History is full of examples of politicians and generals using scary stories of what enemies might be doing. They are almost never true. It's one thing to base your decisions on an enemy's capabilities and not intents, but it's quite another to make up stories which a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation will show require, say, rocket fuel five times more powerful than anyone else has, or guidance systems which billions of our own dollars haven't even come close to producing.
Not a single story about the deadly Chinese cruise missile passes the smell test.
A post devoid of all meaning except an attack on the messenger. You should try forming real thoughts and putting them down as real comments with useful content. People will think better of you for it.
Read the parent to which I was responding. Then contemplate analogies. You sound too quick to anger for the exercise to have any chance at enlightening you, but it will keep your fingers otherwise occupied for a few moments.
You ought to look up NRA finances sometime and educate yourself. The NRA gets its funds from members. Is that the best you can do -- stomp your feet and call 5 million of us sock puppets? Compare that to MAIG, Bloomberg's own sock puppet astroturf group of mayors, quite a few of whom have quit because they were enrolled without their knowledge or lied to as to its goals. There are also more MAIG mayors convicted of felonies than gun owners.
Gun control laws have no relation to crimes committed using guns, but if enforced would prevent the 1-2 million crimes prevented by guns every year.
The gun control spirit is fairy tales and magic wands -- write a law banning guns and presto -- guns will vanish, criminals will learn the error of their ways, and all will be peach keen. Bloomberg banning 17 oz sodas is right on par.
They are especially effective as weapons-in-being with no tests to show of. US politicians and scaremongers are almost in love with their exaggerated theoretical potential.
Zeroes were excellent mid-speed dogfighter and had tremendous range, but that was the limit of its advantages. The P-40 routinely beat the Zero in China using energy tactics, and the Wildcat and Zero were dead even by actual loss count in carrier battles. The Zero was 30 mph faster than the Wildcat but fragile, and the controls locked up near its top speed, so it was no good in a dive.
Both US planes had the immeasurable advantage of bringing home rookies far more often than the Zero.
Estimates are in the range of 2M defensive gun uses a year. Most of these may not even involve the criminal seeing the gun, merely hearing it or hearing the owner yell he has one. Very few involves actually shooting a gun.
Studies have consistently shown the conceal carry permittees commit fewer crimes than off duty cops, and conceal carry permittees kill more criminals with fewer side effects than cops.
Anyone who still thinks ordinary people can't be trusted with guns has blinders on.
No, standard cars don't. The best acceleration you can get in high end street cars is about 1G, but very few do that under any circumstance. The limit is the friction between rubber and road.
One of the standard performance measurements is 0-60 mph which is 88 fps. 10 seconds is a standard dividing line between slugs and ok, 5 seconds is very good but not exceptional. 5 seconds is 17.6 fpsps, which is 1/2 G. As far as I know, the fastest street cars do it in about 3 seconds, which is close to 1G.
Well, if you're a progressive, collectivist, or any other brand of statist, you surely do.
What astonishes me the most about statists is the amount of lip service they pay to democracy while at the same time having such dismal views of the poor schmucks they "guide". Everything they do is under the base assumption that people are too damn dumb and ignorant to run their own lives, yet they profess belief in these same dumb dimwitted schmucks voting to elect their elite betters.
If you are one of those elites, or at least think you are, I wonder how much history you actually know, how many times the elites have stomped all over private initiatives as intruding on the government's prerogative, and then used the lack of private initiative as an excuse for a vastly more muddled government reduplication which stifles all individual choice in the matter, and locks in the poor choice made without any hope of flexibility as conditions change.
How any rational person can know of these things and think it all just fine, like a cat with a dung covered bottom, is beyond me.
If it goes to trial, all the charges are back in play, and probably proveable given how sloppy the law is. Furthermore, judges pay a lot of attention to prosecutors, and if the jury comes back with (say) 20 convictions,each of which has a minimum six months, that's a huge factor too.
You are incredibly naive about how corrupt the US judicial system is. I suggest you read the book Three Felonies a Day.
From the Wikipedia article linked in the summary, it seems like one of his runs promptly crashed into a building with the steam engine powering the craft badly scalding Gustav himself. This pretty much ended his experimental flights, as whatever method that was devised to control his aircraft was obviously insufficient.
