensible. For a while, it certainly wasn't.
The new page, which completely backs up what you've said, is here.
OK, you offered so I'll take you up on it for two questions.
1. In the newsmagazine story, the screener touched the person being searched without asking permission. Under the laws of my state, that constitutes assault. What is the proper procedure?
2. I haven't flown with firearms since before 9/11. TSA says leave your bags unlocked. Common sense and the airline web sites say that luggage containing firearms should be locked. I would not be happy if the TSA damaged my $700 custom aluminimum travel case by forcing it open but I'm also not at all happy about the prospect of leaving the thing unlocked with nothing to prevent any moron from lifting out a $3000 target pistol. So what's right - locked or unlocked?
It's been almost a decade ago, so I guess I can admit it now.
Somehow my name got passed around various chat rooms. It became known in some circles that I was not only a literate old guy but also enjoyed, shall we say, highly personalized verbal interaction with young ladies. Almost out of the blue (I have my suspicions about the origin of this first transaction but the story isn't germane here), I got an email asking me for assistance with a paper and offering a trade. The first transaction went very well for both parties. The word spread. For a couple of years, a substantial minority of all the English papers submitted by female students at a certain small, prestigious east coast liberal arts college were written by me.
Eventually I started turning down work from the rising percentage of young women who waited till literally a day or two before an assignment was due to call me. I simply can't turn out quality work that fast. They got pissed and badmouthed me to their friends. The work fell off. Since all my clients were at that single location, my little hobby just sorta dried up. I moved on to other outlets for my creativity.
It was fun while it lasted.
Sometimes it is. The Rio Grande moves around and people have been known to get up in arms about it. Try this link for info about a dispute that wasn't settled until the 1960s.
Right on.
A long, long time ago, a guy at her job grabbed my mom's ass and when she pulled away he just laughed. She's hard to offend and highly tolerant of immature males, but this pissed her off.
So she gets together with all the ladies in the office (and even a couple of guys joined in) and implemented a plan. *Everybody* that passed by Mr. Assgrabbers desk would say "Hi, Jim, how's it going?" Then they'd follow up with "You feeling ok? You look a little pale/tired/queasy/whatever." Everyone demonstrated genuine concern for the guy's health.
You know what? After just 6 or 8 people had innocently asked this guy if he was feeling all right, he became convinced he was sick. He called his boss and took the day off. He didn't come in the next day, either. IOW, he threw away two hard-earned vacation days just because he had convinced himself he was sick. And since, back then, a two-day suspension would be about the maximum penalty an offensive assgrabber could expect from management (assuming management would have paid any attention at all to my mom's complaint), that seemed like a fair punishment for being a dick.
I think that's fair proof you're right about this thing.
Wouldn't it be cool if Serenity were released on the same day as EpIII? You could have those long lines of people waiting to see the latest Star Wars while the Joss fans stream out of the theater loudly telling everyone within earshot "If you want some good sci-fi, see the *other* movie!" Everybody that can't get tickets to sold-out Star Wars screenings will see Serenity, instead, creating a whole new class of fans who'll talk up the movie to their friends. The critics could do double-feature reviews, complete with David and Goliath metaphors. By being better quality, by having the testicular fortitude to go up against the Star Wars franchise head-to-head, and by virtue of the great word of mouth, the second week of Serenity would kick ass in box office receipts as Star Wars drops precipitously.
I can dream, can't I?
Besides the awful job performance thus far, the biggest thing that turned me into an ABB (Anybody But Bush) type was just listening to the guy talk. I can't help but think that anybody who is qualified to lead the U.S. should have a fairly orderly mind. Shrub's difficulty putting words together fairly screams that something very basic is wrong.
OK, I know that I shouldn't expect every competent person to be silver-tongued. We all know plenty of good, smart people whose verbal interaction skills are poor. But I'm not asking George W. to write software for me. We need him to lead. Shouldn't leaders be able to coherently express their thoughts?
I'm not really trying to make a joke, here. I am sincerely wondering how much weight I should place on a candidate's ability to talk to people. I see the job of president as one that requires orderly thought and the ability to express those thoughts verbally. By that measure, Bush comes up short.
Or am I placing far too much emphasis on this one small part of being a leader?
I am sincerely confused on this. Anybody have any thoughts?
Thanks so much. That was a good read. I think I might have to join in with some of those folks. I haven't been involved in a fan community for decades, though, so if you'll suffer another favor for me - Where would I find gatherings of Firefly fans? You've shown me fireflyfans.net. Are there others that you would recommend?
tia
ben
You're kidding, right? There are few hundreds or thousands of rounds fired in the course of criminal misdeeds in this country each year. There are literally billions of rounds fired by recreational shooters and in law enforcement each year. The criminal misuse of guns is such a vanishingly small percentage of total use that if we didn't see it on the news every night we'd have to consider it statistically insignificant.
Congrats. Damn good troll.
I don't think so. I guess it all depends on how you measure "most parts of the country." Land area? Population? No matter, I think your statement is a red herring because pretty much anyone who wants to and can pass a background investigation can own a heavy machine gun in the USA. They are, however, too much trouble and too damn expensive for very many people to actually want one, though.
No, I didn't know that.
Any links? I'd like to read about it.
They aren't illegal everywhere; it's on a state-by-state basis. IIRC, there's only one state that has them as currently legal for civilians. Oregon, I think, but don't quote me on that. Also, for active duty military and police they're legal just about everywhere. Some very nice automatic knives are being manufactured these days.
