"The organized militia created by the Militia Act of 1903, which split from the 1792 Uniform Militia forces, and consist of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.[2] The National Guard however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked."
"The reserve militia[3] or unorganized militia, which is presently defined by the Militia Act of 1903 to consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.(That is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft.) Former members of the armed forces up to age 65 are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code."
I wouldn't expect you to know all that because you are an ignorant fuckstick.
"Ignorant fuckstick", eh?
Project much?
Might want to actually have a clue as to what you're talking about next time before you end up sounding like an uneducated dolt.
This is not a very good analogy. The main legal purposes for assault rifles are hunting and target shooting.
No.
The main legal purpose of US citizens owning firearms of standard contemporary military infantry firearm capability as the authors of the Constitution intended (which a semi-automatic rifle like the ones erroneously labeled "assault weapons" does not, as it is incapable of full-auto fire) is to give the government pause when (not "if") it considers using force against those citizens.
I have to wonder if anti-gun people these days realize/remember that the NRA was established as a response to the rise of the KKK who were being protected and empowered by southern Democrats who were restricting blacks from owning firearms, right? That it was meant to empower the powerless by getting guns into the hands of southern blacks and allow them to protect themselves and their families against a hostile local government and violence from their KKK buddies, right?
It just happens that a firearm is also essential to self defense from other threats, like criminals, and allows for efficient hunting/game population control, as well as provide sport shooting activities. Being one of the protections against tyranny and an essential part of the natural human right to self-defense is it's Constitutional purpose according to those who wrote it.
It's a hedge against government usurpation of citizen's rights and freedoms and a last-ditch, last-resort response to a government out of control. Those wishing to establish a tyranny always disarm the populace first if possible.
I think it unwise to allow a government that has in the past repeatedly swept up innocent US citizens and imprisoned them for their ethnic/national origins and/or political views to further disarm law abiding citizens. The citizens are already massively out-gunned. It's the societal problems brought on by decades under a constantly-more-costly-and-controlling, hugely-bloated, corrupt, and immoral government that causes the violence through destruction of the societal fabric in the first place, not a tool used in some of the violence. Bans only take things away from those who obey laws, not criminals. Bans only hurt the law-abiding and the most vulnerable.
I say, put their names out there for all to see, and let Anonymous make a bonfire out of their pathetic lives.
I'd say that the fact that these particular individuals are being protected from answering for their actions by these corrupt private and public entities puts all of the individuals in those organizations, private and public, from top to bottom, into the target pool by their own choice in protecting these individuals. The others in those organizations not directly involved are also guilty of passively accepting such injustices by staying silent and continuing to work in and with those corrupt organizations.
The problem is excess or in this case, who needs a military grade assault weapon?
WTF are you talking about? What military grade assault weapon do you you mean? Lanza did not use any weapons capable of fully-automatic fire. He did not hold down the trigger and spray the place with lead.
An AR15 (the 'AR' stands for Armalite, the maker) is a semi-automatic rifle just like millions of others that have been around and in civilian hands for a century. They stuck a handle on top, and attached some black plastic stocks and foregrips in place of ones made of wood.
You cannot legally buy any fully-automatic weapon made after 1986.
I will never, ever, register or surrender my weapons. If that means going to prison or dying defending my right to self defense and to protect and defend my home, family, fellow man, and property, so be it. Better to die standing than live on your knees.
How is that a different definition? The correct way to use it would be "I've already spent my per diem." The "for the day" implied by the term itself
To be fair, it's often the case in the real world that a "per diem" payment is calculated and payed out in blocks of time other than one day. I've received per diem payments that were for time periods measured in days, weeks, and months.
I simply received a corporate check for the amount. I could have used it at any rate I wished, whether spending it all the first day or the last day or however I saw fit.
Temporary monthly housing per diem payments for extended-length temporary travel jobs and contract work come to mind as an example.
My company got to go through such an audit. Our scrupulously anal accountant buried that poor auditor in immaculately cataloged records
That's great that your company can afford to either hire a full-time accountant or contract with an accounting firm. However, it contributes to keeping the bar high for startups and very small businesses.
Of course, to many of the established players in both politics & business, "it's a feature not a bug" as it also tends to minimize competition, slow technology growth, and keep out the "riff-raff" home-based sole-proprietor businesses. Easier for those in power to control and tax a relatively few larger, established businesses than to control and tax a myriad of tiny ones in addition, particularly when the "control" part of "control and tax" is the dominant priority.
