No, you'd be really stupid to waste a $2000 scope on an AR. Put it on a bolt action rifle chambered for a larger round. It would make more sense to put a $2000 scope on a quality.308 hunting rifle than an AR. An AR is a gun for use at ranges up to about 250 yards. I'm not saying you can't successfully misuse it for longer ranges I'm saying it isn't a contender among rifles better suited to those ranges. And really, with the kind of money you have to drop in to modify an AR to compare with an AK at those ranges you are better off getting the AK and using the money you didn't spend on the gas conversion to buy a case or two of the superior ammunition it fires.
If you are a good shot you can hit a soda can reliably at 150 yards with iron sights on either an AR or a cheap cleaned up AK. For ranges that actually justify the optics people are using you need a bolt action rifle with a larger round like a.308 hunting rifle at least.
Don't knock the 65 year old. That is the point of guns, suddenly grandma is just as deadly as her grandson.
As for these idiots putting optics on AR and AK type rifles. I agree completely. If you are really trying to arm a group like that, drop the anti-commie heart strings and go with the most economically effective rifle in that class a cheap AK with a couple hours of love spent shining up the action and fixing the sights. You'll be able to drop a soda can every time out to 200 yards and a person pretty reliably beyond that if you are a good shot. It's the shooter not the equipment. An AR will compare favorably after a gas conversion to bring up the reliability but for the price of the conversion you could have armed a second militiaman with an AK or bought a couple thousand rounds of ammunition.Toss a slide-fire stock on there and you've got a perfectly legal weapon that basically amounts to having select fire with a far more controlled rapid firing than full auto (although you are probably better off buying the ammo instead).
"For that matter, a $3000 dollar AR is no more lethal or accurate than an $800 dollar AR at the ranges that the vast majority of their owners are ever likely to shoot in either a self defense or hunting use."
Or a $500 AK given a couple hours of love to smooth the action and clean it up. But a $3000 AR is one with a gas system conversion that makes it MUCH more reliable than the $800 AR but not more reliable than the $500 AK. So if trying to arm hundreds of men on private funds, save the $300 vs the $800 AR and save the $2500 vs the $3000 AR and just buy the AK and run through a couple youtube videos worth of cleaning it up (take maybe 2-4hrs). Spend the rest on ammunition, which for real militia scale self defense is going to be a much more serious bottleneck.
As for the $3000 AR, that is pretending the AR is a sniper weapon and that puny round is not a sniper weapon. You'd be better off putting high quality optics on a.308 bolt action rifle or if you can find one a good quality nagant (you've got about 5 shots before barrel expansion becomes a problem but arguably if a sniper has shot more than 5 rounds it's time to move on especially in the kind of fighting against a superior force a militia is likely to be engaged in). A 50 cal is even better but the ammo is much much much more expensive and you probably don't have anyone in your group who is a good enough sniper that the round is needed.
The problem is everyone with an AR wants to play sniper. In your group of 500 there are maybe 2-3 guys who should be carrying an upgraded rifle like that, and it should be bolt action 308 or nagant with great optics not an AR with it's tiny ineffective round. An AK with a modern stock that doesn't interfere with the iron sights is accurate and reliable at realistic combat ranges. The cheapest $600 AK's can be cleaned up and run side by side with the most expensive so with the new stock you are talking less than $700 out the door and 3-4 hrs of love. You have to spend the cost of an AK to convert an AR to a gas system that approaches reliability.
The AR is a fine platform don't get me wrong and can made as good if not superior to the AK once all the modifications are complete. But dollar per dollar bringing the platform just to the point of being solid, reliable, and combat ready the AR isn't even the same ballpark as the AK. With the kind of tight budgets you have in a militia you should be arming your troops with AK's and using the other $1300-3000 to buy ammunition or other supplies.
By the time you've finished all the modifications on what started as maybe a $500 rifle you'd have easily spent $2000. Honestly it seems like a piss poor way to arm a militia though. AK-47's are more reliable, highly accurate at realistic combat range, and about all you need to upgrade on one would be the stock. Take the other $1300-1400 dollars you didn't waste on your rifle and use it buy more ammo. But you know, gun religion and hate of the commie guns.
A huge chunk of that change you throw into your AR is to convert it to a gas system that is reliable like the AK comes with.
Although it's true they are cheap enough to dispose of rather than repair one might read your comment and think they break left and right. I have a couple myself. They are cheap because the Chinese governent tossed a bunch of resources into beating the market price while producing high quality radios. They fail no more often than any other high quality piece of electronics. They are in fact high quality radios and to get an equal quality radio from another manufacturer will cost a minimum of 400% what baofeng do.
As for the security factor people are talking about, those radio encryption technologies are backdoored and would be useless when the US military is who you don't want snooping.
The revolutionaries fighting the crown were also bat-shit loons with guns, whether they are patriots and martyrs or not now is only a function of whether or not they succeeded.
"I didn't realize that setting fire to government land because they wouldn't let you use it for grazing was a civil right."
That is a deliberate characterization. Right or wrong, the issue was that the land became government land because the government seized Native American and private property. Further, the occupation was a protest to violation of double jeopardy and persecution of a man for an accidental brush fire.
Agree or disagree, that is your right but deliberately skewing the issue and spreading misinformation might serve to get more people to agree with you now but ultimately that behavior only serves to increase the divide and animosities among us. Justice and truth are on only found in having to make your case while giving full due to any valid points of the opposition. Just as freedom and democracy are only found on the other side of refusing to tolerate any legal shortcuts that bring about the ends you want. For instance, if you want to see gun restrictions, you should fight against any measure other than a constitutional amendment to allow that possibility, allowing the government to get away with anything less is illegal, unconstitutional, and opens the door for the government to disregard the constitution on other matters you would not be so inclined to agree with. This point of hindsight should be 20/20 by now.
