As I said elsewhere, many if not most rifles used by infantry today are not fully automatic but are used in assaults. Usually they only are semi-auto and may have a burst mode. Fully auto uses too much ammo and there aren't ammo trucks following you around in a battle. You can pull the trigger pretty damn fast anyway. So how many burglars have you confronted or killed? So many people who read about stuff in a magazine, or get ideas from a video game... enough.
Better reasons for why no Vancouver Island tunnel
on
The World's Longest Tunnel
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Take a look at this document from the government of British Columbia. It is a fairly extensive article discussing the various considerations for building fixed links (tunnels, bridges, etc.) across large bodies of water. In this case it talks specifically about a link between the British Columbia mainland (at Vancouver) and Vancouver Island, but the considerations it mentions are quite valid most places people want to create these kinds of links. A good read considering the OP.
A few points from the article on why a fixed link across the Straight of Georgia is not likely to happen any time soon:
In addition to the possibility of earthquakes, there are other engineering challenges to any fixed link across Georgia Strait. These include:
length of a crossing could be up to 26 kilometres;
water depths are up to 365 metres (1,197.5 feet);
deep, soft sediments of up to 450 metres (1,476.4) on the ocean bed;
potential marine slope instabilities along the eastern side of the Strait could result in future underwater landslides;
extreme wave conditions (4to 7 metre waves, with 6 metre tides and 2 knot current);
wind conditions (115 kilometres per hour on average with gusts to 180 kilometres per hour)
passage of major ships through the area; and
the need to protect a crossing structure against ship impact (a floating bridge could not withstand the impact of a tanker vessel).
I think someone who wrote that article did get the wind conditions wrong. I think it is fair to say that they can get wind speeds up to 115 kph or higher during a storm, as we saw this last winter. However, that is not an average wind speed, as I can attest to from trips I have made across the straight myself.:-) Wind speeds are no more different normally than say the English Channel.
For a tunnel, they would need to go down more than 815 metres (2,675 feet) to stay in stable rock (that is when it didn't shake from an earthquake or tremor). There is some speculation that if a major earthquake happened that huge underwater landslides from the sand banks on the south side of Vancouver (around where the south arm of the Frazer River exits into the straight) could cause a tsunami.
BTW, you DO know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, right?
I spent 5 years in the infantry, did you? Of course I know the difference. Did you know that (assault) rifles used by many militaries do not come with a 'full auto' select, only semi-auto? At best, they may have a select switch with 'safe', 'semi-auto', and 'burst-mode'. You don't have ammo trucks following you around on the battlefield. Pissing away rounds in automatic mode means you run out of bullets faster. Bad idea running out of bullets. Did you know you can shoot an awful lot of bullets in semi-automatic mode as well.
You ask for something that doesn't have a short answer:
I agree, mass killing humans for profit and power is a bad thing. But on the other hand it is human nature. It is an extension of our older instincts to protect and expand our territory. More territory, more food, better chance for survival. The problem is, we don't really need to fight to expand anything any more. We're not likely to starve to death any more. So it is best that we try hard to keep this in check. However, going to war to defend ourselves is perfectly justifiable.
So Afghanistan is an easy one to address. From a 'noble' point of view, we know that their government didn't respect basic human decency and freedoms for one. They sanctioned killing women for things like trying to get an education, reading books, or showing their face in public. From a defensive point of view, the Taliban (the ruling government of Afghanistan at the time) also didn't respect international protocols and basic understandings in that they sheltered a terrorist group (Al Quaida) even after that group admitted to the terrorist attacks against the United States which killed close to 3000 civilians (including other foreign nationals... about 200 Canadians among them). Not only did the Taliban refuse to give up the culprits, they refused to take any actions to punish or even curb their activities. This in itself can be seen as an implicit declaration of war. Limiting the ability of a foreign rogue nation to perpetrate or allow to perpetrate mass killing is a very valid reason for being there. At the same time, schools (real schools not fanatic religious schools for boys only) are now operating again, and basic human rights are returning in a limited way. Maybe not what you want, but certainly better then they were under the Taliban. You might also note, that some of the most active elements fighting NATO in Afghanistan are Arabs, not Afghanis. This is because the Arabs that are there (and not all Arabs in general) are mostly members of Al Quaida who want a return to Afghanistan of a system that allowed them to practise and organize their terrorist activities unchecked. You are very naive if you think dialogue would have changed anything in Afghanistan. Mind you, politicians are naive if they think it will be easy to effect any permanent change there. How do you get rid of a couple millennia worth of warlord mentality?