Like so many other issues in the news these days it seems, the "solution" is always about increasing government's control over ever more aspects and details of people's lives. All the while confiscating ever more of the people's wealth and crippling their ability to generate it, and simultaneously removing choices, individual freedom, and gradually rendering individual rights, even the basic human rights to speech and arms for defense, things of the past.
But hey, can't have the wrong lizard get in, right? Keep voting (R) and (D) party lines. It's been working out real well.
It doesn't matter what an organization or person says they are, or how they started.
What!? Of course it matters, particularly when there is a repeating pattern down through history.
That pattern being one of Socialist revolution/takeover, whether peaceful or violent, eventually ending in a totalitarian State with oppression for the people. Socialism does not work except in a few very limited and culturally-unique scenarios, and almost never works out to better conditions for the individual citizen.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
The real ideological battle is between those who believe government should protect and defend the collective interests at the cost of individual rights & freedoms, versus those that believe government should protect and defend the freedoms and interests of the individual.citizen.
The standard defense of such extreme right wing nuts is that the Nazis were called the National Socialist Party. They put far too much weight on the flowery words they used to gain power, not their actions once they had that power. According to their thinking, North Korea must be democratic because it's in their official name.
The point is exactly that they (the NAZI Party) started out aiming for a nationalist/socialist-type society, regardless that it devolved into a semi-Fascist dictatorship. Soviet Russia also started out aiming towards socialism, but ended up remaining mostly communist.
But, they *both* started out with socialism as the goal. Socialist societies throughout history in the real world have almost always collapsed/devolved into one form of totalitarianism or another. With pre-WW2 Germany, it just happened very quickly once Hitler assumed power and had no further use for the socialists.
Just because socialism did not succeed does not eliminate the fact that they were both initially driven into existence by socialist ideology.
Every time I hear the "NAZIs weren't socialists!" meme I shake my head at the depth this falsity has penetrated, even among supposedly "educated" people.
In 2010, querying a public AT&T database yielded over 114,000 email address for iPad owners who were subscribed to the carrier.
If the database was publicly-accessible, how is it a criminal act, as a member of said "public", to actually access it? That's like a newspaper that accidentally publishes data it considers private and prosecuting readers.
Publicly-accessible and intended for public use are not the same, and in the circumstances it was clear that this was not intended for public use. Your newspaper analogy fails because while the access controls were nearly non-existent, it was still necessary to actively seek out information on other users by forming deliberately false queries for the server - it wasn't deliberately distributed by AT&T.
There is still the matter of due diligence responsibilities on the part of AT&T to secure the data.
Seems like it's akin to a bank storing stacks of money next to the public sidewalk with nothing but a sign that says "please don't take the money" and prosecuting for bank robbery anybody that takes any of the money.
Sure saves the business a ton on security-related expenses when they can effectively make security measures and security breaches everyone else's responsibility but theirs.
In 2010, querying a public AT&T database yielded over 114,000 email address for iPad owners who were subscribed to the carrier.
If the database was publicly-accessible, how is it a criminal act, as a member of said "public", to actually access it? That's like a newspaper that accidentally publishes data it considers private and prosecuting readers.
The criminal act was negligence by AT&T. This is simply a distraction and face-saving prosecution to wash AT&T clean of culpability.
Those machines are also eyewateringly expensive. This machine is actually pretty damn cheap even if all it does is pick and place.
Sorry for the late reply. Those machines were just the quickest example that I could link to. The reason for the expense is because the high industrial/production volume/rates they are built for. Those machines are for high-volume, large-scale production operations in large factories.
People have been able to easily build a pick-&-place type machine like one that loads a standard through-hole printed-circuit board using solenoids/servos/stepper-motors and bog-standard industrial/commercial OTS programmable controllers costing a few hundreds for the past couple of decades now. I know. I've been employed in the past to design and set up PCB-based factory assembly lines. I've built them and machines that perform similar operations while working in the industrial automation field.
Here's some info on PLCs and a pic of a commonly-seen type:
Yeah, this actually makes me want to donate outside of the bundles. It's great to see an organization that is fighting for the rights of individual citizens instead of companies and the government.