Calculations for resting daily calorie burn at different activity levels utilize BMI.
"Why? Because it says they're fat? You just said they're fat!"
Because if they gain 2lbs overall and the gain is 2lbs of lean mass because they performed strength training their BMI score moves in the wrong direction. For that matter it will do the same if you improve bone density, are pregnant, while saying you are more healthy if you are dehydrated. End of story. That change in score can mean the difference between being marked morbidly obese vs obese or OK vs overweight, etc. A guy who is 6'4 and has 1% BF would likely be obese or morbidly obese on the BMI scale while actually being severely and dangerously underweight and unhealthy.
You can't accurately assess if someone is healthy using BMI, therefore it is useless at the doctors office. You can't accurately use it to calculate calorie burn for the purposes of dieting, therefore it is useless there. You can't use changes in BMI to accurately indicate changes in fitness and diet because BMI moves in the wrong direction when you gain muscle mass, which is the most effective long term strategy for losing BF. It is a useless and wildly inaccurate attempt to take a complex thing and turn it into a single number. About the only thing it is good for taking people who already know they are dangerously overweight and you already know are dangerously overweight and categorizing them so you can scare them into changing their life. Sorry, you don't need BMI to know that someone who has to be moved with a fork lift is going to die if they don't change something.
The biggest danger of BMI is that it tells people who are skinny fat, meaning they are skinny but have a high BF vs lean mass ratio they are healthy when they are most definitely weak, frail, and likely malnourished.
BMI is a number, the overweight, obese, etc marks are just vague ranges. Indicating he is obese when he is actually overweight is inaccurate, indicating a 40 when he should be at a 38 is also inaccurate. BMI does not win the day simply by given any result that indicates you could stand to lose BF when you do in fact need to lose some.
Hell, I could make a magic 8 ball that says "you need to lose weight" as the only possible answer and have everyone in the US check it and be right most of the time. By your standard my 8 ball would be just as good as BMI!
Even then people have built in video cameras. They are called eyes. Developers who work on the source are going to know how it works. It doesn't make a lot of difference if they re-implement it when they go home. Their code will look different but will have been written with the benefit of knowing how yours works. Not much you can do about it.
Set up a local environment to remote access. Lock it down to a reasonable degree and tell people they aren't allowed to remove the code from the env. You can log their actions but no matter how much you lock things down there will always be a way to get data out if people are determined enough.
Why exactly are their own personal systems better for testing than the exact same hardware remote accessed via RDP? It isn't as if the video lag is a relevant factor in benchmarking sub-millisecond response software. Personally, I'd lean toward ssh access to a jumphost myself using key based authentication so you can revoke keys. Then they can just port forward whatever and run most things locally including graphical applications and desktops if that is what is wanted for some reason.
As for the source code not being allowed to leave if there is a way to get in and work with the code there is always going to be a way to get it out. Have them sign an NDA (which you'd want regardless) and tell them the code is not allowed to leave the environment. Working with vi, emacs, gcc etc on a local host isn't much different than working using a remote terminal, the same for x-forwarding a graphical ide it looks and feels much the same as it does on the remote system but when you go to save you get the remote filesystem rather than the local one. If some reason you really need windows (can't imagine why but whatever) you can do pretty much the same thing with rdp. If they execute the binary it is executing on the box they rdp into and talking to these headless servers, not running on their local hosts they are just seeing the results on their local host.
Just take reasonable precautions, both in terms is digital security, legal security, and policy and tell management you've done so and that the source code will not be permitted to leave. At some point you are going to have to accept imperfect ability to enforce, this would be true with the workers onsite as well. No matter how locked down you are there is a way around it even if you pat down employees when they enter and leave. And honestly, most people who break the rules wouldn't actually be doing it for nefarious reasons anyway they'd just be working around your restrictions to suit their personal preferred workflow.
Eating healthy in the right ways is very important to being able to maintain and grow musculature and musculature is very important to building up your baseline calorie burn every day.
Lifting heavy is also important, not only does it lead to more dense bones but it is also the only thing shown to trigger the body to regenerate joint cartilage. But no, it is not in any direct way a means to burn calories. Exercise aimed at burning calories a lot of work for very little payoff.
Being a body builder or not only impacts how much energy you need. You need more protein than carbs. The difference should come from dietary fat not carbs. Complex carbohydrates still burn faster than fats and lead to a body chemistry that prefers body fat retention while burning lean mass for energy. You want your body in lean muscular hunter mode, not lazy gatherer mode.
Exercise as way to burn calories is actually a fairly poor way to go about it unless you are planning to go insane with cardio/HIIT. All you really need to do is whatever fatigues to failure or near failure within 1-5 reps a couple times a day. Don't count it for burning calories, the point is to trigger the hormonal response that will cause your body to build muscles. At all times your body is in part burning muscles for fuel no matter what diet you are on, you simply need to trigger enough building hormones to offset that. Lean mass is important and if you are losing weight you want to retain it because even at rest it is burning calories.
Stop spreading this nonsense. A ripped 6 pack means you have ridiculously low BF, having one does not require being strong or having much muscle but it IS almost a sure indicator you do not have enough fat to be healthy.
