Which would be totally unnecessary with Thorium reactors. The only reason we didn't continue developing them was their byproducts were too clean. Governments wanted the plutonium produced by uranium reactors.
When I was applying at a fire department back in 2006, I had to take a polygraph. After a few random questions of no consequence to the hiring process but probably to his process (one of which was my name, and I flatly lied to the guy and he got mad at me and I grinned and said that I thought he needed a lie to compare things to), he made it clear that the technology was BS by asking the following questions: (Answers in parenthesis)
"Have you looked up any information on polygraph tests before coming to this test?" (Of course.)
*annoyed, trying to imply wrongdoing* "Why did you have to go and do that?" (Because only an idiot doesn't study for a test, especially with a job on the line.)
*clearly more annoyed* "Are you trying to hide something?" (I have no such need.)
*clearly pissed off, but trying to remain composed* "Do you believe polygraphs work?" (Not at all.)
I passed the test, but I suspect my file was annotated with some unfriendly remarks.
The real trick is to find people who can't be bought and convince them to run for office. Most Americans know that it's a thankless job in a corrupt culture where little can actually be accomplished. And anyone who is qualified for the job is smart enough to know that they don't want the job.
We could use a few more of those who, despite not wanting the job, are willing to take a term out of their private life for the greater good.
The amount of Internet traffic traversing the United States, combined with the amount of information we pull from foreign intelligence agencies working on our behalf, is a pretty good indicator.
Can we stop using the term "mainstream"? Mainstream implies that they are more in line with what people want. Establishment, now that's a more accurate term.
We have two parties, both establishment-supporting. They've taken away all effectiveness in our systems intended to petition for redress, and then they demonize anyone who doesn't stick to just these channels.
Any lawmaker who believes our present official-channel redress methods genuinely offer legitimate chances of redress should be voted out of office. Preferrably by their own party in primaries, otherwise you just get someone equally dirty from the other side. Though in California, having been a California voter, I can honestly say the California version of both parties are as filthy as they come these days.
Agreed, actually. But at a range of five or six yards at most, I'm not seeing an appreciable difference in the result. Especially if one chooses more deadly areas to aim for.
Apples and oranges. The B-2 is the worst example you could have used, as it is extremely and unnecessarily expensive in this day of cruise and ballistic missiles. The idea of needing to "stealth bomb" something instead of simply firing a bunch of missiles is silly. Making it a manned operation with a reusable vehicle is not only inefficient but unnecessarily risky.
True, but in a situation like this, there are countless places you can be shot and survive. One's odds of bleeding out from a single.22 shot to the hand, or the fleshy part of the leg but not damaging any major arteries, are almost nonexistent in this day and age.
This particular shooter, regardless of what he used, went back to kill someone he thought he had already killed when he saw him move again.
Yes, you're quite right. The years of governmental and media fearmongering about so-called "assault weapons" have given me a tendency to immediately go on the offence against their use of terms as soon as I see them use "assault" as an adjective for any weapon used by a civilian.
For someone who is castigating someone for failure to read entire sentences, you didn't do so for your own link nor his excerpt. GP clearly disqualifies any weapon this guy likely had from being called an "assault rifle".
.22 is a tiny caliber...but it's not much smaller than.223 (AR15/M16). You can do a lot of damage with a.22, you just have to hit the right things to get a kill with it.
That's because manning the aircraft is pointless. The pilot is the most valuable thing on the plane.
That may seem a bit emotional, but look at the costs. Life-support, weight, cockpit space and the associated drag, the need to provide some way of seeing, the ability to get the pilot out in an emergency, visible screens or gauges, interior lighting, pilot training, survivor benefits/retirement pay, salaries, all needing to withstand the forces at that speed, and all protecting the least predictable part of the combination.
And that's added to the idea that we have to care whether we can recover the pilot in an emergency.
Just tack some sufficient self-destruct mechanism to sensitive equipment. Even disable external control on any craft that may need to loiter, and pre-program the entire route if you want. At worst, we lose a robot.
Doesn't matter, unless the Tea Partier was forced to bring the set amount of cookies only to have them taken away. Most Tea Partiers are angry about what they were forced to bring only to see it wasted, not upset about what other people might offer them.
Assault rifles don't exist until someone commits assault with a rifle. At that point, any rifle is an assault rifle.
Any time I see a news article or press release with the term "assault rifle" in it I know I'm dealing with someone who doesn't know anything at all about guns. A quick scan of TFA, BTW, does not name or picture the weapon. For all we know, it could be a deer rifle with a black stock, a Warsaw Pact semiauto AK, any of dozens of M4/M14/M16/AR15 semiauto clones, or a really tricked out Ruger 10-22 (and a lucky shot on the one kill). A more attentive reading might tell us more, but I doubt it.
Slashdot Mirror
Which would be totally unnecessary with Thorium reactors. The only reason we didn't continue developing them was their byproducts were too clean. Governments wanted the plutonium produced by uranium reactors.
I've seen eight cops so far this morning. All of them were just harassing citizens. They like to call it traffic enforcement.