So, you're advocating people lend financial assistance to a "terrorist organization" (EFF having been placed on the double-secret-probation terrorist list by the DoJ/DHS)? Enjoy your stay at Gitmo./sarc
Seriously though, it would not surprise me in the least to hear in the near future that the DoJ/DHS has labeled the EFF as some sort of terrorism-supporting organization. That's the problem with wars against nebulous and ill-defined groups such as "terrorists". All it takes is redefining/widening what the definition of a "terrorist" and "terrorism" is to label any political opposition as "enemies of the State".
"Ultimately, the machine will etch traces, apply solder paste, place components, cook, and test. Version 1.0 places components."
FTFY on the quotation marks.
My thinking is why replicate functionality that's been available for many years with V.1.0? There are already machines that do that, that have been around for decades.
So you didn't read what Holder wrote? It's a pretty short letter with small words. I'm sure you can understand it.
And I'm sure he trusts Holder's statement about drones just as thoroughly as you trusted Dick Cheney's statements about Haliburton, and for many of the same reasons.
Wow, I mean just wow. Your paranoid rantings are worthy of a Kazinsky-style manifesto.
Ah yes, another false-narrative bit of propaganda from Progressives, the laughable idea that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are "extreme" and "radical" and so is anyone that speaks out in their defense. The Constitution is the *norm* and the increasingly more-Progressive/Left the nation has been going and the Progressives and fellow political-travelers that advocate for such are the "extreme" and "radical" ones. Progressives and those on the Left are who wish to grant government powers and control that are not granted to it in a plain-language reading (as it was intentionally written to be read so) of the Constitution.
Well you don't get to decide, SCOTUS does
You are also wrong about the SCOTUS determining what is Constitutional. The SCOTUS interprets what is written in the Constitution and does it's best to make a decision in a case before it that most-closely comports with the intent and meaning of the relevant portion of the Constitution. It does *not* have the power to "find" by some tortured re-interpretation of the meaning of plain words and dodgy extrapolations, new Rights, entitlements, or Federal powers.
But all of this is moot regarding whether, in the end, the SCOTUS determines what is Constitutional. We the People are who makes that determination.
And if, in our collective estimation, Government has gone beyond control and threatens rather than protects our "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness";...it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Which is the reason for the Second Amendment, and why there is a sudden massive across-the-board push on by the government and the Progressive/Left against civilian gun ownership. The big US economic/monetary collapse (that will either initiate or be initiated by an EU economic/monetary crisis) which is imminent, maybe only a couple of months away, will create the masses of desperate, hungry, and angry people that will provide the excuse to roll out martial law and militarized domestic forces.
Much more difficult to put US citizens in camps (as happened before in the US...*twice* in recent history...in WW1/WW2...both under Progressive POTUSs, btw) when a lot of them are well-armed and you're on *their* home-ground, not yours, regardless of how much more military force you have. If you try to use military muscle, better have lots of replacement troops ready and plenty of body-bags. Vietnam and Afghanistan are examples. If so many civilians in both countries had not been armed the US would have two victories it does not now have.
They may be hoping that they can control/restrict food and energy supplies after the collapse and trade food and heat for turning in firearms. A twisted "Hunger Games" scenario. "Sorry you and your kids are starving and freezing, but we've allowed you all we can for just a.22 revolver three months ago. Don't you know any neighbors you could turn in? Those guns would count towards you and your kids eating and not freezing."
Distrust of government? That's fairly traditional conservatism.
No, thinking beyond the 1800's. That's not conservatism.
I know I'll be modded down, but screw it.
Yes, those terrible Conservatives and that stupid old, dusty, ancient Constitution thing, right? Thank goodness the Progressives (who are in BOTH major parties) are here with their "modern" ideas courtesy of Marx & Lenin to provide us with such modern institutions as eugenics (which the Nazis got from Progressives in the US and eventually lead to the Holocaust...nice job guys) in the form of Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood, designed to destroy the family structure, upward mobility, and social fabric of minorities and the poor/disadvantaged along with the entitlement society (working as designed, btw...see: Detroit).
With the US on the cusp of a total takeover by the Progressives, we can look forward to all of the US soon becoming like the Progressive crown-jewel that is Detroit. With warrant-less drone strikes, indefinite detention, nationwide gun bans, and no-probable-cause-or-warrant stop-and-frisks and home searches thrown in for laughs.
Progressivism is an old and failed ideology that's been tried over and over, and failed each and every time Progressives have had political/economic control. They failed miserably and were widely discredited in the 1920s, but they re-branded themselves and are back with the same failed ideology to sell it to a fresh generation that has never been educated in the history of Progressivism.