You can be both fat and muscular and many people are. BMI is useless for them as well. BMI is also useless if you have far less muscle mass than average. The problem is that BMI is a VERY rough ballpark estimator for people of average composition, the problem with average is that if you take a tall person and a short person and come up with an average based on them you get a person that is represented by nobody in your sample. I've seen BMI tell a woman she could lose weight eating 1600 calories a day with light exercise when the real answer was 1200 upon measuring her lean mass.
Using body fat and lean mass requires either $50 scale or a $10 scale combined with a $5 caliper. Either way you are much better off than using BMI. The best is an internet connected scale because weight fluctuates far more than measuring at the same time of day, especially for females with hormonal cycles that can cause their weight to drift up 10-15% in a day just from water retention and then drop the next week due to hormonal shifts. Tracking weight over the course of months and your average weigh in is far more useful for most people.
My issue with BMI is that it leads people toward calorie restriction and weight loss alone as an indicator. The reality is that every lb of muscle is sacred and while you may well want to lose weight you don't want to lose muscle. If you aren't training for any particular end you can do any exercise you can manage 1-5 of before you drop or a wall squat to fail to each day combined with a lean protein heavy calorie restrictive diet. That is enough to ensure that the weight you are losing will be more fat than muscle. If you don't track lean mass you can't even set a proper calorie restrictive diet because lean mass defines how many calories you must eat to maintain the weight you don't want to lose at rest. What you eat and how you use your body determines whether or not those calories actually get used for that purpose.
There is little point in dieting just to become skinny fat.
"For instance, looking around the room now I can see about 20 people"
You'd think but not necessarily. The guy above, coaching wrestling is probably a large obviously muscular guy but you don't have to look like that to have a lot of lean mass. If he put on 20lbs of fat, his BMI would still be just as inaccurate but he wouldn't look muscular, he'd look massively fat.
Additionally, many people are highly athletic, they not only pack on lots of muscle but highly distributed they also stretch properly so their muscles aren't compacted into large bumps that project three dimensionally. Look at the build on many pro basketball players for example. BMI is just as useless for them as it is for that hulking bulky wrestler. If you take someone like that, add a few percentage points of body fat (for example taking them up to healthy female BF levels) their muscles wouldn't be visible at all but their BMI would be ridiculous.
You can be muscular, heavy, and dense. You can even get that way without losing your BF. Another common example are tall, large framed men. A lot of these guys pack on a lot of BF and are definitely overweight but their BMI is completely inaccurate first because someone with those genetics is predisposed to build muscle and they are lifting a few hundred pounds with every movement every day. Having that giant gut and fat rolls doesn't change that underneath that fat they are likely packing as much if not more muscle than that wrestling coach above. I've watched someone with that build straighten the steel hook on a heavy bag when he learned how to punch correctly in a martial arts course. Does he have weight to lose? Absolutely, but that isn't the point. His BMI is a useless metric to lose it by.
If you have a healthy bodyfat percentage you won't have a six pack at all. It is only by cutting your BF down to unhealthy levels that you get a six pack. Cut your BF down that low and you will look muscular and have a six pack without even really being all that strong.
That said I've known plenty of athletic people, especially females, who BMI does not give an accurate indicator for. For instance I know quite a few girls in roller derby. If you looked at BMI or pure body weight they are grossly overweight but in reality they are simply a more voluptuous build, not ultra low BF but the body isn't actually meant to be ultra low BF. Many of these girls are eating reasonable portions and dieting (usually 1200-1500 cal targets for 5'9 170lb girls) and doing 3 intense multi-hour workouts a week in addition to bouts which amount to a couple hours of HIIT each.
They are currently and will be magically generated by the federal reserve. The fed does this already, they create digital money at will. The fed is a private bank so it not allowed to create US currency under law, the current interpretation is that the fed can create digital money at will but not paper currency. Paper currency is printed by mints and the treasury department but the federal reserve purchases that money when it needs it at printing cost, not face value.
"Then we have to tax the 1% at 100% to afford it all."
First of all that math doesn't even begin to work out. Secondly, taxation is not the right way to implement this. Inflation is. That is scary, we've all been taught to fear out of control inflation. We think of inflation as the devil. But inflation is actually an essential pillar in the global economic system..001% of the population sit on almost half the wealth in the wealthiest nation in the world. If that wealth doesn't move around, not only the national but the global economy breaks down and freezes and inflation is the only reason that happens. Insurance for instance, is a losing game, it's a gamble most are forced to take to protect against the catastrophic but the odds favor the insurance company which is what makes it profitable. The ultra wealthy can self-insure because nothing is catastrophic and the money they set aside for that purpose, perhaps in insurance companies. The same principle applies elsewhere. The ultra wealthy can afford to purchase a lifetime supply of toilet paper for ten generations at an extreme bulk discount price getting the best quality product at a price lower than the rest of us pay for a generic. Even if they had to pay as much for goods and services as the rest of us a wealthy person will only spend as much as 1-6 middle class persons (depending on how high a quality of life they want) while having 100-1000000 times the wealth. Meaning that if the wealthy simply lost what they spent without investing their wealth it would take centuries if not millennia to spend it all made even more difficult by the fact they spend less while getting more than anyone else. Aside from simple greed there isn't much motivation for the wealthy to do anything with their wealth but enjoy it, after all they, and every future generation of their family they will ever meet will enjoy luxurious life without lifting a finger provided they aren't foolishly spending and they can afford the best and most obviously qualified to make those decisions so they can be fools without risk of foolish money management.