On the other hand, I already said I didn't agree with the Iraq campaign. It was not really necessary at the time (Hussein's posturing was not really a threat), and draws too many resources away from Afghanistan which was really justifiable. And to top it, they did a piss poor job executing the invasion. Instead of the surge now, they should have had two or three times the troops in the first place; to replace the police that would go missing after an invasion, to guard the weapons/ammunition dumps of the former Iraqi army (which weren't guarded... hence all of the dumps' contents disappeared thus the amount of IEDs), to make sure militias and civil war didn't happen (Saddam was the only reason they didn't have a civil ware before... just like Tito in Yugoslavia... once he was gone, unless there was another iron fist, boom, the country goes up in smoke). Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld really did run the war like a business process. The bare minimum to do the job to keep costs down. Then crow about how successful they were while neglecting the fact that the after implementation support issues were never really thought out since most busines managers all seem to have a 'Pollyanna' attitude. This doesn't mean I don't feel for the troops on the ground who have to deal with the bad decisions of their leaders. And I don't expect them all to agree with me about their leaders either BTW.
On the other hand, Hussein really was a bloody tyrant and his sons were just animals, pure and simple. But maybe that is what it took to maintain the peace there. Anyway, I'm never really sorry to see these kinds of people done in. Personall
I think the point was that assault requires intent.
I agree with that. But I think it is fair to say that the intent of the makers of the weapon was for it to be used in military assaults. The AK-47 and the M16 were made specifically for the armed forces of their countries and for export to the armed forces of other countries. So calling them assault rifles is justifiable. Just because a person doesn't want to use them in an assault doesn't mean they weren't made for that purpose. BTW I spent 5 years in the armed forces (infantry), and believe in the mission in Afghanistan. Iraq is another matter entirely... I back the troops 110% (they are allied brothers in arms). It doesn't mean I have to back the politics behind their deployment.
As a note, I find target shooting enjoyable, but don't own a weapon (I really have no need for one). I don't hunt, but don't have a problem with hunters... as long as they use as much of the animal they kill as possible. Just taking a head or the skin if B.S. if you ask me. It's also OK if there is a need to manage populations that might be getting out of control due to man's influence. As a matter of fact, I think it is probably a good thing for all meat eaters to either go hunting at least once (where a kill is made), or work at an abattoir for a day. I think that people are too disconnected from reality of where our food comes from and that *really* understanding that we eat other (formerly) living things makes us a bit more human. Just my view... and I used to maintain the computer systems at a place that killed 3500 head of cattle per day for about a year. I still eat meat!
Isn't it sad that people can somehow rationalize that a weapon that was built specifically for killing humans should not be classified as an assault rifle. Even if it was designed to be used while assaulting an enemy. Yeah that's right, you don't need a 600 cyclic rounds per minute rifle to kill a deer. Not unless you are shitty shot or have mental problems where you get your jollies making hamburger while it is still on the hoof.
It reminded me of Monty Python oblong logic speeches. I'd say circular logic, but they never quite made it 'round.;-) For some reason, Michael Palin came to mind first.
...as we can see scientifically from this image. Besides, chimpanzees have never invented any weapons that can wipe out their entire species. But then again, that may be an argument of wisdom versus intelligence.;-)
City TV (a super station in Toronto) used to broadcast on channel 79. It changed to channel 57 in the early 80s because of too many complaints that its broadcast was interfering with mobile phone communication.
From what I have heard, Oklahoma is a good place to build a wind farm. Google should build a bunch of turbines there and draw off the grid only when they need to. It would be good publicity, probably economical in the end, and fit in with their do no harm or whatever it is.
