Not unless you think I also died in a meth lab shootout with the cops.... in which case (this being/. and all) I'd expect you to ask what kind of broadband connection I got in hell;)
You know, down-shifting a couple of gears has a similar effect without having to hack your car. And it'll save you a couple of bucks on that fancy automatic transmission and can improve your engine's performance.
Yeah I'm a big fan of manual transmissions. Can't say as I've ever used mine to cause a rear end collision though;)
Of course, I'm one of those weirdos that tries to avoid accidents even if they're the other guy's fault. To each their own.
Like I said, he made a living doing it. He never did explain to me why running to the court house two or three times a year was easier than getting a real job.....
At which time, I, as the wiley "bad guy", press the button telling the camera to make the clicking noise when taking a picture. After the mean ol'cop has left
I had a "friend" once who had a similar button in his car that would disable his brake lights. He made a living for a few years by getting "accidentally" rear-ended. Always managed to flip 'em back on by the time the cops showed up.
Of course, said friend later died in a shootout with the police at a meth lab so I guess he wasn't born into the deep end of the gene pool.....
The National Firearms Act, passed in the 30s, required the payment of a $200 tax (quite a lot of money in the 30s) before you could transfer fully automatic weapons. An amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act (passed in 1986) banned the civilian ownership or transfer of any fully automatic weapon made before that law was passed. So there are still a handful of legally owned fully automatic weapons out there but they are few and far between. Whether or not this is a good thing is up for the reader to decide.
I'm inclined toward accounts based on the premise that America and Russia had an agreement (what blend of official/unofficial I can't recall) that Russia would pressure the Japanese from the Kamchatka peninsula and that territorial control in the post-war world would be to some degree be established by how much territory in the region of Japan the Russians had managed to occupy at the point in time of formal Japanese surrender.
Well I don't know how much of the agreement covered territory but there was an "official" agreement at Yalta for the Soviet Union to enter the war against Japan 90 days after the end of hostilities in Europe.
To fully appreciate the political situation, you need to realize that the Americans were reading Purple. Purple never got as much press as Enigma because it was considered somewhat unsporting to crack a diplomatic code.
The Pacific War in general has never gotten as much press as the European War. Purple was actually broken before the war. There's a mostly historically accurate representation of this in the movie 'Tora Tora Tora'
You can figure out an awful lot about who collaborated on a nuclear bomb by the residue signature it leaves behind. If everyone out there is working from exactly the same blue print, some of that capability falls apart.
IANANP (I am not a nuclear physicist) but my understanding is that the signature doesn't really have much to do with the design of the bomb itself. Rather it has to do with the reactor(s) that produced the fissile material used in the bomb. If you built fat man using American plutonium and built it again using Russian plutonium the signature would still be different.
Japan had long understood that the American military economy was humming along at a fever pitch, and was pretty much impossible to mess with short of capturing Hawaii.
Capturing Hawaii wouldn't have been enough either. It would have extended the war by another year or so but it wouldn't have altered the outcome. It's a moot point in any case as the Japanese didn't have the resources to capture Hawaii or the logistical resources to hold onto it if they did. What's more impressive is the fact that we devoted the overwhelming majority of our resources (upwards of 85% according to some estimates) to the European theater. We literally beat the Japanese with one hand and two feet tied behind our back. Makes you wonder what the hell they were thinking going to war with the United States. The disparity in economic resources was that large.
not apply to fully automatic high-powered assault rifles
I hope you realize that "fully automatic" weapons are already illegal. And as far as "high-powered assault rifles" go, your typical hunting round (.30-06) has more energy than your typical assault rifle round (5.56x45mm NATO). So I'm a bit unclear as to what you mean by "high-powered assault rifle".
On a side note lets not forget that even after we dropped the first one on Japan they told us to stick it and kept attacking, we had to smack them again before they actually stepped back and said, whoa we can't handle much more of that shit.
Some historians actually give more credit to the intervention of the Soviet Union (see August Storm) for Japan's decision to capitulate than they do to the nuclear bombings. Faced the choice of having half your country (the Soviets were in a position to invade Hokkaido) occupied by Stalin or having it all occupied by the United States, which option would you have chosen?
Note that I'm not saying we shouldn't have nuked the SOBs. It sure beat the hell out of invading them -- look at the causalities on Okinawa and Iwo Jima -- just saying that it probably doesn't deserve all the credit for their choice to surrender.