Now add inflation. Even a small 1% inflation rate means their wealth is suddenly potentially drained away within a single long lifetime just a few generations. That means those qualified money management people must invest that wealth for them. Now rather than sitting idle in their vaults some portion of that wealth must go out into the world. That means risk. You can be sure that risk is minimized as much as possible, investments are hedged, diversified both across industry and type and across nations so that the average beats inflation. In fact, part of that minimizing is to make sure the result ends up being higher than that 1% because you must protect against times when the global economy itself is doing poorly. For the ultra wealthy, there is almost no chance of losing their wealth or even spending it away so long as they hire competent people to manage their wealth. Although there are enough newly wealthy being foolish to mask it, the most wealthy families stay that way and always will. In fact, this is so true that we don't even try to beat them, instead we align with them and those families own our global banking system and effectively control the generation of new wealth for every nation in the world including the United States.
Relative to the amount of wealth we are talking about, a basic income in the United States, say $600/week or full time at $15/hr combined with a complete universal healthcare (including dental and vision) for natural born citizens of the United States isn't actually that substantial. Almost the entire national debt is owned by these people, not only do they pay very little in taxes because all their wealth is "at risk" and very little is actually consumed living their lives but a huge chunk of the taxes we pay goes toward paying them back... including the taxes they themselves pay. Paying that basic income to every natural born citizen without qualification (so long as from here on c
The entire point is that there are rapidly becoming no jobs to get due to the work efforts being performed today. Historically we automated low paying unskilled jobs and so that drove new more advanced jobs to replace them. Now we are automating complex and skilled jobs and there are no new jobs to replace them.
For instance, diagnostic systems are being tested in hospitals that are already more accurate and provide better outcomes than doctors as those systems expand they only become smarter. You might need one doctor supervising an entire hospital full of these systems at first to provide a sanity check, later to provide liability protection. But what will remain are nurses (you can have 10 for the cost of one doctor) and the machines and likely 50 doctors who earned $250k/yr out of the job. The last doctor may not even need to actually go, doctor level hands on being replaced by a couple PAs.
You might have seen a cocktail mixing robot on the internet, there are a few out there. Similarly you can build a system connecting IV's up to a central system and have that system automatically dispensing medication, a screen and loud beep prompting patients for feedback such as pain level or urine volume. That will get rid of most of the nurses as well, allowing maybe one per floor to run the hospital.
Next you expand the diagnostic system, making it available as a secure app with cloud access. Now you don't even go to the doctor, instead the app issues prescriptions for medications (pharmacy) and tests (labs/hospital/critical care clinics) and they just scan a QR code to log it at the facility. If the machine determines a hospital is needed it will provide a QR code and offer to dispatch an ambulance. Eventually you'll also have no only the critical alert bracelet the elderly currently have but a voice interactive system like the amazon echo will be patched in as well. None of this will be much cheaper of course, just more profitable for those offering the services. Which amounts to the elderly with a great deal in retirement accounts and extremely wealthy who live off investment interest. Even if a law is bought to still require a human doctor to sign off it won't help for long, soon enough those humans will be outsourced.
Of course for now we'll still need doctors for research. So between supervising doctors we've mandated for liability reasons (much like the doc who presses the button on the Lasik system and knee replacement robot) and research we'll need what, 10% of the doctors we have now and maybe a 10% increase in current much lower paid nursing staff? And that is achievable within 5 years but won't happen that fast due to inertia and liability risks. There will also be a market for doctors because some people don't trust the machines or have low probability edge cases that need someone who is willing to make a human override and the statistically wrong or risky choice like prescribing off label or prescribing a high dose of narcotic pain medicine to someone with a high tolerance because they had a different accident a couple years ago or a past addiction problem. The benefits are too high though so by and large the elimination of doctors as a source of regular care and diagnostics most definitely will happen.
There really aren't too many other benefits. If both paid for via inflation rather than taxation universal healthcare (including dental and vision, eyes and teeth are part of the body) combined with a tax free basic income that would put you at the middle class (so no, not enough to live in a decent area of the largest major cities but enough to live without stress in a less central suburb or anywhere else in the country) and we drop everything else it might amount to at most 1/4% standing inflation while reducing taxes. If we drop all industry subsidies except renewable energy and agriculture (we need to eat, renewable makes the most sense and is dwarf'd by fossil subsidies) we might actually have to increase that income a bit more yet.
Of course this is not charity, there would be special qualifiers except being a natural born citizen and would not be offset by income. I'm not sure what abusing would be, you are a natural born citizen, you are entitled to this income. This would be a fundamental right earned by the first world by developing the technology that is the foundation for all automation and the development of the rest of the world. Others might be doing more of the remaining labor but they have that opportunity and better quality of life because of the technology we built while only a small portion who didn't contribute much in terms of engineering and innovation have been the primary benefactors.
Of course we might need a slight adjustment to citizenship with the children of naturalized citizens also being naturalized citizens and the children of natural born citizens being considered natural born and qualifying for this income.
Seriously? Are you aware that more and more surgeries are being done by robots with a doctor only pressing to the button and providing token "supervision" of the procedure every day. Hospitals are testing AI systems for diagnostic work and supervising patient care and those systems are already consistently providing statistically better outcomes than actual doctors and as those systems expand they will only get better.
