It ain't pretty. It ain't fast. It ain't a lot of things. What it *is*, though, is a mechanically-simple, easy-to-maintain aircraft that does exactly what it means to do, does it well, and is not inconvenienced in the slightest.
It can absorb a ridiculous amount of abuse from bad guys, it can loiter on-scene longer than any comparable aircraft, it can get low enough and slow enough to see exactly who to kill (not the good guys, not the civilians), and it does all this with lower operational costs than most other aircraft out there.
I drive a pickup truck. An Audi R8 is much sexier, but for daily operation, not worrying if I get dinged in the parking lot, and getting ish done, I'll stick with the truck.
Sorry to self-reply: Looks like you are right and spent rounds are recycled, not ejected. And, looks like it has been that way since day 1. Mea culpa and good call!
The ammo feed may be linkless - I can't confirm one way or the other - but the round itself absolutely has a cartridge housing that holds the powder / propellant. It looks exactly like a standard rifle shell, upscaled quite a bit. I doubt the plane stores the expended brass, so the tink-tink-tink sound is entirely plausible.
Source: The dummy A-10 round sitting on my bookshelf.
That makes sense. I was picturing some spectacle like the Westminster Dog Show except with different strains of ice - "Wow Bob, look at the crystalline structure in that one." "Yes, Ted, exquisite. Truly the cube standard."
All true, and I think you and I agree more than not. However, the MAS program was never shown to be "primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group." Any kid could take the classes, just as any kid can take African-American studies for example.
Additionally, Tom Horne's opinions in a campaign do not law make - he is not (yet) on the state Supreme Court. He picked a hot button idea and rode it to election. Same with Huppenthal, his successor.
I have never sat in on one of those classes, and (I suspect) nor have you. I don't know their worth, and shutting them down may have been the right call. But TUSD still had a choice - people and agencies take the state to court all the time to determine what is right. Just because he doesn't like the program, and rants and raves to shut it, does NOT mean there is no recourse for the district.
Not to be pedantic: The State of Arizona had little to do with one school district canceling Mexican-American studies. That was a course taught at a few schools in Tucson, and the school district shut it down. There are reasonable arguments both ways on that call.
There was some pressure from the state Dept of Ed, but it was truly a local decision.
That said, as a long-time resident and observer, general knuckleheadedness runs both deep and wide in our fair state. If Brewer signs this bill, I can't imagine it withstanding any appeal. This is basic First Amendment stuff.
In true/. form, I have not RTFA yet. However, I can speak on this currently looks like in the real trenches of middle school. We have no interest in what kids do on the weekends or evenings, and little ability to monitor it. I am busy enough that even if I could scrape 400+ student Facebook pages, I would have no time to do so.
The only exception to this is when an online posting creates on-campus disruption. Then we do indeed act, using existing law. Nothing is allowed to disrupt the learning environment, plain and simple. New law is not needed to address this, in my opinion.
If your cyber life remains in the cyber realm, I don't care. If you disrupt or distract at my school, I'll handle it. It is essentially that simple.
I can address the "which tourists would join a club" question. I used to be a sales rep in the outdoor industry, for tents, backpacks, boots, whatnot. The industry's twice-yearly trade show was in Salt Lake City, so I would spend the greater part of a week in SLC twice a year. During that time, it's really nice to be able to grab a beer with your partners, or your clients, or your friends from the other side of the country you only see twice a year...
fwiw, we rarely got hassled to "join" a club. I don't know if they relaxed the rules during those weeks in the face of thousands of heathens coming in from the outside, or if they tired of hearing each of those heathens saying, "Private membership club wot wot?" but only once that I recall did we have to sign up as members. And that was actually pretty funny - my buddy is a smartass, and went on a riff about what benefits we could expect, when do they mail the newsletter, is there a profit-sharing option, and so on - the waitress was lost.
Some oddities did exist, though: iirc, you could not order pitchers of anything, only individual drinks. You could only have one drink at a time, so if you ordered "another round", the server could not set the new drink down in front of you until you drained the first one or gave it to the server. And all the beer was 3.2, which is basically beer for people who like to pee a lot.
The disregard for quantifiable relationships here is silly. Screaming correlationisnotcausation is exactly like screaming, "Just because there's smoke doesn't mean there's fire." That can be true, in a limited number of cases. In the vast majority of cases, smoke does correctly imply fire, and a strong correlation often correctly implies causation.
Can there be outliers? Sure. Can there be a third-party cause for the correlation? Sure. Is the most likely explanation often the most accurate one? You bet.
My old stats prof used to say that the causal link between smoking and lung cancer has never been proven - never run the double-blinds, etc. However, it is correlated beyond any reasonable doubt. Sometimes enough really is enough.
Two travelers from Hungary and Czech Republic are backpacking through a national park, when they are attacked and eaten by a pair of grizzly bears. Rangers shoot the bears and autopsy them. They open the female bear and find the remains of the Hungarian. Ranger turns to his partner and says, "I guess the Czech's in the male."
Slashdot Mirror
It ain't pretty. It ain't fast. It ain't a lot of things. What it *is*, though, is a mechanically-simple, easy-to-maintain aircraft that does exactly what it means to do, does it well, and is not inconvenienced in the slightest.