The Wright flyer on the other hand had full control (pitch, yaw, and roll) as far as modern flight is concerned. It could do figure 8 turns and could go back around to land where it started. Quite important, since being able to land has more to do with having a safe flight than anything else.
The first Wright flyer was a joke. Didn't have enough power to lift off the ground; didn't even have wheels, just skids. It was only controllable in a very limited way. They didn't fly figure eights for another couple of years. They were also secretive, didn't share their ideas, and in fact refused to give demonstrations to prospective buyers without a deposit. People back in Cleveland did see some of their experimental flights between Kittyhawk and later public demonstrations, but not many; they were pretty secretive.
And the Wright brothers had almost no impact on aviation after that first flight. They preferred to sit on their heels and wait for the world to come to them. Everyone else was out experimenting in public and advancing the state of aircraft design. They were one hit wonders and contributed almost nothing beyond that first flight, and a famous demonstration in Paris in 1908 (maybe 1906). After that, nothing. What they are secondly famous for is their patent battles with the world, which were only settled by the US government strong arming everybody into sharing patents because they wanted to buy military aircraft for WW I in 1917.
The Wright Bros, along with James Watt, are great examples of the counter productive nature of patents.
Now that's a lie. All those people out there protesting the wars, protesting the drone strikes and protesting an out of control military industrial complex, are still out there.
Perhaps your partisanship has led you to forget that Senator Obama spoke against and campaigned against the wars, against deficit spending, against the health insurance mandate, against all sorts of things that President Obama has been only too happy to engage in.
Slashdot Mirror
History is full of examples of politicians and generals using scary stories of what enemies might be doing. They are almost never true. It's one thing to base your decisions on an enemy's capabilities and not intents, but it's quite another to make up stories which a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation will show require, say, rocket fuel five times more powerful than anyone else has, or guidance systems which billions of our own dollars haven't even come close to producing.
Not a single story about the deadly Chinese cruise missile passes the smell test.
A post devoid of all meaning except an attack on the messenger. You should try forming real thoughts and putting them down as real comments with useful content. People will think better of you for it.
Read the parent to which I was responding. Then contemplate analogies. You sound too quick to anger for the exercise to have any chance at enlightening you, but it will keep your fingers otherwise occupied for a few moments.
You ought to look up NRA finances sometime and educate yourself. The NRA gets its funds from members. Is that the best you can do -- stomp your feet and call 5 million of us sock puppets? Compare that to MAIG, Bloomberg's own sock puppet astroturf group of mayors, quite a few of whom have quit because they were enrolled without their knowledge or lied to as to its goals. There are also more MAIG mayors convicted of felonies than gun owners.
Gun control laws have no relation to crimes committed using guns, but if enforced would prevent the 1-2 million crimes prevented by guns every year.
The gun control spirit is fairy tales and magic wands -- write a law banning guns and presto -- guns will vanish, criminals will learn the error of their ways, and all will be peach keen. Bloomberg banning 17 oz sodas is right on par.
They are especially effective as weapons-in-being with no tests to show of. US politicians and scaremongers are almost in love with their exaggerated theoretical potential.
China isn't stupid enough to use nuclear weapons. Try some realistic scenario and get back to us.
Zeroes were excellent mid-speed dogfighter and had tremendous range, but that was the limit of its advantages. The P-40 routinely beat the Zero in China using energy tactics, and the Wildcat and Zero were dead even by actual loss count in carrier battles. The Zero was 30 mph faster than the Wildcat but fragile, and the controls locked up near its top speed, so it was no good in a dive.
Both US planes had the immeasurable advantage of bringing home rookies far more often than the Zero.
Read the two First Team books.
Estimates are in the range of 2M defensive gun uses a year. Most of these may not even involve the criminal seeing the gun, merely hearing it or hearing the owner yell he has one. Very few involves actually shooting a gun.
Studies have consistently shown the conceal carry permittees commit fewer crimes than off duty cops, and conceal carry permittees kill more criminals with fewer side effects than cops.
Anyone who still thinks ordinary people can't be trusted with guns has blinders on.
Or Windows. Especially Windows. Especially Windows 3.11.
No, standard cars don't. The best acceleration you can get in high end street cars is about 1G, but very few do that under any circumstance. The limit is the friction between rubber and road.