When I was applying at a fire department back in 2006, I had to take a polygraph. After a few random questions of no consequence to the hiring process but probably to his process (one of which was my name, and I flatly lied to the guy and he got mad at me and I grinned and said that I thought he needed a lie to compare things to), he made it clear that the technology was BS by asking the following questions: (Answers in parenthesis)
"Have you looked up any information on polygraph tests before coming to this test?" (Of course.)
*annoyed, trying to imply wrongdoing* "Why did you have to go and do that?" (Because only an idiot doesn't study for a test, especially with a job on the line.)
*clearly more annoyed* "Are you trying to hide something?" (I have no such need.)
*clearly pissed off, but trying to remain composed* "Do you believe polygraphs work?" (Not at all.)
I passed the test, but I suspect my file was annotated with some unfriendly remarks.
The real trick is to find people who can't be bought and convince them to run for office. Most Americans know that it's a thankless job in a corrupt culture where little can actually be accomplished. And anyone who is qualified for the job is smart enough to know that they don't want the job.
We could use a few more of those who, despite not wanting the job, are willing to take a term out of their private life for the greater good.
The amount of Internet traffic traversing the United States, combined with the amount of information we pull from foreign intelligence agencies working on our behalf, is a pretty good indicator.
It will be years, long after any current politicians are in office. If ever.
Can we stop using the term "mainstream"? Mainstream implies that they are more in line with what people want. Establishment, now that's a more accurate term.
The way they define "enemy" these days is one of the more damning revelations he made. Most of 'em aren't enemies at all.
We have two parties, both establishment-supporting. They've taken away all effectiveness in our systems intended to petition for redress, and then they demonize anyone who doesn't stick to just these channels.
Any lawmaker who believes our present official-channel redress methods genuinely offer legitimate chances of redress should be voted out of office. Preferrably by their own party in primaries, otherwise you just get someone equally dirty from the other side. Though in California, having been a California voter, I can honestly say the California version of both parties are as filthy as they come these days.
"I thought it a bit daft, me guarding him when he's a guard."
Certainly, I agree. The question is quality, not quality, of the damage.
Agreed, actually. But at a range of five or six yards at most, I'm not seeing an appreciable difference in the result. Especially if one chooses more deadly areas to aim for.
Apples and oranges. The B-2 is the worst example you could have used, as it is extremely and unnecessarily expensive in this day of cruise and ballistic missiles. The idea of needing to "stealth bomb" something instead of simply firing a bunch of missiles is silly. Making it a manned operation with a reusable vehicle is not only inefficient but unnecessarily risky.
To sympathize, I'd have to give you the benefit of the doubt here by assuming that you had not wasted any of their time during your lecture.
An assumption which I would be obligated doubt. If you did in fact waste their time, I have no sympathy for them wasting yours.
True, but in a situation like this, there are countless places you can be shot and survive. One's odds of bleeding out from a single .22 shot to the hand, or the fleshy part of the leg but not damaging any major arteries, are almost nonexistent in this day and age.
This particular shooter, regardless of what he used, went back to kill someone he thought he had already killed when he saw him move again.
Yes, you're quite right. The years of governmental and media fearmongering about so-called "assault weapons" have given me a tendency to immediately go on the offence against their use of terms as soon as I see them use "assault" as an adjective for any weapon used by a civilian.
For someone who is castigating someone for failure to read entire sentences, you didn't do so for your own link nor his excerpt. GP clearly disqualifies any weapon this guy likely had from being called an "assault rifle".
Last time I checked, that's how representative-based governance (and grievances related to the same) work.
Yes, but at the range this guy was shooting at?
.22 is a tiny caliber...but it's not much smaller than .223 (AR15/M16). You can do a lot of damage with a .22, you just have to hit the right things to get a kill with it.
OK, now you're clearly just trolling.
That's because manning the aircraft is pointless. The pilot is the most valuable thing on the plane.
That may seem a bit emotional, but look at the costs. Life-support, weight, cockpit space and the associated drag, the need to provide some way of seeing, the ability to get the pilot out in an emergency, visible screens or gauges, interior lighting, pilot training, survivor benefits/retirement pay, salaries, all needing to withstand the forces at that speed, and all protecting the least predictable part of the combination.
And that's added to the idea that we have to care whether we can recover the pilot in an emergency.
Just tack some sufficient self-destruct mechanism to sensitive equipment. Even disable external control on any craft that may need to loiter, and pre-program the entire route if you want. At worst, we lose a robot.
Doesn't matter, unless the Tea Partier was forced to bring the set amount of cookies only to have them taken away. Most Tea Partiers are angry about what they were forced to bring only to see it wasted, not upset about what other people might offer them.
It's too late on a Friday for that kind of moral dilemma. And definitely too late on Friday for a meeting.
Assault rifles don't exist until someone commits assault with a rifle. At that point, any rifle is an assault rifle.
Any time I see a news article or press release with the term "assault rifle" in it I know I'm dealing with someone who doesn't know anything at all about guns. A quick scan of TFA, BTW, does not name or picture the weapon. For all we know, it could be a deer rifle with a black stock, a Warsaw Pact semiauto AK, any of dozens of M4/M14/M16/AR15 semiauto clones, or a really tricked out Ruger 10-22 (and a lucky shot on the one kill). A more attentive reading might tell us more, but I doubt it.