This time around they learned their lesson, and they made sure they seized control of public education first. An educated & informed populous is Progressives' and any other tyrant's or authoritarian regime's worst enemy.
You're still bound by the laws of physics; you'll only get so much energy out of a projectile while producing a certain amount of recoil.
I suppose you could concentrate the energy into a smaller area by firing a smaller projectile at a higher velocity...
Yes, I'm aware of the limitations imposed by Newton. Still, as you say, a small projectile at hyper-velocity is quite possible. Look at the Barret Arms M107 series of.50-cal semi-automatic rifles.
I also find it curious that my OP was modded "Flamebait". These weapons already exist in experimental form, the discoveries mentioned in TFS will surely be incorporated into them if at all practical/possible. Could it be that someone is afraid they'll get a firearms ban enacted only to find that conventional firearms have become almost obsolete in the face of this new superconductor tech combined with 3D printing, making attempts at controlling who can obtain them futile?
It is simplistic to think that power transmission is the major application.
If a practical (not requiring extreme/complex/large/heavy systems) superconducting electrical conductor material became commonly available at reasonable costs, count on it being used to make powerful and practical electromagnetic railgun-type rifles/pistols, as well as larger weapons systems whose performance and lethality can far-outstrip similar-class conventional firearms.
Imagine a gunpowder-less fully automatic rifle-like weapon that can make Swiss-cheese of a Bradley FV's armor, take down combat helicopters, etc, with only the snap of the high-velocity projectiles' sonic boom. Or a spec-ops/sniper/assassination gun that fires a larger-caliber (~.45-cal?) sub-sonic projectile with less noise than any normally-silenced/suppressed modern gunpowder-based firearm could.
This is all even more possible if this material (or better ones developed in the near future) can be used to greatly enhance energy storage density/weight/size ratios as well.
It could make for a very flexible weapon, as theoretically, the rate of fire and muzzle velocity could be made adjustable by the user to adapt to a wide range of combat scenarios and target types, amount of charge and/or projectile ammo remaining, etc.
Airplane engines aren't expensive because they're cheap to make.
Also features like updraft carbs make them shitty car engines from a maintenance standpoint. Fixing that requires changing the heads.
Aircraft engines are more expensive than comparable automobile engines because they must pass numerous certifications and comply with strict regulations in both the design as well as the manufacturing process. Every single step must be documented and referenced back to an FAA-approved procedure for that particular engine documented in an approved manual, thoroughly inspected/tested, and signed-off on by an FAA inspector.
The engine Tucker chose used fuel injection, not carburation. Wikipedia has some information regarding the auto, engine, and Tucker's story. There are also websites that go into more detailed accounts of Tucker, the Tornado, and the history & politics behind his destroyed car company.
The Tucker? I never did understand how he expected to make a profit selling cars with fucking airplane engines in them.
Sure they have great power and are light, they also cost a fucking fortune. Assume he could have produced them at half cost as he didn't need any FAA paper. He still couldn't have made money.
That said I'd love to put an over-hour airplane engine in my Fiat 850 sport. Perhaps a helicopter turbine.
Well Tucker liked the engine so much, he bought the company. That helped. BTW, the engine was meant for the Bell 47 (the helo that was featured as a med-evac chopper in the TV show M*A*S*H).
Tucker was also going to buy TWO steel plants to supply his car factory and the engine factory to further reduce costs, but the government (at the behest of competing car makers) blocked the acquisition of the steel plants.
As usual: one rule for the state, and one rule for the peons. They just forgot to add exemptions for their pals in certain industries.
What's so surprising?
Subjects of a totalitarian regime don't have "rights". The very idea is absurd. Recording the actions of those in the regime or their friends, or possessing arms to defend oneself from the regime or their friends, is anathema to a police state, comrade. Freedom is slavery, after all. You are engaging in badthink, which is double-plus ungood.
Please look up for telescreen-equipped government drone facial-recognition ID. Miniluv officers are already on the way to your location.
Slashdot Mirror
An assault rifle is not a good weapon for protection.
That all depends on the situation. In a tiny inner-city apartment? Probably so. On a ranch in the Southwest? Different story.
A handgun is although you are more likely to get killed by it then you are to actually use it in defense of self or others.
[Citation Needed]
Further, you forgot the "well regulated militia" part, which is the NG and Reserves.
Wrong.
