Again, you are focusing on the least common use for the tool.
Now, I don't have any hard facts on hand to back this up, but I would say that the majority of assault weapons are not being used by target shooters or hunters, but are in fact issued to military forces around the globe for use in combat.
You don't take criticism well, do you? I am not commenting on the legistation of assault weapons in the US, quite frankly, I don't live there and if you all want to run around with bazookas and blow the hell out of each other, I could care less.
B.T.W., the last word is yours for the taking, I've said my piece and need to get back to work.
I love this myth that "Assualt rifles" were specifically to kill human beings. The Geneva Conventions actually have made them be developed for entirely a different purpose and it is most definitely and amazingly not to kill human beings. Assault rifles were built to WOUND people.
A poor choice of words on my part. You are correct.
Define 'Assault rifle'. What most people define as 'Assault rifles' are merely rifles with cosmetic changes and that does not change the function of the rifles. It was a fairly solid example.
From dictionary.reference.com
Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat.
or
any of the automatic rifles or semiautomatic rifles with large magazines designed for military use
The typical mission of an assault rifle is to provide fire support at ranges up to 200 meters by ordinary troops. It is designed for massed anti-personnel fire at short ranges with simple maintenance.
From me:
Assault rifles are the basic issue weapon issued to a countries infantry units. They are generally designed for fully automatic fire, with the notable exception of the US issue assault rifles, which only support single shot and 3-round burst due to the fact that poor training leads the US soldier to have poor fire control.
They are designed to support the mounting of bayonets so they may be used as a hand to hand weapon when ammunition is unavailable. They are generally bolt driven and clip fed, and designed in as simple a fashion as possible so they are easy to maintain in the field and reliable even in poor environmental conditions. Assault rifles generally have a maximum range in the area of half a kilometer, but are only considered useful at this range when a section is covering an area with automatic fire and creating a beaten zone. Otherwise, the maximum effective range is generally in the area of 200 meters.
They are generally a poor choice for hunting because they use full metal jacket ammunition, which gives marginally higher penetration but does not "mushroom" inside the target, and thus is less likely to result in a fatal wound. The generally accepted rational for this, aside from any humanitarian reasons, is that a wounded soldier is a greater liability to the enemy than a dead one. In addition to the above, assault weapons generally do not support the mounting of an optical site.
So basically, an assault rifle is designed to kill people, and is a very poor choice for hunting. And if you and the original poster were better informed about the subject, you'd realize how poor an example it was. Next time you're looking for a comparison, try a machete.;)
I completely understand your point. My point is that you are comparing a tool whose defense is going to be that it is designed to allow its users to publish media which they have a legal right to with a tool whose express design purpose is to kill people, a task which is illegal without exceptional circumstances. Is there a comparison there? Yes. Is it a good example to illustrate your point? No, not really.
Assault rifles are designed specifically to kill human beings. They're not really well suited to the purpose of hunting, and all of your other examples amount to "practice/pretend".
Killing human beings is generally considered evil, and even those that don't consider it uniformly so feel that it is only justified as a response to the evil of others.
The first link is a very elegant solution, but I tried it in IE6 and as expected it doesn't work. What a POS.
The reason it doesn't work is because, as was mentioned on the site, IE6 doesn't support the css hover property on anything but a link. If you are a bit clever with your code (does this stuff qualify as code?) you can work around that. The smart way to do it is to make the items in the first list links, and use them as the hover triggers. If you click the "top" link, it takes you to a page that gives you access to the submenu items, so that the site isn't broken if your browser isn't getting the css.
For an example of this in action, check here. Also gives you some tips on dealing with some of the other weird shit you'll have to deal with to get it working with various browsers.
1) Go to a bar and play your guts out 2) Patrons tell their friends you rock 3) Patrons friends download your music FOR FREE and listen to it all the time 4) Come back to town and fill a stadium 5) PROFIT
Fuck record labels. Fuck selling music on the internet. Sell tickets and T-Shirts!
Seriously, was that a troll? Haven't seen the last version, but the Trillian I knew from 2.x was a bloated piece of crap with confusing UI sacrificing usability for eye-candy.
No, you're the troll. Trillian kicks ass. I've been using it for years, and aside from it's (former) lack of webcam support, it does everything that could be desired. If you don't like the UI, put a new skin on it. Anything in the Aikon line is superb.
No, not all life. There are some life forms in the deap sea which are powered by vulcanic power. Indeed some researchers think that life could have originated there.