Reminds me of a giant grow up that got busted in Barrie Ontario a few years ago. They set up shop in a Labbatt's brewery that had just been made redundant and shut down. The power company didn't put two and two together and realize that the circuit the place was on shouldn't still be drawing the huge amount of power that it was. Someone finally figured it out and they investigated. All the plants were being grown in the stainless steel aging tanks.
Slashdot Mirror
As I said elsewhere, many if not most rifles used by infantry today are not fully automatic but are used in assaults. Usually they only are semi-auto and may have a burst mode. Fully auto uses too much ammo and there aren't ammo trucks following you around in a battle. You can pull the trigger pretty damn fast anyway. So how many burglars have you confronted or killed? So many people who read about stuff in a magazine, or get ideas from a video game... enough.
Take a look at this document from the government of British Columbia. It is a fairly extensive article discussing the various considerations for building fixed links (tunnels, bridges, etc.) across large bodies of water. In this case it talks specifically about a link between the British Columbia mainland (at Vancouver) and Vancouver Island, but the considerations it mentions are quite valid most places people want to create these kinds of links. A good read considering the OP.
A few points from the article on why a fixed link across the Straight of Georgia is not likely to happen any time soon:I think someone who wrote that article did get the wind conditions wrong. I think it is fair to say that they can get wind speeds up to 115 kph or higher during a storm, as we saw this last winter. However, that is not an average wind speed, as I can attest to from trips I have made across the straight myself. :-) Wind speeds are no more different normally than say the English Channel.
For a tunnel, they would need to go down more than 815 metres (2,675 feet) to stay in stable rock (that is when it didn't shake from an earthquake or tremor). There is some speculation that if a major earthquake happened that huge underwater landslides from the sand banks on the south side of Vancouver (around where the south arm of the Frazer River exits into the straight) could cause a tsunami.
An angry penguin charging at them in excess of 100mph maybe?
Soylent Green anybody? :-P
You ask for something that doesn't have a short answer:
I agree, mass killing humans for profit and power is a bad thing. But on the other hand it is human nature. It is an extension of our older instincts to protect and expand our territory. More territory, more food, better chance for survival. The problem is, we don't really need to fight to expand anything any more. We're not likely to starve to death any more. So it is best that we try hard to keep this in check. However, going to war to defend ourselves is perfectly justifiable.
So Afghanistan is an easy one to address. From a 'noble' point of view, we know that their government didn't respect basic human decency and freedoms for one. They sanctioned killing women for things like trying to get an education, reading books, or showing their face in public. From a defensive point of view, the Taliban (the ruling government of Afghanistan at the time) also didn't respect international protocols and basic understandings in that they sheltered a terrorist group (Al Quaida) even after that group admitted to the terrorist attacks against the United States which killed close to 3000 civilians (including other foreign nationals... about 200 Canadians among them). Not only did the Taliban refuse to give up the culprits, they refused to take any actions to punish or even curb their activities. This in itself can be seen as an implicit declaration of war. Limiting the ability of a foreign rogue nation to perpetrate or allow to perpetrate mass killing is a very valid reason for being there. At the same time, schools (real schools not fanatic religious schools for boys only) are now operating again, and basic human rights are returning in a limited way. Maybe not what you want, but certainly better then they were under the Taliban. You might also note, that some of the most active elements fighting NATO in Afghanistan are Arabs, not Afghanis. This is because the Arabs that are there (and not all Arabs in general) are mostly members of Al Quaida who want a return to Afghanistan of a system that allowed them to practise and organize their terrorist activities unchecked. You are very naive if you think dialogue would have changed anything in Afghanistan. Mind you, politicians are naive if they think it will be easy to effect any permanent change there. How do you get rid of a couple millennia worth of warlord mentality?