The .unorganized militia is every able-bodied man between 17 and 45.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)
"The organized militia created by the Militia Act of 1903, which split from the 1792 Uniform Militia forces, and consist of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.[2] The National Guard however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked."
"The reserve militia[3] or unorganized militia, which is presently defined by the Militia Act of 1903 to consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.(That is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft.) Former members of the armed forces up to age 65 are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code."
I wouldn't expect you to know all that because you are an ignorant fuckstick.
"Ignorant fuckstick", eh?
Project much?
Might want to actually have a clue as to what you're talking about next time before you end up sounding like an uneducated dolt.
Again.
Strat
This is not a very good analogy. The main legal purposes for assault rifles are hunting and target shooting.
No.
The main legal purpose of US citizens owning firearms of standard contemporary military infantry firearm capability as the authors of the Constitution intended (which a semi-automatic rifle like the ones erroneously labeled "assault weapons" does not, as it is incapable of full-auto fire) is to give the government pause when (not "if") it considers using force against those citizens.
I have to wonder if anti-gun people these days realize/remember that the NRA was established as a response to the rise of the KKK who were being protected and empowered by southern Democrats who were restricting blacks from owning firearms, right? That it was meant to empower the powerless by getting guns into the hands of southern blacks and allow them to protect themselves and their families against a hostile local government and violence from their KKK buddies, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4n8egXfmJM
It just happens that a firearm is also essential to self defense from other threats, like criminals, and allows for efficient hunting/game population control, as well as provide sport shooting activities. Being one of the protections against tyranny and an essential part of the natural human right to self-defense is it's Constitutional purpose according to those who wrote it.
It's a hedge against government usurpation of citizen's rights and freedoms and a last-ditch, last-resort response to a government out of control. Those wishing to establish a tyranny always disarm the populace first if possible.
I think it unwise to allow a government that has in the past repeatedly swept up innocent US citizens and imprisoned them for their ethnic/national origins and/or political views to further disarm law abiding citizens. The citizens are already massively out-gunned. It's the societal problems brought on by decades under a constantly-more-costly-and-controlling, hugely-bloated, corrupt, and immoral government that causes the violence through destruction of the societal fabric in the first place, not a tool used in some of the violence. Bans only take things away from those who obey laws, not criminals. Bans only hurt the law-abiding and the most vulnerable.
Strat
I say, put their names out there for all to see, and let Anonymous make a bonfire out of their pathetic lives.
I'd say that the fact that these particular individuals are being protected from answering for their actions by these corrupt private and public entities puts all of the individuals in those organizations, private and public, from top to bottom, into the target pool by their own choice in protecting these individuals. The others in those organizations not directly involved are also guilty of passively accepting such injustices by staying silent and continuing to work in and with those corrupt organizations.
Strat
The problem is excess or in this case, who needs a military grade assault weapon?
WTF are you talking about? What military grade assault weapon do you you mean? Lanza did not use any weapons capable of fully-automatic fire. He did not hold down the trigger and spray the place with lead.
An AR15 (the 'AR' stands for Armalite, the maker) is a semi-automatic rifle just like millions of others that have been around and in civilian hands for a century. They stuck a handle on top, and attached some black plastic stocks and foregrips in place of ones made of wood.
You cannot legally buy any fully-automatic weapon made after 1986.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
Fully-automatic weapons made prior to 1986 that are legal are heavily regulated, monitored/tracked, and taxed.
Before you go all gun-ban-y, you should watch this.
Innocents Betrayed: The True Story of Gun Control: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa-lNiIDsFM
What happened in Oz after their gun ban: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5nFFpBcruI
I will never, ever, register or surrender my weapons. If that means going to prison or dying defending my right to self defense and to protect and defend my home, family, fellow man, and property, so be it. Better to die standing than live on your knees.
Strat
How is that a different definition? The correct way to use it would be "I've already spent my per diem." The "for the day" implied by the term itself
To be fair, it's often the case in the real world that a "per diem" payment is calculated and payed out in blocks of time other than one day. I've received per diem payments that were for time periods measured in days, weeks, and months.
I simply received a corporate check for the amount. I could have used it at any rate I wished, whether spending it all the first day or the last day or however I saw fit.
Temporary monthly housing per diem payments for extended-length temporary travel jobs and contract work come to mind as an example.
Strat
My company got to go through such an audit. Our scrupulously anal accountant buried that poor auditor in immaculately cataloged records
That's great that your company can afford to either hire a full-time accountant or contract with an accounting firm. However, it contributes to keeping the bar high for startups and very small businesses.
