Police choosing which laws to enforce or not is but one small step from the police enacting their own laws.
"we don't like this law so we're not going to do anything about it" is very close to "well, there's no real law against it, but we don't like it so we'll bust him anyway."
The police should not have that much power. If the laws have been actually overturned, and the police are still busting these guys, the courts should slap the police down hard.
That's not saying the police don't turn a blind eye to some things in the RealWorld. But it can quite easily turn ugly, if you give them enough rope.
The parent is more or less right. $400 IS a lot to spend for just a personal stereo. Now...$400 is NOT too much to spend for a portable hard drive which you can use for file transfer, music, storage, contact lists, etc, etc, etc.
But if all you want to do is listen to a little music...$400 is a lot of clams.
This is unlawful but, couldn't the police turn a blind eye on these cybercafes (the law abiding ones of course) and instead focus on the ones that promote/harbor/create/encourage illegal online gambling?
As you say, this is unlawful. The police shouldn't choose which laws they enforce.
Get the courts to overturn it, and pass laws concentrating on the actual gambling.
"very vocal", as in donning parts of an NVA uniform, and posing for pictures at the controls of a NVA AAA gun.
"very vocal", as in lying about the treatment of US POW's.
"very vocal", as in christening her son Troy after a Viet Cong hero, Nguyen Van Troi, who later tried to assassinate SecDef McNamara.
"very vocal", as in "I would think that if you understood what communism was you would hope, you would pray on your knees, that we would someday become communists." - Jane Fonda, MSU, 1970
If I don't make a conscious effort, my mind tends to wander into the conversation and away from my physical surroundings. I believe this to be true for many others as well, as evidenced by how easy it is to stand near an oblivious cell phone user and listen to every word of their conversation.
Thank you for this bit of insight. This is why moving cars should be a phone-free zone.
OK - (going from memory, and using the M61A1 20MM for reference, but they are somewhat similar)
There are two paths in the gun for rounds to travel, fire, and safe/clear. Picture a cylinder, with a path drawn straight around the outside. That is the 'safe' path the rounds travel in. Now, draw a circle aound the outside, but angled. That is the 'firing' path. At the forward/top part of this angled path, the round enters the barrel and is fired.
both paths share a common bottom part, and the angled path diverges for about 2'3 of the circumference.
So...at rest, the default path is the safe circle. About 4 rounds will be bypassed, simply because they are already past the firing path entrance. AS the gun spools up, the gate switches, and round travel in the firing part.
BBRRAAAPPP!
As the trigger is released, no more firing voltage. The rounds already in the firing path enter, then exit the end of the barrel. Still slowing down...New rounds are shunted into the 'safe/clearing' path.
At speed (3900 rounds/min) the gun is at ~9 revs/second. If it takes only 1/4 second to come to a full stop, as many as 15 or 20 rounds can been bypassed. 7 rounds per revolution * 2 or 3 revs.
So...each 2.5 second trigger pull may result in 130 rounds downrange, and 20 still in the gun/belt system.
Those rounds are removed in the reloading process, inspected, and good ones (most/all) are put back into service.
this next service pack is going to seriously fuck up some software industries... a better personal firewall, a popup killer, and now antivirus, all now bundled with the OS? and free?!
The f-22 and the su-35 were counter parts. in mid 90's the su-35 was further along in developement then the f-22
The Su-35, while possibly a good aircraft (refit of the Su-27) never went into service. Vaporware aircraft do not count.
A "super sonic" torpedo? this is implicit. 'the SR-23 is super sonic'. Is a statement that it can go faster then the speed of sound. No ammendments need eb made
Let's get this straight. There is no underwater torpedo that travels faster than sound. None, zero, nada. Not ever, not anywhere.
The fastest torpedo I have found in unclassified documents is the Russian "Shkval", which has a claimed speed of 200 knots, or 230mph. However....this speed prevents any actual guidance, so it is merely point, shoot, hope. A weapon of last hope, after you've lost the actual battle. An unguided underwater rocket, as opposed to a homing torpedo. Normal torpedo speeds are around 50-60 knots.