It can absorb a ridiculous amount of abuse from bad guys, it can loiter on-scene longer than any comparable aircraft, it can get low enough and slow enough to see exactly who to kill (not the good guys, not the civilians), and it does all this with lower operational costs than most other aircraft out there.
I drive a pickup truck. An Audi R8 is much sexier, but for daily operation, not worrying if I get dinged in the parking lot, and getting ish done, I'll stick with the truck.
Sorry to self-reply: Looks like you are right and spent rounds are recycled, not ejected. And, looks like it has been that way since day 1. Mea culpa and good call!
The ammo feed may be linkless - I can't confirm one way or the other - but the round itself absolutely has a cartridge housing that holds the powder / propellant. It looks exactly like a standard rifle shell, upscaled quite a bit. I doubt the plane stores the expended brass, so the tink-tink-tink sound is entirely plausible. Source: The dummy A-10 round sitting on my bookshelf.
I'm weeping just from the correct use of apostrophes in your post. Kudos, good sir.
Too much gold never slowed down Mr. T. I pity the fool.
That makes sense. I was picturing some spectacle like the Westminster Dog Show except with different strains of ice - "Wow Bob, look at the crystalline structure in that one." "Yes, Ted, exquisite. Truly the cube standard."
Posting from Arizona where ice is a mythical substance, but...
wtf are ice shows? Apparently they are big enough they need to be specifically enumerated in this law. Cracking me up.
All true, and I think you and I agree more than not. However, the MAS program was never shown to be "primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group." Any kid could take the classes, just as any kid can take African-American studies for example.
Additionally, Tom Horne's opinions in a campaign do not law make - he is not (yet) on the state Supreme Court. He picked a hot button idea and rode it to election. Same with Huppenthal, his successor.
I have never sat in on one of those classes, and (I suspect) nor have you. I don't know their worth, and shutting them down may have been the right call. But TUSD still had a choice - people and agencies take the state to court all the time to determine what is right. Just because he doesn't like the program, and rants and raves to shut it, does NOT mean there is no recourse for the district.
Not to be pedantic: The State of Arizona had little to do with one school district canceling Mexican-American studies. That was a course taught at a few schools in Tucson, and the school district shut it down. There are reasonable arguments both ways on that call.
There was some pressure from the state Dept of Ed, but it was truly a local decision.
That said, as a long-time resident and observer, general knuckleheadedness runs both deep and wide in our fair state. If Brewer signs this bill, I can't imagine it withstanding any appeal. This is basic First Amendment stuff.
In true /. form, I have not RTFA yet. However, I can speak on this currently looks like in the real trenches of middle school. We have no interest in what kids do on the weekends or evenings, and little ability to monitor it. I am busy enough that even if I could scrape 400+ student Facebook pages, I would have no time to do so.
The only exception to this is when an online posting creates on-campus disruption. Then we do indeed act, using existing law. Nothing is allowed to disrupt the learning environment, plain and simple. New law is not needed to address this, in my opinion.
If your cyber life remains in the cyber realm, I don't care. If you disrupt or distract at my school, I'll handle it. It is essentially that simple.
This patent would have helped a co-worker of mine's uncle: He thought LOL meant "Lots of Love."
Pretty harmless, until he started using it inappropriately: "I'm so sorry to hear of your loss. LOL" or "You're better off without him anyway. LOL".
Apparently, they had to hold an intervention. :)
I can address the "which tourists would join a club" question. I used to be a sales rep in the outdoor industry, for tents, backpacks, boots, whatnot. The industry's twice-yearly trade show was in Salt Lake City, so I would spend the greater part of a week in SLC twice a year. During that time, it's really nice to be able to grab a beer with your partners, or your clients, or your friends from the other side of the country you only see twice a year...
fwiw, we rarely got hassled to "join" a club. I don't know if they relaxed the rules during those weeks in the face of thousands of heathens coming in from the outside, or if they tired of hearing each of those heathens saying, "Private membership club wot wot?" but only once that I recall did we have to sign up as members. And that was actually pretty funny - my buddy is a smartass, and went on a riff about what benefits we could expect, when do they mail the newsletter, is there a profit-sharing option, and so on - the waitress was lost.
Some oddities did exist, though: iirc, you could not order pitchers of anything, only individual drinks. You could only have one drink at a time, so if you ordered "another round", the server could not set the new drink down in front of you until you drained the first one or gave it to the server. And all the beer was 3.2, which is basically beer for people who like to pee a lot.
...but it's often quite close.
The disregard for quantifiable relationships here is silly. Screaming correlationisnotcausation is exactly like screaming, "Just because there's smoke doesn't mean there's fire." That can be true, in a limited number of cases. In the vast majority of cases, smoke does correctly imply fire, and a strong correlation often correctly implies causation.
Can there be outliers? Sure. Can there be a third-party cause for the correlation? Sure. Is the most likely explanation often the most accurate one? You bet.
My old stats prof used to say that the causal link between smoking and lung cancer has never been proven - never run the double-blinds, etc. However, it is correlated beyond any reasonable doubt. Sometimes enough really is enough.
Alright:
Two travelers from Hungary and Czech Republic are backpacking through a national park, when they are attacked and eaten by a pair of grizzly bears. Rangers shoot the bears and autopsy them. They open the female bear and find the remains of the Hungarian. Ranger turns to his partner and says, "I guess the Czech's in the male."
Ba-dum-bum.