Doctors providing treatment and care will eventually be a thing of the past and will be an obsolete anacronism long before that held on to just for the sake of risk like the doctor supervising the surgical robot. The only doctors we'll need will be researchers.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you'd be really stupid to waste a $2000 scope on an AR. Put it on a bolt action rifle chambered for a larger round. It would make more sense to put a $2000 scope on a quality .308 hunting rifle than an AR. An AR is a gun for use at ranges up to about 250 yards. I'm not saying you can't successfully misuse it for longer ranges I'm saying it isn't a contender among rifles better suited to those ranges. And really, with the kind of money you have to drop in to modify an AR to compare with an AK at those ranges you are better off getting the AK and using the money you didn't spend on the gas conversion to buy a case or two of the superior ammunition it fires.
If you are a good shot you can hit a soda can reliably at 150 yards with iron sights on either an AR or a cheap cleaned up AK. For ranges that actually justify the optics people are using you need a bolt action rifle with a larger round like a .308 hunting rifle at least.
Don't knock the 65 year old. That is the point of guns, suddenly grandma is just as deadly as her grandson.
As for these idiots putting optics on AR and AK type rifles. I agree completely. If you are really trying to arm a group like that, drop the anti-commie heart strings and go with the most economically effective rifle in that class a cheap AK with a couple hours of love spent shining up the action and fixing the sights. You'll be able to drop a soda can every time out to 200 yards and a person pretty reliably beyond that if you are a good shot. It's the shooter not the equipment. An AR will compare favorably after a gas conversion to bring up the reliability but for the price of the conversion you could have armed a second militiaman with an AK or bought a couple thousand rounds of ammunition.Toss a slide-fire stock on there and you've got a perfectly legal weapon that basically amounts to having select fire with a far more controlled rapid firing than full auto (although you are probably better off buying the ammo instead).
"For that matter, a $3000 dollar AR is no more lethal or accurate than an $800 dollar AR at the ranges that the vast majority of their owners are ever likely to shoot in either a self defense or hunting use."
.308 bolt action rifle or if you can find one a good quality nagant (you've got about 5 shots before barrel expansion becomes a problem but arguably if a sniper has shot more than 5 rounds it's time to move on especially in the kind of fighting against a superior force a militia is likely to be engaged in). A 50 cal is even better but the ammo is much much much more expensive and you probably don't have anyone in your group who is a good enough sniper that the round is needed.
Or a $500 AK given a couple hours of love to smooth the action and clean it up. But a $3000 AR is one with a gas system conversion that makes it MUCH more reliable than the $800 AR but not more reliable than the $500 AK. So if trying to arm hundreds of men on private funds, save the $300 vs the $800 AR and save the $2500 vs the $3000 AR and just buy the AK and run through a couple youtube videos worth of cleaning it up (take maybe 2-4hrs). Spend the rest on ammunition, which for real militia scale self defense is going to be a much more serious bottleneck.
As for the $3000 AR, that is pretending the AR is a sniper weapon and that puny round is not a sniper weapon. You'd be better off putting high quality optics on a
The problem is everyone with an AR wants to play sniper. In your group of 500 there are maybe 2-3 guys who should be carrying an upgraded rifle like that, and it should be bolt action 308 or nagant with great optics not an AR with it's tiny ineffective round. An AK with a modern stock that doesn't interfere with the iron sights is accurate and reliable at realistic combat ranges. The cheapest $600 AK's can be cleaned up and run side by side with the most expensive so with the new stock you are talking less than $700 out the door and 3-4 hrs of love. You have to spend the cost of an AK to convert an AR to a gas system that approaches reliability.
The AR is a fine platform don't get me wrong and can made as good if not superior to the AK once all the modifications are complete. But dollar per dollar bringing the platform just to the point of being solid, reliable, and combat ready the AR isn't even the same ballpark as the AK. With the kind of tight budgets you have in a militia you should be arming your troops with AK's and using the other $1300-3000 to buy ammunition or other supplies.
By the time you've finished all the modifications on what started as maybe a $500 rifle you'd have easily spent $2000. Honestly it seems like a piss poor way to arm a militia though. AK-47's are more reliable, highly accurate at realistic combat range, and about all you need to upgrade on one would be the stock. Take the other $1300-1400 dollars you didn't waste on your rifle and use it buy more ammo. But you know, gun religion and hate of the commie guns.
A huge chunk of that change you throw into your AR is to convert it to a gas system that is reliable like the AK comes with.
Although it's true they are cheap enough to dispose of rather than repair one might read your comment and think they break left and right. I have a couple myself. They are cheap because the Chinese governent tossed a bunch of resources into beating the market price while producing high quality radios. They fail no more often than any other high quality piece of electronics. They are in fact high quality radios and to get an equal quality radio from another manufacturer will cost a minimum of 400% what baofeng do.
As for the security factor people are talking about, those radio encryption technologies are backdoored and would be useless when the US military is who you don't want snooping.
The revolutionaries fighting the crown were also bat-shit loons with guns, whether they are patriots and martyrs or not now is only a function of whether or not they succeeded.
"I didn't realize that setting fire to government land because they wouldn't let you use it for grazing was a civil right."
That is a deliberate characterization. Right or wrong, the issue was that the land became government land because the government seized Native American and private property. Further, the occupation was a protest to violation of double jeopardy and persecution of a man for an accidental brush fire.
Agree or disagree, that is your right but deliberately skewing the issue and spreading misinformation might serve to get more people to agree with you now but ultimately that behavior only serves to increase the divide and animosities among us. Justice and truth are on only found in having to make your case while giving full due to any valid points of the opposition. Just as freedom and democracy are only found on the other side of refusing to tolerate any legal shortcuts that bring about the ends you want. For instance, if you want to see gun restrictions, you should fight against any measure other than a constitutional amendment to allow that possibility, allowing the government to get away with anything less is illegal, unconstitutional, and opens the door for the government to disregard the constitution on other matters you would not be so inclined to agree with. This point of hindsight should be 20/20 by now.