Now..if you have some factual info on this mythical super sonic, underwater uber-weapon, please share...
The original spec on the Gau-8 wsa 2100/4200 rounds per minute, selectable. The A-10 fires at 3900 rounds/min. They dropped the 2100 selection, because it made no sense to try to hold on the target twice as long to get the same number of rounds on it.
As the pilot releases the trigger, the gun begins to slow down. The gun does a couple of revolutions before it stops completely. There is no more firing voltage going to the gun. This is also the clearing cycle. Ergo, rounds are not fired. Those rounds are bypassed, and simply cycle back into the belt/drum. But they can't really be used, because the gun does not apply firing voltage unless there are rounds present. There is a little switch to detect the presence of the round. No rounds, no voltage, no firing.
If you were to look at a complete belt after firing, there will be long sections with fired rounds (brass only), and then a smaller section with rounds, and then fired rounds, etc, etc. Unless the belt happens to stop right where there are some of those previously bypassed rounds are actuating that switch...again, no voltage.
Torpedo technology: Their torpedos are super sonic. the US torpedos are sub sonic.
A "super sonic" torpedo? You mean a torpedo that can travel faster than the speed of sound? Riiiight.
Planes: The Russian counter part (Su-27)...
...is a competitor to the F-15 and F-14, not the F-22
The apache is expensive and requires a lot of maintainence and can be shot down by co-ordinated rifle fire or unguided rpgs. The hind is more durable.
Hind pilots in Afghanistan would probably disagree with you.
>br>Again...the real test is in combat. What is the combat record of US v fUSSR systems? Tanks, jets, etc.
That might not be an option with all products. If it is sewn into the hem of a dress, or molded into the sole of a sneaker, removal might be a bit messy.
Actually, The Russians have more than twice the number of nukes as the USA.
More were needed due to poorer targeting systems. If you can actually hit the target, you don't need so many.
and have more advanced planes
And which aircraft might these be? What is the combat record (the only true measure) over the last 40 years, US aircraft v fUSSR aircraft?
and submarines.
Not to be callous, but a bunch of titanium on the floor of the Barents Sea might show that not to be true. How many Russian subs are out to sea right now? How many have sortied in the last 2 years?
They fire in short bursts because it only carries 1100 rounds. That's about 15 seconds of actual shooting @ 3900 rounds/min. You have to account for a few wasted rounds in spoolup and slowdown.
The amount of money saved on licensing would hire a lot of staff for support and training.
But wait...I thought one of the big draws with Linux is ease of administration. 1 Linux guy can admin more systems than a Windows guy. So either the government can reduce the support staff, or keep around redundant people.
The idea of saving money is to actually not spend as much, not hire unneeded people.
Second, there is a strong emphesis on simplifying the maintenence requirements for newer aircraft. As an example, the F-15 IIRC requires a gorund crew of about 15 people. The F-16 in comparison, requires only 3 people.
Not really. In day to day operations, the -15 and the -16 require about the same size ground crews. The -15 does need a little more backshop people, but nowhere near 5x.
A standard 'combat quickturn' (think NASCAR pitstop) requires the same number of people for both:
Turn supervisor Crew Chief Asst Crew Chief
Weapons #1 Weapons #2 Weapons #3 Roving fuel truck driver
And yes, I was groundcrew on -15's and -16's for a long time.
Slashdot Mirror
Police choosing which laws to enforce or not is but one small step from the police enacting their own laws.
"we don't like this law so we're not going to do anything about it" is very close to "well, there's no real law against it, but we don't like it so we'll bust him anyway."
The police should not have that much power. If the laws have been actually overturned, and the police are still busting these guys, the courts should slap the police down hard.
That's not saying the police don't turn a blind eye to some things in the RealWorld. But it can quite easily turn ugly, if you give them enough rope.
If an explot is found, I get your house and car. If no exploits are found, you get mine. Deal?
I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to trade his place for a mobile home and a '73 Pinto.
The parent is more or less right. $400 IS a lot to spend for just a personal stereo. Now...$400 is NOT too much to spend for a portable hard drive which you can use for file transfer, music, storage, contact lists, etc, etc, etc.