I think you're vastly underestimating a nuclear weapon's potential to ruin your day.
Hey, whether it's a.22LR to the head or a thermonuclear weapon in the basement your just as dead;) Only difference is how much mess is left behind afterwards.
Lesson #1: The United States is not a Democracy. It's a Republic. Or at least it's supposed to be.
And that's exactly how you chose what your taxes pay for. Not by opting out of the parts you don't like
Who said taxes are my only concern with UHC? I can already envision the expansion of the nanny state. Here in NYS they want to raise taxes on soda. Our Governor is calling it an 'obesity tax'. Funny that -- there's nothing wrong with soda (or anything else for that matter) when it's consumed in moderation. So why tax it extra?
I can't wait for the war on fast food and even higher taxes on tobacco and alcohol. You may not see a problem with any of this but personally I'm growing weary of the nanny state and the war on vice. It's not the job of Washington or Albany to tell me what's bad for me.
You don't get a choice in what your taxes are going to pay for. Suck it up and deal with it.
I do get a choice in what politicians I get to vote for. The Democrats would do well to remember what happened the last time they overreached and to look at the states that they won this time around.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me guess...this 'friend' is really you?
Not unless you think I also died in a meth lab shootout with the cops.... in which case (this being /. and all) I'd expect you to ask what kind of broadband connection I got in hell ;)
Touche :)
Couldn't have been a very beefy webserver if the subscriber preview was enough to knock it offline. Insert lame and predictable jokes here.
You know, down-shifting a couple of gears has a similar effect without having to hack your car. And it'll save you a couple of bucks on that fancy automatic transmission and can improve your engine's performance.
Yeah I'm a big fan of manual transmissions. Can't say as I've ever used mine to cause a rear end collision though ;)
Of course, I'm one of those weirdos that tries to avoid accidents even if they're the other guy's fault. To each their own.
Like I said, he made a living doing it. He never did explain to me why running to the court house two or three times a year was easier than getting a real job.....
Clearly you haven't met my wife.
Actually, most of us have ;)
*rimshot*
If you disable the loud speaker on the phone, how do you hear it ring?
What makes you think the pervert cares if it retains functionality as a cell phone?
Do you want to be the one recording that particular sound file?
The beauty of the NSA is that only one of us has to record it and they'll have access to it for future uses ;)
Silent camera phones are an important instrument to keep authorities in check.
The right of the people to keep and bear cell phone cameras shall not be infringed?
I'm glad to see that someone's stepping up to fill Katherine Harris's crazy shoes.
Yeah, cuz Democrats never do anything equally as stupid ;)
And a phone without a speaker is useful for...What exactly?
Taking perverted pictures of the guy in the next stall over ;)
Senator Craig, is that you?
At which time, I, as the wiley "bad guy", press the button telling the camera to make the clicking noise when taking a picture. After the mean ol'cop has left
I had a "friend" once who had a similar button in his car that would disable his brake lights. He made a living for a few years by getting "accidentally" rear-ended. Always managed to flip 'em back on by the time the cops showed up.
Of course, said friend later died in a shootout with the police at a meth lab so I guess he wasn't born into the deep end of the gene pool.....
It just strikes one as a bit hypocritical for our representatives to be worrying about improper use of cell phones by some random pervert
But, think of the children!
Not if I had qualified it with "produced after 1986". See this post of mine
Made after that law was passed. Oey! That's what I get for not proof-reading.
Please cite
The National Firearms Act, passed in the 30s, required the payment of a $200 tax (quite a lot of money in the 30s) before you could transfer fully automatic weapons. An amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act (passed in 1986) banned the civilian ownership or transfer of any fully automatic weapon made before that law was passed. So there are still a handful of legally owned fully automatic weapons out there but they are few and far between. Whether or not this is a good thing is up for the reader to decide.
Of course, with a ten round clip limit
You mean magazine limit, right? ;)
I'm inclined toward accounts based on the premise that America and Russia had an agreement (what blend of official/unofficial I can't recall) that Russia would pressure the Japanese from the Kamchatka peninsula and that territorial control in the post-war world would be to some degree be established by how much territory in the region of Japan the Russians had managed to occupy at the point in time of formal Japanese surrender.
Well I don't know how much of the agreement covered territory but there was an "official" agreement at Yalta for the Soviet Union to enter the war against Japan 90 days after the end of hostilities in Europe.