You do realize that not being obese does not mean you are fine?
Calculations for resting daily calorie burn at different activity levels utilize BMI.
"Why? Because it says they're fat? You just said they're fat!"
Because if they gain 2lbs overall and the gain is 2lbs of lean mass because they performed strength training their BMI score moves in the wrong direction. For that matter it will do the same if you improve bone density, are pregnant, while saying you are more healthy if you are dehydrated. End of story. That change in score can mean the difference between being marked morbidly obese vs obese or OK vs overweight, etc. A guy who is 6'4 and has 1% BF would likely be obese or morbidly obese on the BMI scale while actually being severely and dangerously underweight and unhealthy.
You can't accurately assess if someone is healthy using BMI, therefore it is useless at the doctors office. You can't accurately use it to calculate calorie burn for the purposes of dieting, therefore it is useless there. You can't use changes in BMI to accurately indicate changes in fitness and diet because BMI moves in the wrong direction when you gain muscle mass, which is the most effective long term strategy for losing BF. It is a useless and wildly inaccurate attempt to take a complex thing and turn it into a single number. About the only thing it is good for taking people who already know they are dangerously overweight and you already know are dangerously overweight and categorizing them so you can scare them into changing their life. Sorry, you don't need BMI to know that someone who has to be moved with a fork lift is going to die if they don't change something.
The biggest danger of BMI is that it tells people who are skinny fat, meaning they are skinny but have a high BF vs lean mass ratio they are healthy when they are most definitely weak, frail, and likely malnourished.
BMI is a number, the overweight, obese, etc marks are just vague ranges. Indicating he is obese when he is actually overweight is inaccurate, indicating a 40 when he should be at a 38 is also inaccurate. BMI does not win the day simply by given any result that indicates you could stand to lose BF when you do in fact need to lose some.
Hell, I could make a magic 8 ball that says "you need to lose weight" as the only possible answer and have everyone in the US check it and be right most of the time. By your standard my 8 ball would be just as good as BMI!
Even then people have built in video cameras. They are called eyes. Developers who work on the source are going to know how it works. It doesn't make a lot of difference if they re-implement it when they go home. Their code will look different but will have been written with the benefit of knowing how yours works. Not much you can do about it.
Set up a local environment to remote access. Lock it down to a reasonable degree and tell people they aren't allowed to remove the code from the env. You can log their actions but no matter how much you lock things down there will always be a way to get data out if people are determined enough.
Why exactly are their own personal systems better for testing than the exact same hardware remote accessed via RDP? It isn't as if the video lag is a relevant factor in benchmarking sub-millisecond response software. Personally, I'd lean toward ssh access to a jumphost myself using key based authentication so you can revoke keys. Then they can just port forward whatever and run most things locally including graphical applications and desktops if that is what is wanted for some reason.
As for the source code not being allowed to leave if there is a way to get in and work with the code there is always going to be a way to get it out. Have them sign an NDA (which you'd want regardless) and tell them the code is not allowed to leave the environment. Working with vi, emacs, gcc etc on a local host isn't much different than working using a remote terminal, the same for x-forwarding a graphical ide it looks and feels much the same as it does on the remote system but when you go to save you get the remote filesystem rather than the local one. If some reason you really need windows (can't imagine why but whatever) you can do pretty much the same thing with rdp. If they execute the binary it is executing on the box they rdp into and talking to these headless servers, not running on their local hosts they are just seeing the results on their local host.
Just take reasonable precautions, both in terms is digital security, legal security, and policy and tell management you've done so and that the source code will not be permitted to leave. At some point you are going to have to accept imperfect ability to enforce, this would be true with the workers onsite as well. No matter how locked down you are there is a way around it even if you pat down employees when they enter and leave. And honestly, most people who break the rules wouldn't actually be doing it for nefarious reasons anyway they'd just be working around your restrictions to suit their personal preferred workflow.
Eating healthy in the right ways is very important to being able to maintain and grow musculature and musculature is very important to building up your baseline calorie burn every day.
Lifting heavy is also important, not only does it lead to more dense bones but it is also the only thing shown to trigger the body to regenerate joint cartilage. But no, it is not in any direct way a means to burn calories. Exercise aimed at burning calories a lot of work for very little payoff.
Being a body builder or not only impacts how much energy you need. You need more protein than carbs. The difference should come from dietary fat not carbs. Complex carbohydrates still burn faster than fats and lead to a body chemistry that prefers body fat retention while burning lean mass for energy. You want your body in lean muscular hunter mode, not lazy gatherer mode.
Exercise as way to burn calories is actually a fairly poor way to go about it unless you are planning to go insane with cardio/HIIT. All you really need to do is whatever fatigues to failure or near failure within 1-5 reps a couple times a day. Don't count it for burning calories, the point is to trigger the hormonal response that will cause your body to build muscles. At all times your body is in part burning muscles for fuel no matter what diet you are on, you simply need to trigger enough building hormones to offset that. Lean mass is important and if you are losing weight you want to retain it because even at rest it is burning calories.
"Basically if you don't have a ripped 6 pack"
Stop spreading this nonsense. A ripped 6 pack means you have ridiculously low BF, having one does not require being strong or having much muscle but it IS almost a sure indicator you do not have enough fat to be healthy.