More information on vulcanic power can be found here
The law is ugly and broken, but we'll sort of excercise rational thought and ignore it when it's affecting everyone and out where we can see it, we'll just enforce it in little cases where only a few people get screwed at a time. That will be better.
How about "enforce it in its ugliest possible ramifications so that it gets fixed"? You go support what you're going to support... I want to see the whole goddamned web broken, and in a way that cannot be fixed until intellectual property law is changed. I'll happily stop doing web development and go sell used cars until it is if that's what it comes down to.
>i>This part is off-topic, but doesn't that picture of Larry Ellison that is floating around in Slashdot's banner ads look like the evil professor in Real Genius whose house is destroyed by popcorn?
You can see the banner ads? WTF?!? This place is for Geeks... get Firefox or get out!:D
That's more of a problem with the Corporate/NeoCon climate: everything for me, right now, damn the future and damn the consequences. Boot the NeoCons, and hell, you might see environmental reform too. Most Americans, SUVs and Atkins aside, wouldn't wilfully screw other countries, and would like to see our domestic businesses thrive on its own accord so that somebody can eat besides Joe Millionaire. They've just fallen for the NeoCon's trap of hiding behind God.
The Corporate/NeoCon climate just got re-elected after spending 4 years (to use your term) "wilfully screwing other countries". So there's a better than even chance when you meet Joe Average American that he or she either:
a) supports (to use your term again) "wilfully screw other countries, damn the future and damn the consequences"
or
b) exists in a climate where information is more readily available than ever before and yet wilfully shoves his or her head in the sand and blindly follows someone who talks about God
Which leads one to think that "the problem" can't be handily blamed on the "Corporate/NeoCon climate" but rests firmly on the shoulders of the common American.
This is not intended as an American bash, by the way. I simply wish to point out that in a democratically elected society, particularly one that stands so firmly behind the right of its population to keep weapons on hand in case they need to overthrow the government, what your leaders do on your behalf is your own collective responsibility.
While they may or may not find America lacking, I doubt many people who live outside America are going to buy this "wasn't our fault" bullshit. I know I sure as hell don't.
BTW: I know I'm off topic... if the rabid anti-americans get excited and mod this sucker way up, it isn't really necessary for you to mod it back down any lower than 2.
1) Fly plane as close to the top of the atmosphere as you can
2) Fire load from plane into space
3) Waiting spacecraft catches load and carries it to destination
Simple enough?
I don't know if it would be easy, but I expect it would be easier, and MUCH more efficient that using a rocket.
I wouldn't be at all suprised to discover that at the highest altitude that can be reached by a plane you could use ballistic propulsion to launch something into space and have a craft waiting there to catch it.
NASA suck anyways. The shuttle is a stupid means of travelling to space.
Better to use planes to bring cargo and passengers to the top of the atmosphere and launch them from the plane into low orbit than the complicated, expensive and wasteful idiocy that they're engaged in now.
One of the fundamental characteristics of capitalism is the accumulation of the means of production (materials, land, tools, etc) as property into a few hands; this accumulated property is called "capital" and the property-owners of these means of production are called "capitalists."
Surely you can see how capitalism combined with lifespans measured in the centuries would inevitably lead to an unbreakable plutocracy and the total loss of individual freedom and self-determination?
George W Bush has been re-elected to his 225th term of office. Some doubleplus-ungood thoughtcriminals have alleged that there were irregularities in the electoral process, but they are being rounded up and taken to the Ministry of Love at this very moment.
I for one welcome our macavalian antediluvian overlords!!
Personally, I make a conscious effort not to buy things specifically because I saw them on television. But then, I'm one of those strange people that thinks psychologically manipulating society is an evil thing and puts his money where his mouth is.
I would sign any "petition"/"begging letter" to IBM asking them to keep their Thinkpad line any day...
I don't think they would have the slightest interest in that, regardless of how many signatures you had.
Now if you could find a million people to buy computers off them with statements of intent to buy another one within the next 4 years, you might catch their attention...
Slashdot Mirror
Again, you are focusing on the least common use for the tool.
Now, I don't have any hard facts on hand to back this up, but I would say that the majority of assault weapons are not being used by target shooters or hunters, but are in fact issued to military forces around the globe for use in combat.
You don't take criticism well, do you? I am not commenting on the legistation of assault weapons in the US, quite frankly, I don't live there and if you all want to run around with bazookas and blow the hell out of each other, I could care less.