On the other hand, I already said I didn't agree with the Iraq campaign. It was not really necessary at the time (Hussein's posturing was not really a threat), and draws too many resources away from Afghanistan which was really justifiable. And to top it, they did a piss poor job executing the invasion. Instead of the surge now, they should have had two or three times the troops in the first place; to replace the police that would go missing after an invasion, to guard the weapons/ammunition dumps of the former Iraqi army (which weren't guarded... hence all of the dumps' contents disappeared thus the amount of IEDs), to make sure militias and civil war didn't happen (Saddam was the only reason they didn't have a civil ware before... just like Tito in Yugoslavia... once he was gone, unless there was another iron fist, boom, the country goes up in smoke). Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld really did run the war like a business process. The bare minimum to do the job to keep costs down. Then crow about how successful they were while neglecting the fact that the after implementation support issues were never really thought out since most busines managers all seem to have a 'Pollyanna' attitude. This doesn't mean I don't feel for the troops on the ground who have to deal with the bad decisions of their leaders. And I don't expect them all to agree with me about their leaders either BTW.
On the other hand, Hussein really was a bloody tyrant and his sons were just animals, pure and simple. But maybe that is what it took to maintain the peace there. Anyway, I'm never really sorry to see these kinds of people done in. Personall
Or maybe they took the shows as documentaries rather than satire and parody? :-D
I agree with that. But I think it is fair to say that the intent of the makers of the weapon was for it to be used in military assaults. The AK-47 and the M16 were made specifically for the armed forces of their countries and for export to the armed forces of other countries. So calling them assault rifles is justifiable. Just because a person doesn't want to use them in an assault doesn't mean they weren't made for that purpose. BTW I spent 5 years in the armed forces (infantry), and believe in the mission in Afghanistan. Iraq is another matter entirely... I back the troops 110% (they are allied brothers in arms). It doesn't mean I have to back the politics behind their deployment.
As a note, I find target shooting enjoyable, but don't own a weapon (I really have no need for one). I don't hunt, but don't have a problem with hunters... as long as they use as much of the animal they kill as possible. Just taking a head or the skin if B.S. if you ask me. It's also OK if there is a need to manage populations that might be getting out of control due to man's influence. As a matter of fact, I think it is probably a good thing for all meat eaters to either go hunting at least once (where a kill is made), or work at an abattoir for a day. I think that people are too disconnected from reality of where our food comes from and that *really* understanding that we eat other (formerly) living things makes us a bit more human. Just my view... and I used to maintain the computer systems at a place that killed 3500 head of cattle per day for about a year. I still eat meat!
Isn't it sad that people can somehow rationalize that a weapon that was built specifically for killing humans should not be classified as an assault rifle. Even if it was designed to be used while assaulting an enemy. Yeah that's right, you don't need a 600 cyclic rounds per minute rifle to kill a deer. Not unless you are shitty shot or have mental problems where you get your jollies making hamburger while it is still on the hoof.
It reminded me of Monty Python oblong logic speeches. I'd say circular logic, but they never quite made it 'round. ;-) For some reason, Michael Palin came to mind first.
Are you really Michael Palin?
...as we can see scientifically from this image. Besides, chimpanzees have never invented any weapons that can wipe out their entire species. But then again, that may be an argument of wisdom versus intelligence. ;-)
So does this mean it is spreading from America, or happening at the same time and just under-reported in the UK and elsewhere?
They all got sick of listening to Dr. Phil and killed themselves. They're really very sensitive you know.
City TV (a super station in Toronto) used to broadcast on channel 79. It changed to channel 57 in the early 80s because of too many complaints that its broadcast was interfering with mobile phone communication.
Really... this is amusing. No joke.
From what I have heard, Oklahoma is a good place to build a wind farm. Google should build a bunch of turbines there and draw off the grid only when they need to. It would be good publicity, probably economical in the end, and fit in with their do no harm or whatever it is.
Reminds me of a giant grow up that got busted in Barrie Ontario a few years ago. They set up shop in a Labbatt's brewery that had just been made redundant and shut down. The power company didn't put two and two together and realize that the circuit the place was on shouldn't still be drawing the huge amount of power that it was. Someone finally figured it out and they investigated. All the plants were being grown in the stainless steel aging tanks.
If ever there would be a need to have the company re-imburse you, it would definitely be after all the food you would eat at lunch after that.
Last I heard, a radio is not a computer network.
Mod parent up. You can't sit on the fence changing arguements on government interference with the internet depending on which way the wind blows.
s/popcycle/popsicle/