You can be both fat and muscular and many people are. BMI is useless for them as well. BMI is also useless if you have far less muscle mass than average. The problem is that BMI is a VERY rough ballpark estimator for people of average composition, the problem with average is that if you take a tall person and a short person and come up with an average based on them you get a person that is represented by nobody in your sample. I've seen BMI tell a woman she could lose weight eating 1600 calories a day with light exercise when the real answer was 1200 upon measuring her lean mass.
Using body fat and lean mass requires either $50 scale or a $10 scale combined with a $5 caliper. Either way you are much better off than using BMI. The best is an internet connected scale because weight fluctuates far more than measuring at the same time of day, especially for females with hormonal cycles that can cause their weight to drift up 10-15% in a day just from water retention and then drop the next week due to hormonal shifts. Tracking weight over the course of months and your average weigh in is far more useful for most people.
My issue with BMI is that it leads people toward calorie restriction and weight loss alone as an indicator. The reality is that every lb of muscle is sacred and while you may well want to lose weight you don't want to lose muscle. If you aren't training for any particular end you can do any exercise you can manage 1-5 of before you drop or a wall squat to fail to each day combined with a lean protein heavy calorie restrictive diet. That is enough to ensure that the weight you are losing will be more fat than muscle. If you don't track lean mass you can't even set a proper calorie restrictive diet because lean mass defines how many calories you must eat to maintain the weight you don't want to lose at rest. What you eat and how you use your body determines whether or not those calories actually get used for that purpose.
There is little point in dieting just to become skinny fat.
"For instance, looking around the room now I can see about 20 people"
You'd think but not necessarily. The guy above, coaching wrestling is probably a large obviously muscular guy but you don't have to look like that to have a lot of lean mass. If he put on 20lbs of fat, his BMI would still be just as inaccurate but he wouldn't look muscular, he'd look massively fat.
Additionally, many people are highly athletic, they not only pack on lots of muscle but highly distributed they also stretch properly so their muscles aren't compacted into large bumps that project three dimensionally. Look at the build on many pro basketball players for example. BMI is just as useless for them as it is for that hulking bulky wrestler. If you take someone like that, add a few percentage points of body fat (for example taking them up to healthy female BF levels) their muscles wouldn't be visible at all but their BMI would be ridiculous.
You can be muscular, heavy, and dense. You can even get that way without losing your BF. Another common example are tall, large framed men. A lot of these guys pack on a lot of BF and are definitely overweight but their BMI is completely inaccurate first because someone with those genetics is predisposed to build muscle and they are lifting a few hundred pounds with every movement every day. Having that giant gut and fat rolls doesn't change that underneath that fat they are likely packing as much if not more muscle than that wrestling coach above. I've watched someone with that build straighten the steel hook on a heavy bag when he learned how to punch correctly in a martial arts course. Does he have weight to lose? Absolutely, but that isn't the point. His BMI is a useless metric to lose it by.
If you have a healthy bodyfat percentage you won't have a six pack at all. It is only by cutting your BF down to unhealthy levels that you get a six pack. Cut your BF down that low and you will look muscular and have a six pack without even really being all that strong.
That said I've known plenty of athletic people, especially females, who BMI does not give an accurate indicator for. For instance I know quite a few girls in roller derby. If you looked at BMI or pure body weight they are grossly overweight but in reality they are simply a more voluptuous build, not ultra low BF but the body isn't actually meant to be ultra low BF. Many of these girls are eating reasonable portions and dieting (usually 1200-1500 cal targets for 5'9 170lb girls) and doing 3 intense multi-hour workouts a week in addition to bouts which amount to a couple hours of HIIT each.
They are currently and will be magically generated by the federal reserve. The fed does this already, they create digital money at will. The fed is a private bank so it not allowed to create US currency under law, the current interpretation is that the fed can create digital money at will but not paper currency. Paper currency is printed by mints and the treasury department but the federal reserve purchases that money when it needs it at printing cost, not face value.
"Then we have to tax the 1% at 100% to afford it all."
.001% of the population sit on almost half the wealth in the wealthiest nation in the world. If that wealth doesn't move around, not only the national but the global economy breaks down and freezes and inflation is the only reason that happens. Insurance for instance, is a losing game, it's a gamble most are forced to take to protect against the catastrophic but the odds favor the insurance company which is what makes it profitable. The ultra wealthy can self-insure because nothing is catastrophic and the money they set aside for that purpose, perhaps in insurance companies. The same principle applies elsewhere. The ultra wealthy can afford to purchase a lifetime supply of toilet paper for ten generations at an extreme bulk discount price getting the best quality product at a price lower than the rest of us pay for a generic. Even if they had to pay as much for goods and services as the rest of us a wealthy person will only spend as much as 1-6 middle class persons (depending on how high a quality of life they want) while having 100-1000000 times the wealth. Meaning that if the wealthy simply lost what they spent without investing their wealth it would take centuries if not millennia to spend it all made even more difficult by the fact they spend less while getting more than anyone else. Aside from simple greed there isn't much motivation for the wealthy to do anything with their wealth but enjoy it, after all they, and every future generation of their family they will ever meet will enjoy luxurious life without lifting a finger provided they aren't foolishly spending and they can afford the best and most obviously qualified to make those decisions so they can be fools without risk of foolish money management.
First of all that math doesn't even begin to work out. Secondly, taxation is not the right way to implement this. Inflation is. That is scary, we've all been taught to fear out of control inflation. We think of inflation as the devil. But inflation is actually an essential pillar in the global economic system.