One of the standard performance measurements is 0-60 mph which is 88 fps. 10 seconds is a standard dividing line between slugs and ok, 5 seconds is very good but not exceptional. 5 seconds is 17.6 fpsps, which is 1/2 G. As far as I know, the fastest street cars do it in about 3 seconds, which is close to 1G.
With government subsidies in addition to the loans?
Tesla Motors has not made a profit in any normal government-less sense of the word.
The cost of land for a new right of way after industrial development would be enormous.
Uhh .... underground mean anything to you?
Well, if you're a progressive, collectivist, or any other brand of statist, you surely do.
What astonishes me the most about statists is the amount of lip service they pay to democracy while at the same time having such dismal views of the poor schmucks they "guide". Everything they do is under the base assumption that people are too damn dumb and ignorant to run their own lives, yet they profess belief in these same dumb dimwitted schmucks voting to elect their elite betters.
If you are one of those elites, or at least think you are, I wonder how much history you actually know, how many times the elites have stomped all over private initiatives as intruding on the government's prerogative, and then used the lack of private initiative as an excuse for a vastly more muddled government reduplication which stifles all individual choice in the matter, and locks in the poor choice made without any hope of flexibility as conditions change.
How any rational person can know of these things and think it all just fine, like a cat with a dung covered bottom, is beyond me.
Benefit? By whose definition, yours?
I have a better idea. Leave people alone, and they will (a) figure out what other people want, and (b) make it, and (c) make money.
The funny thing is, (c) wouldn't be a problem with the elite nearly so much if it weren't for the fact that (a) was done without the elites' guidance.
You mean companies are hiring smart people to design what other people want to buy?
Oh, the humanity! The humanity!
If it goes to trial, all the charges are back in play, and probably proveable given how sloppy the law is. Furthermore, judges pay a lot of attention to prosecutors, and if the jury comes back with (say) 20 convictions,each of which has a minimum six months, that's a huge factor too.
You are incredibly naive about how corrupt the US judicial system is. I suggest you read the book Three Felonies a Day.
IFFF he pleaded guilty. If he wanted one of those quaint trials, they were going full retard with the 35 years.
That six months was only if he pleaded guilty. If he had pleaded innocent and taken it to trial, they were prepared to throw the book at him.
Gee whillikers. Karma. How's that work?
It's ok for the US but no one else?
Guess some left hand isn't talking to the right hand.
...but controlled flight? No.
From the Wikipedia article linked in the summary, it seems like one of his runs promptly crashed into a building with the steam engine powering the craft badly scalding Gustav himself. This pretty much ended his experimental flights, as whatever method that was devised to control his aircraft was obviously insufficient.
The Wright flyer on the other hand had full control (pitch, yaw, and roll) as far as modern flight is concerned. It could do figure 8 turns and could go back around to land where it started. Quite important, since being able to land has more to do with having a safe flight than anything else.
The first Wright flyer was a joke. Didn't have enough power to lift off the ground; didn't even have wheels, just skids. It was only controllable in a very limited way. They didn't fly figure eights for another couple of years. They were also secretive, didn't share their ideas, and in fact refused to give demonstrations to prospective buyers without a deposit. People back in Cleveland did see some of their experimental flights between Kittyhawk and later public demonstrations, but not many; they were pretty secretive.
And the Wright brothers had almost no impact on aviation after that first flight. They preferred to sit on their heels and wait for the world to come to them. Everyone else was out experimenting in public and advancing the state of aircraft design. They were one hit wonders and contributed almost nothing beyond that first flight, and a famous demonstration in Paris in 1908 (maybe 1906). After that, nothing. What they are secondly famous for is their patent battles with the world, which were only settled by the US government strong arming everybody into sharing patents because they wanted to buy military aircraft for WW I in 1917.
The Wright Bros, along with James Watt, are great examples of the counter productive nature of patents.
I'm afraid you're off by about 42 million years, and whoosh to boot.
I was responding to "all". You are attempting to walk that back. There are a whole lot of left leaning Obama supporters who are willfully blind.
Now that's a lie. All those people out there protesting the wars, protesting the drone strikes and protesting an out of control military industrial complex, are still out there.
Perhaps your partisanship has led you to forget that Senator Obama spoke against and campaigned against the wars, against deficit spending, against the health insurance mandate, against all sorts of things that President Obama has been only too happy to engage in.