Just what sidearm is the foundation for that thing that Mal carries? I keep looking, but I just can't figure it out.
Which is irritating as all hell, because those rigs aren't "old west." They're pure "1950s television western."
I was happy for her, and all that, but somehow pissed off when I found out she had gotten married. Lucky bastard. I wonder if there's any possibility some of their homemade naughty videos might leak onto the net?
HEY! Don't look at me like that! It's happened to other famous people. Can't a guy have a little hope? :-)
That's the first theory I've heard with even a glimmer of possibility. I don't think it's right since I don't think the tiny bit of air normally inside a cartridge case could expand sufficiently or forcefully enough to damage or dislodge a primer or bullet. However, I want to thank you, my anonymous friend, for giving me back at least a little of that "willing suspension of disbelief" that I was grieving. Yours is the first theory that could inspire me to seek experimental test results, if only I had the facilities
:-)
So - Anybody around here have a vacuum chamber? Would you like to throw a couple of mil-spec rounds inside, pump out the air, and see what happens? (An SS109 round would do fine.) If so, please post back.
I'm not quite sure where to start with this. How about just a quick list of the many things you've got wrong. ONE - I never said that Vera was any kind of Glock. However, for the people (like you) who don't know how firearms work, this was an example illustrating the fact that firearms don't require environmental oxygen to work. TWO - Virtually no firearms today need to have an explosive charge. Gunpowder is not an explosive. It is, IIRC, a class B flammable solid, meaning that it supplies its own oxygen and will burn very fast even without environmental oxygen. In doing so, it releases large quantities of gas that propel the bullet. There is NO explosion. THREE - What makes me think that Vera wouldn't need air is that Vera is clearly an AR-pattern semi-auto rifle. Those don't need air today and it just strikes me as supremely wrong that a space-faring race would adopt technology more backward that wouldn't work in space if they didn't have to.
I could go on, but I hope I don't have to.
Despite all the deep thinking going on around here about cultural and philosophical stuff, the notion that multiple levels of technology can exist side-by-side where they are appropriate is the reason I thought the old west settings were being used. IOW, the outlying planets look like the old west because that's the level of technology they can self-sustain, given the way they're so poorly connected to the central planets. So if Vera looks like a given level of technology, why would that technology have undergone such a regressive evolution as to require environmental oxygen to function? It just makes no sense.
Tonite, I'll rewatch the segment on the gangway where Jayne tries to trade the rifle to Mal. I didn't see or hear anything during that segment the last dozen times I watched it, but it never hurts to try again.
No, guns don't need oxygen. The gunpowder in the cartridge contains all the elements required for combustion. Guns are often fired in environments without oxygen, such as underwater. That was my reference to the Glock "sub aqua" models; they have a design change or two that makes them work better underwater. But even a regular Glock fires underwater just fine.
Given the lack of air resistance and low gravity in space, conventional firearms of today would have far better performance in space. No resistance equals faster bullet velocity in a straight line that just keeps going on forever. In an atmosphere, air drag slows down the bullet, gravity pulls on it, and the result is that it becomes less effective with increasing range, follows a curved trajectory that complicates aiming, and eventually just falls to the ground harmlessly. In space, none of those limiting factors exist. Firearm performance would be fantastic.
Man, this thing is really bugging me again, all over again.
Thanks for the really funny post. I'd throw you mod points if I had them.
Just a comment, though, on the viability of the movie and the inclusion of the "airhead slut." Here goes: If Whedon wants to guarantee that the movie is a smash hit with much of the current fan base, all he has to do is emphasize that "slut" stuff.
Even in her work before Firefly, Jewel Stait just makes me drool...
The lack of sound in space as depicted in the series is a good thing, sho nuff. But am I the only one who was irritated by the assertion that Vera (that over-accessorized tart of a rifle) required air to function? They put the thing inside a space suit, fer cryin' out loud, in order to shoot it in a vacuum.
Firearms work fine in a vacuum. In fact, if you think it through, they'd work far *better* in a vacuum. If you don't want to think it through, just look up the Glock "sub aqua" pistol variants to find pistols that work fine without air while submerged.
Maybe there was a reason Vera needed air but I've been through the DVDs with a fine-toothed comb and I don't see any explanation about why.
My "willing suspension of disbelief" has taken a big hit here. Can anybody help me get it back?
You're kidding, right? Elevators do tend to make occasional stops when traveling between widely separated floors. That takes a little time. In this case there were two or three stops. I don't remember, exactly; I was too busy paying attention to the PC. People got on and off. Some were sick and slow; it was a hospital, after all. The whole trip lasted somewhere around about 90 seconds.
Please tell me you're kidding.
Other than drawing-related tasks, I've never thought tablets were good for much. However, I was in a hospital elevator with a pharmaceutical company salesperson a couple of days ago and she whipped a small tablet PC (about 8 inch screen, I'd guess) from her purse, popped out the stylus and started tapping and scribbling away. It was running XP. Apparently she was able to document her last sales call and check her to-do list between the 5th and 21st floor. It was obvious she was accustomed to using it in short bursts, whenever she had, literally, 90 seconds to spare. I thought it was kinda neat, actually.
When a tablet is used like this, as a sort of super PDA, I'm sure it's more readable and, for some, more comfortable. I'm not sure I'd have any use for one of them, but I no longer think of tablet PCs as silly and useless devices. For some people, obviously, they're the bees knees.
Who the hell modded this as "Funny"?
It's damn insightful, IMO. I am totally serious.