But if all you want to do is listen to a little music...$400 is a lot of clams.
This is unlawful but, couldn't the police turn a blind eye on these cybercafes (the law abiding ones of course) and instead focus on the ones that promote/harbor/create/encourage illegal online gambling?
As you say, this is unlawful. The police shouldn't choose which laws they enforce.
Get the courts to overturn it, and pass laws concentrating on the actual gambling.
Forbes. Kerry was not poor before he married the Heinz heir.
"very vocal", as in donning parts of an NVA uniform, and posing for pictures at the controls of a NVA AAA gun.
"very vocal", as in lying about the treatment of US POW's.
"very vocal", as in christening her son Troy after a Viet Cong hero, Nguyen Van Troi, who later tried to assassinate SecDef McNamara.
"very vocal", as in "I would think that if you understood what communism was you would hope, you would pray on your knees, that we would someday become communists." - Jane Fonda, MSU, 1970
Well, Kerry probably qualifies as one of the "rich people" who are in power
probably? You DO know what the F. in John F. Kerry stands for, right?
Hint, it's not Field&Stream.
And you DO know his wife's maiden name, right? A well known condiment.
Rich people indeed...
Well they do have a history of lying
They, meaning politicians in general, not just Republicans.
If I don't make a conscious effort, my mind tends to wander into the conversation and away from my physical surroundings. I believe this to be true for many others as well, as evidenced by how easy it is to stand near an oblivious cell phone user and listen to every word of their conversation.
Thank you for this bit of insight. This is why moving cars should be a phone-free zone.
Seriously. Case mod a CD jukebox.
OK - (going from memory, and using the M61A1 20MM for reference, but they are somewhat similar)
There are two paths in the gun for rounds to travel, fire, and safe/clear. Picture a cylinder, with a path drawn straight around the outside. That is the 'safe' path the rounds travel in. Now, draw a circle aound the outside, but angled. That is the 'firing' path. At the forward/top part of this angled path, the round enters the barrel and is fired.
both paths share a common bottom part, and the angled path diverges for about 2'3 of the circumference.
So...at rest, the default path is the safe circle. About 4 rounds will be bypassed, simply because they are already past the firing path entrance. AS the gun spools up, the gate switches, and round travel in the firing part.
BBRRAAAPPP!
As the trigger is released, no more firing voltage. The rounds already in the firing path enter, then exit the end of the barrel. Still slowing down...New rounds are shunted into the 'safe/clearing' path.
At speed (3900 rounds/min) the gun is at ~9 revs/second. If it takes only 1/4 second to come to a full stop, as many as 15 or 20 rounds can been bypassed. 7 rounds per revolution * 2 or 3 revs.
So...each 2.5 second trigger pull may result in 130 rounds downrange, and 20 still in the gun/belt system.
Those rounds are removed in the reloading process, inspected, and good ones (most/all) are put back into service.
How many operating systems can boast about having ***NSA***-quality security?
Seeing as how NSA publishes security guides for NT, 2000, XP, 2003Server and Solaris 8, I'd say it is more than just Linux.
this next service pack is going to seriously fuck up some software industries... a better personal firewall, a popup killer, and now antivirus, all now bundled with the OS? and free?!
So the other free AV tool screwed up the expensive paid ones?
my info on this was incorrect.
indeed...
The f-22 and the su-35 were counter parts. in mid 90's the su-35 was further along in developement then the f-22
The Su-35, while possibly a good aircraft (refit of the Su-27) never went into service . Vaporware aircraft do not count.
A "super sonic" torpedo?
this is implicit. 'the SR-23 is super sonic'. Is a statement that it can go faster then the speed of sound. No ammendments need eb made
Let's get this straight. There is no underwater torpedo that travels faster than sound. None, zero, nada. Not ever, not anywhere.
The fastest torpedo I have found in unclassified documents is the Russian "Shkval", which has a claimed speed of 200 knots, or 230mph. However....this speed prevents any actual guidance, so it is merely point, shoot, hope. A weapon of last hope, after you've lost the actual battle. An unguided underwater rocket, as opposed to a homing torpedo.