Now add inflation. Even a small 1% inflation rate means their wealth is suddenly potentially drained away within a single long lifetime just a few generations. That means those qualified money management people must invest that wealth for them. Now rather than sitting idle in their vaults some portion of that wealth must go out into the world. That means risk. You can be sure that risk is minimized as much as possible, investments are hedged, diversified both across industry and type and across nations so that the average beats inflation. In fact, part of that minimizing is to make sure the result ends up being higher than that 1% because you must protect against times when the global economy itself is doing poorly. For the ultra wealthy, there is almost no chance of losing their wealth or even spending it away so long as they hire competent people to manage their wealth. Although there are enough newly wealthy being foolish to mask it, the most wealthy families stay that way and always will. In fact, this is so true that we don't even try to beat them, instead we align with them and those families own our global banking system and effectively control the generation of new wealth for every nation in the world including the United States.
Relative to the amount of wealth we are talking about, a basic income in the United States, say $600/week or full time at $15/hr combined with a complete universal healthcare (including dental and vision) for natural born citizens of the United States isn't actually that substantial. Almost the entire national debt is owned by these people, not only do they pay very little in taxes because all their wealth is "at risk" and very little is actually consumed living their lives but a huge chunk of the taxes we pay goes toward paying them back... including the taxes they themselves pay. Paying that basic income to every natural born citizen without qualification (so long as from here on c
The entire point is that there are rapidly becoming no jobs to get due to the work efforts being performed today. Historically we automated low paying unskilled jobs and so that drove new more advanced jobs to replace them. Now we are automating complex and skilled jobs and there are no new jobs to replace them.
For instance, diagnostic systems are being tested in hospitals that are already more accurate and provide better outcomes than doctors as those systems expand they only become smarter. You might need one doctor supervising an entire hospital full of these systems at first to provide a sanity check, later to provide liability protection. But what will remain are nurses (you can have 10 for the cost of one doctor) and the machines and likely 50 doctors who earned $250k/yr out of the job. The last doctor may not even need to actually go, doctor level hands on being replaced by a couple PAs.
You might have seen a cocktail mixing robot on the internet, there are a few out there. Similarly you can build a system connecting IV's up to a central system and have that system automatically dispensing medication, a screen and loud beep prompting patients for feedback such as pain level or urine volume. That will get rid of most of the nurses as well, allowing maybe one per floor to run the hospital.
Next you expand the diagnostic system, making it available as a secure app with cloud access. Now you don't even go to the doctor, instead the app issues prescriptions for medications (pharmacy) and tests (labs/hospital/critical care clinics) and they just scan a QR code to log it at the facility. If the machine determines a hospital is needed it will provide a QR code and offer to dispatch an ambulance. Eventually you'll also have no only the critical alert bracelet the elderly currently have but a voice interactive system like the amazon echo will be patched in as well. None of this will be much cheaper of course, just more profitable for those offering the services. Which amounts to the elderly with a great deal in retirement accounts and extremely wealthy who live off investment interest. Even if a law is bought to still require a human doctor to sign off it won't help for long, soon enough those humans will be outsourced.
Of course for now we'll still need doctors for research. So between supervising doctors we've mandated for liability reasons (much like the doc who presses the button on the Lasik system and knee replacement robot) and research we'll need what, 10% of the doctors we have now and maybe a 10% increase in current much lower paid nursing staff? And that is achievable within 5 years but won't happen that fast due to inertia and liability risks. There will also be a market for doctors because some people don't trust the machines or have low probability edge cases that need someone who is willing to make a human override and the statistically wrong or risky choice like prescribing off label or prescribing a high dose of narcotic pain medicine to someone with a high tolerance because they had a different accident a couple years ago or a past addiction problem. The benefits are too high though so by and large the elimination of doctors as a source of regular care and diagnostics most definitely will happen.
There really aren't too many other benefits. If both paid for via inflation rather than taxation universal healthcare (including dental and vision, eyes and teeth are part of the body) combined with a tax free basic income that would put you at the middle class (so no, not enough to live in a decent area of the largest major cities but enough to live without stress in a less central suburb or anywhere else in the country) and we drop everything else it might amount to at most 1/4% standing inflation while reducing taxes. If we drop all industry subsidies except renewable energy and agriculture (we need to eat, renewable makes the most sense and is dwarf'd by fossil subsidies) we might actually have to increase that income a bit more yet.
Of course this is not charity, there would be special qualifiers except being a natural born citizen and would not be offset by income. I'm not sure what abusing would be, you are a natural born citizen, you are entitled to this income. This would be a fundamental right earned by the first world by developing the technology that is the foundation for all automation and the development of the rest of the world. Others might be doing more of the remaining labor but they have that opportunity and better quality of life because of the technology we built while only a small portion who didn't contribute much in terms of engineering and innovation have been the primary benefactors.
Of course we might need a slight adjustment to citizenship with the children of naturalized citizens also being naturalized citizens and the children of natural born citizens being considered natural born and qualifying for this income.
Seriously? Are you aware that more and more surgeries are being done by robots with a doctor only pressing to the button and providing token "supervision" of the procedure every day. Hospitals are testing AI systems for diagnostic work and supervising patient care and those systems are already consistently providing statistically better outcomes than actual doctors and as those systems expand they will only get better.
Doctors providing treatment and care will eventually be a thing of the past and will be an obsolete anacronism long before that held on to just for the sake of risk like the doctor supervising the surgical robot. The only doctors we'll need will be researchers.