B.T.W., the last word is yours for the taking, I've said my piece and need to get back to work.
I love this myth that "Assualt rifles" were specifically to kill human beings. The Geneva Conventions actually have made them be developed for entirely a different purpose and it is most definitely and amazingly not to kill human beings. Assault rifles were built to WOUND people.
A poor choice of words on my part. You are correct.
Define 'Assault rifle'. What most people define as 'Assault rifles' are merely rifles with cosmetic changes and that does not change the function of the rifles. It was a fairly solid example.
;)
From dictionary.reference.com
Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat.
or
any of the automatic rifles or semiautomatic rifles with large magazines designed for military use
From en.wikipedia.org:
The typical mission of an assault rifle is to provide fire support at ranges up to 200 meters by ordinary troops. It is designed for massed anti-personnel fire at short ranges with simple maintenance.
From me:
Assault rifles are the basic issue weapon issued to a countries infantry units. They are generally designed for fully automatic fire, with the notable exception of the US issue assault rifles, which only support single shot and 3-round burst due to the fact that poor training leads the US soldier to have poor fire control.
They are designed to support the mounting of bayonets so they may be used as a hand to hand weapon when ammunition is unavailable. They are generally bolt driven and clip fed, and designed in as simple a fashion as possible so they are easy to maintain in the field and reliable even in poor environmental conditions. Assault rifles generally have a maximum range in the area of half a kilometer, but are only considered useful at this range when a section is covering an area with automatic fire and creating a beaten zone. Otherwise, the maximum effective range is generally in the area of 200 meters.
They are generally a poor choice for hunting because they use full metal jacket ammunition, which gives marginally higher penetration but does not "mushroom" inside the target, and thus is less likely to result in a fatal wound. The generally accepted rational for this, aside from any humanitarian reasons, is that a wounded soldier is a greater liability to the enemy than a dead one. In addition to the above, assault weapons generally do not support the mounting of an optical site.
So basically, an assault rifle is designed to kill people, and is a very poor choice for hunting. And if you and the original poster were better informed about the subject, you'd realize how poor an example it was. Next time you're looking for a comparison, try a machete.
I completely understand your point. My point is that you are comparing a tool whose defense is going to be that it is designed to allow its users to publish media which they have a legal right to with a tool whose express design purpose is to kill people, a task which is illegal without exceptional circumstances. Is there a comparison there? Yes. Is it a good example to illustrate your point? No, not really.
And politics have nothing to do with it.
Assault rifles are designed specifically to kill human beings. They're not really well suited to the purpose of hunting, and all of your other examples amount to "practice/pretend".
Killing human beings is generally considered evil, and even those that don't consider it uniformly so feel that it is only justified as a response to the evil of others.
Piss poor example if you ask me...
Gave me a woodie...
The first link is a very elegant solution, but I tried it in IE6 and as expected it doesn't work. What a POS.
The reason it doesn't work is because, as was mentioned on the site, IE6 doesn't support the css hover property on anything but a link. If you are a bit clever with your code (does this stuff qualify as code?) you can work around that. The smart way to do it is to make the items in the first list links, and use them as the hover triggers. If you click the "top" link, it takes you to a page that gives you access to the submenu items, so that the site isn't broken if your browser isn't getting the css.
For an example of this in action, check here. Also gives you some tips on dealing with some of the other weird shit you'll have to deal with to get it working with various browsers.
How durable is it? If it got ripped, would it work anymore?
Could you grab a roll and keep it round the house, then just cut strips off and make things with it?
And 1 euro per watt... WTF? How many cubic meters of fabric in a watt exactly?
Having said that, Paul Cellucci did more harm to US/Canada relations from the average Canadian's perspective, than anyone in recent memory.
Thats funny... I thought the guys name was George!
1) Go to a bar and play your guts out
2) Patrons tell their friends you rock
3) Patrons friends download your music FOR FREE and listen to it all the time
4) Come back to town and fill a stadium
5) PROFIT
Fuck record labels. Fuck selling music on the internet. Sell tickets and T-Shirts!
Is this a hard concept to grasp?
Seriously, was that a troll? Haven't seen the last version, but the Trillian I knew from 2.x was a bloated piece of crap with confusing UI sacrificing usability for eye-candy.
No, you're the troll. Trillian kicks ass. I've been using it for years, and aside from it's (former) lack of webcam support, it does everything that could be desired. If you don't like the UI, put a new skin on it. Anything in the Aikon line is superb.