Normal torpedo speeds are around 50-60 knots.
Now..if you have some factual info on this mythical super sonic, underwater uber-weapon, please share...
Consequently, they broadcast a tiny amount of RF (the same as radar).
And the VG2 can read that 'tiny bit' of RF leakage from 50+ feet away, at 75mph.
The original spec on the Gau-8 wsa 2100/4200 rounds per minute, selectable. The A-10 fires at 3900 rounds/min. They dropped the 2100 selection, because it made no sense to try to hold on the target twice as long to get the same number of rounds on it.
As the pilot releases the trigger, the gun begins to slow down. The gun does a couple of revolutions before it stops completely. There is no more firing voltage going to the gun. This is also the clearing cycle. Ergo, rounds are not fired. Those rounds are bypassed, and simply cycle back into the belt/drum. But they can't really be used, because the gun does not apply firing voltage unless there are rounds present. There is a little switch to detect the presence of the round. No rounds, no voltage, no firing.
If you were to look at a complete belt after firing, there will be long sections with fired rounds (brass only), and then a smaller section with rounds, and then fired rounds, etc, etc. Unless the belt happens to stop right where there are some of those previously bypassed rounds are actuating that switch...again, no voltage.
Torpedo technology: Their torpedos are super sonic. the US torpedos are sub sonic.
...
A "super sonic" torpedo? You mean a torpedo that can travel faster than the speed of sound? Riiiight.
Planes: The Russian counter part (Su-27)
...is a competitor to the F-15 and F-14, not the F-22
The apache is expensive and requires a lot of maintainence and can be shot down by co-ordinated rifle fire or unguided rpgs. The hind is more durable.
Hind pilots in Afghanistan would probably disagree with you.
>br>Again...the real test is in combat. What is the combat record of US v fUSSR systems? Tanks, jets, etc.
That might not be an option with all products. If it is sewn into the hem of a dress, or molded into the sole of a sneaker, removal might be a bit messy.
Actually, The Russians have more than twice the number of nukes as the USA.
More were needed due to poorer targeting systems. If you can actually hit the target, you don't need so many.
and have more advanced planes
And which aircraft might these be?
What is the combat record (the only true measure) over the last 40 years, US aircraft v fUSSR aircraft?
and submarines.
Not to be callous, but a bunch of titanium on the floor of the Barents Sea might show that not to be true.
How many Russian subs are out to sea right now? How many have sortied in the last 2 years?
They fire in short bursts because it only carries 1100 rounds. That's about 15 seconds of actual shooting @ 3900 rounds/min. You have to account for a few wasted rounds in spoolup and slowdown.
Did you know they actually kick back & slow down in flight from the recoil firing the .50 cal nose gun?
.50 cal. More than twice the size.
Not to nitpick, but it's a 30mm gun, not
Yeah....the F-4 and -111 were far more labor intensive. And I worked those too.
The amount of money saved on licensing would hire a lot of staff for support and training.
But wait...I thought one of the big draws with Linux is ease of administration. 1 Linux guy can admin more systems than a Windows guy. So either the government can reduce the support staff, or keep around redundant people.
The idea of saving money is to actually not spend as much, not hire unneeded people.
We can't have it both ways.
It's also very quiet. You can get a lot closer without being heard, and subsequently targeted with an RPG.
Second, there is a strong emphesis on simplifying the maintenence requirements for newer aircraft. As an example, the F-15 IIRC requires a gorund crew of about 15 people. The F-16 in comparison, requires only 3 people.
Not really. In day to day operations, the -15 and the -16 require about the same size ground crews. The -15 does need a little more backshop people, but nowhere near 5x.
A standard 'combat quickturn' (think NASCAR pitstop) requires the same number of people for both:
Turn supervisor
Crew Chief
Asst Crew Chief
Weapons #1
Weapons #2
Weapons #3
Roving fuel truck driver
And yes, I was groundcrew on -15's and -16's for a long time.