To fully appreciate the political situation, you need to realize that the Americans were reading Purple. Purple never got as much press as Enigma because it was considered somewhat unsporting to crack a diplomatic code.
The Pacific War in general has never gotten as much press as the European War. Purple was actually broken before the war. There's a mostly historically accurate representation of this in the movie 'Tora Tora Tora'
You can figure out an awful lot about who collaborated on a nuclear bomb by the residue signature it leaves behind. If everyone out there is working from exactly the same blue print, some of that capability falls apart.
IANANP (I am not a nuclear physicist) but my understanding is that the signature doesn't really have much to do with the design of the bomb itself. Rather it has to do with the reactor(s) that produced the fissile material used in the bomb. If you built fat man using American plutonium and built it again using Russian plutonium the signature would still be different.
Japan had long understood that the American military economy was humming along at a fever pitch, and was pretty much impossible to mess with short of capturing Hawaii.
Capturing Hawaii wouldn't have been enough either. It would have extended the war by another year or so but it wouldn't have altered the outcome. It's a moot point in any case as the Japanese didn't have the resources to capture Hawaii or the logistical resources to hold onto it if they did. What's more impressive is the fact that we devoted the overwhelming majority of our resources (upwards of 85% according to some estimates) to the European theater. We literally beat the Japanese with one hand and two feet tied behind our back. Makes you wonder what the hell they were thinking going to war with the United States. The disparity in economic resources was that large.
We know today that there were only two bombs, but the Japanese didn't know it then
Umm, says who?
It is quite disturbing seeing it, but a visit to the museum is a difficult experience generally.
So is a visit to the Arizona Memorial or the Chinese city of Nanjing.
I think you mean jigawatts ;)
not apply to fully automatic high-powered assault rifles
I hope you realize that "fully automatic" weapons are already illegal. And as far as "high-powered assault rifles" go, your typical hunting round (.30-06) has more energy than your typical assault rifle round (5.56x45mm NATO). So I'm a bit unclear as to what you mean by "high-powered assault rifle".
On a side note lets not forget that even after we dropped the first one on Japan they told us to stick it and kept attacking, we had to smack them again before they actually stepped back and said, whoa we can't handle much more of that shit.
Some historians actually give more credit to the intervention of the Soviet Union (see August Storm) for Japan's decision to capitulate than they do to the nuclear bombings. Faced the choice of having half your country (the Soviets were in a position to invade Hokkaido) occupied by Stalin or having it all occupied by the United States, which option would you have chosen?
Note that I'm not saying we shouldn't have nuked the SOBs. It sure beat the hell out of invading them -- look at the causalities on Okinawa and Iwo Jima -- just saying that it probably doesn't deserve all the credit for their choice to surrender.
I think you're vastly underestimating a nuclear weapon's potential to ruin your day.
Hey, whether it's a .22LR to the head or a thermonuclear weapon in the basement your just as dead ;) Only difference is how much mess is left behind afterwards.
what makes your view on this any more correct than anyone else's?
Maybe the fact that the Constitution doesn't mention anything about the Federal Government having a role in any sort of social safety net?
Any more than I get to opt out because I don't use the highways.
In a sense you do. A lot (not all) of highway funding comes from the Federal gasoline tax, which you obviously don't pay if you don't buy gasoline.
That is how democracy works.
Lesson #1: The United States is not a Democracy. It's a Republic. Or at least it's supposed to be.
And that's exactly how you chose what your taxes pay for. Not by opting out of the parts you don't like
Who said taxes are my only concern with UHC? I can already envision the expansion of the nanny state. Here in NYS they want to raise taxes on soda. Our Governor is calling it an 'obesity tax'. Funny that -- there's nothing wrong with soda (or anything else for that matter) when it's consumed in moderation. So why tax it extra?
I can't wait for the war on fast food and even higher taxes on tobacco and alcohol. You may not see a problem with any of this but personally I'm growing weary of the nanny state and the war on vice. It's not the job of Washington or Albany to tell me what's bad for me.
You don't get a choice in what your taxes are going to pay for. Suck it up and deal with it.
I do get a choice in what politicians I get to vote for. The Democrats would do well to remember what happened the last time they overreached and to look at the states that they won this time around.
No, you don't get to opt out.
Suck it up and deal with it.
Land of the "free" and home of the brave indeed.