It's autocomplete for the search engine, you twit. Read the article before you post.
No, not all life. There are some life forms in the deap sea which are powered by vulcanic power. Indeed some researchers think that life could have originated there.
More information on vulcanic power can be found here
The law is ugly and broken, but we'll sort of excercise rational thought and ignore it when it's affecting everyone and out where we can see it, we'll just enforce it in little cases where only a few people get screwed at a time. That will be better.
How about "enforce it in its ugliest possible ramifications so that it gets fixed"? You go support what you're going to support... I want to see the whole goddamned web broken, and in a way that cannot be fixed until intellectual property law is changed. I'll happily stop doing web development and go sell used cars until it is if that's what it comes down to.
>i>This part is off-topic, but doesn't that picture of Larry Ellison that is floating around in Slashdot's banner ads look like the evil professor in Real Genius whose house is destroyed by popcorn?
:D
You can see the banner ads? WTF?!? This place is for Geeks... get Firefox or get out!
LMAO!!
That's more of a problem with the Corporate/NeoCon climate: everything for me, right now, damn the future and damn the consequences. Boot the NeoCons, and hell, you might see environmental reform too. Most Americans, SUVs and Atkins aside, wouldn't wilfully screw other countries, and would like to see our domestic businesses thrive on its own accord so that somebody can eat besides Joe Millionaire. They've just fallen for the NeoCon's trap of hiding behind God.
The Corporate/NeoCon climate just got re-elected after spending 4 years (to use your term) "wilfully screwing other countries". So there's a better than even chance when you meet Joe Average American that he or she either:
a) supports (to use your term again) "wilfully screw other countries, damn the future and damn the consequences"
or
b) exists in a climate where information is more readily available than ever before and yet wilfully shoves his or her head in the sand and blindly follows someone who talks about God
Which leads one to think that "the problem" can't be handily blamed on the "Corporate/NeoCon climate" but rests firmly on the shoulders of the common American.
This is not intended as an American bash, by the way. I simply wish to point out that in a democratically elected society, particularly one that stands so firmly behind the right of its population to keep weapons on hand in case they need to overthrow the government, what your leaders do on your behalf is your own collective responsibility.
While they may or may not find America lacking, I doubt many people who live outside America are going to buy this "wasn't our fault" bullshit. I know I sure as hell don't.
BTW: I know I'm off topic... if the rabid anti-americans get excited and mod this sucker way up, it isn't really necessary for you to mod it back down any lower than 2.
1) Fly plane as close to the top of the atmosphere as you can 2) Fire load from plane into space 3) Waiting spacecraft catches load and carries it to destination Simple enough?
Sure, and I assume you think that's easy?
I don't know if it would be easy, but I expect it would be easier, and MUCH more efficient that using a rocket.
I wouldn't be at all suprised to discover that at the highest altitude that can be reached by a plane you could use ballistic propulsion to launch something into space and have a craft waiting there to catch it.
NASA suck anyways. The shuttle is a stupid means of travelling to space.
Better to use planes to bring cargo and passengers to the top of the atmosphere and launch them from the plane into low orbit than the complicated, expensive and wasteful idiocy that they're engaged in now.
One of the fundamental characteristics of capitalism is the accumulation of the means of production (materials, land, tools, etc) as property into a few hands; this accumulated property is called "capital" and the property-owners of these means of production are called "capitalists."
Surely you can see how capitalism combined with lifespans measured in the centuries would inevitably lead to an unbreakable plutocracy and the total loss of individual freedom and self-determination?
Obviously we would have to discard capitalism in the event such medical technology becomes commonplace.
George W Bush has been re-elected to his 225th term of office. Some doubleplus-ungood thoughtcriminals have alleged that there were irregularities in the electoral process, but they are being rounded up and taken to the Ministry of Love at this very moment.
I for one welcome our macavalian antediluvian overlords!!
Personally, I make a conscious effort not to buy things specifically because I saw them on television. But then, I'm one of those strange people that thinks psychologically manipulating society is an evil thing and puts his money where his mouth is.
I would sign any "petition"/"begging letter" to IBM asking them to keep their Thinkpad line any day...
I don't think they would have the slightest interest in that, regardless of how many signatures you had.
Now if you could find a million people to buy computers off them with statements of intent to buy another one within the next 4 years, you might catch their attention...