Of course, to many of the established players in both politics & business, "it's a feature not a bug" as it also tends to minimize competition, slow technology growth, and keep out the "riff-raff" home-based sole-proprietor businesses. Easier for those in power to control and tax a relatively few larger, established businesses than to control and tax a myriad of tiny ones in addition, particularly when the "control" part of "control and tax" is the dominant priority.
Like so many other issues in the news these days it seems, the "solution" is always about increasing government's control over ever more aspects and details of people's lives. All the while confiscating ever more of the people's wealth and crippling their ability to generate it, and simultaneously removing choices, individual freedom, and gradually rendering individual rights, even the basic human rights to speech and arms for defense, things of the past.
But hey, can't have the wrong lizard get in, right? Keep voting (R) and (D) party lines. It's been working out real well.
Strat
It doesn't matter what an organization or person says they are, or how they started.
What!? Of course it matters, particularly when there is a repeating pattern down through history.
That pattern being one of Socialist revolution/takeover, whether peaceful or violent, eventually ending in a totalitarian State with oppression for the people. Socialism does not work except in a few very limited and culturally-unique scenarios, and almost never works out to better conditions for the individual citizen.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
The real ideological battle is between those who believe government should protect and defend the collective interests at the cost of individual rights & freedoms, versus those that believe government should protect and defend the freedoms and interests of the individual.citizen.
Strat
See my reply to quacking duck.
He is, according to history, what I like to call..."wrong".
And so are you.
Crack some history books instead of picking up & regurgitating dis-informational talking points from your favorite Left-wing blog/"news" site.
Strat
The standard defense of such extreme right wing nuts is that the Nazis were called the National Socialist Party. They put far too much weight on the flowery words they used to gain power, not their actions once they had that power. According to their thinking, North Korea must be democratic because it's in their official name.
The point is exactly that they (the NAZI Party) started out aiming for a nationalist/socialist-type society, regardless that it devolved into a semi-Fascist dictatorship. Soviet Russia also started out aiming towards socialism, but ended up remaining mostly communist.
But, they *both* started out with socialism as the goal. Socialist societies throughout history in the real world have almost always collapsed/devolved into one form of totalitarianism or another. With pre-WW2 Germany, it just happened very quickly once Hitler assumed power and had no further use for the socialists.
Just because socialism did not succeed does not eliminate the fact that they were both initially driven into existence by socialist ideology.
Every time I hear the "NAZIs weren't socialists!" meme I shake my head at the depth this falsity has penetrated, even among supposedly "educated" people.
Strat
I love how Hitler is being redefined as part of the Communist/Socialist political spectrum.... if this gains traction, it's time to leave the US.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass.
NAZI = National SOCIALIST Party.
Stalin's Russia = International socialism
Hitler's Germany = Nationalist socialism
Only difference is one is nationalist and one is not.
In any case, the spectrum is not Left/Right.
The spectrum is Anarchy/Totalitarian State, or total freedom vs zero freedom.
There have been and can be totalitarian regimes that are "Left" and also those that are "Right".
"Left" and "Right" are just two flavors of coercive authority that restrict individual freedom.
Strat
There is still the matter of due diligence responsibilities on the part of AT&T to secure the data.
Seems like it's akin to a bank storing stacks of money next to the public sidewalk with nothing but a sign that says "please don't take the money" and prosecuting for bank robbery anybody that takes any of the money.
Sure saves the business a ton on security-related expenses when they can effectively make security measures and security breaches everyone else's responsibility but theirs.
Strat
In 2010, querying a public AT&T database yielded over 114,000 email address for iPad owners who were subscribed to the carrier.
If the database was publicly-accessible, how is it a criminal act, as a member of said "public", to actually access it? That's like a newspaper that accidentally publishes data it considers private and prosecuting readers.
The criminal act was negligence by AT&T. This is simply a distraction and face-saving prosecution to wash AT&T clean of culpability.
Strat
Those machines are also eyewateringly expensive. This machine is actually pretty damn cheap even if all it does is pick and place.
Sorry for the late reply. Those machines were just the quickest example that I could link to. The reason for the expense is because the high industrial/production volume/rates they are built for. Those machines are for high-volume, large-scale production operations in large factories.
People have been able to easily build a pick-&-place type machine like one that loads a standard through-hole printed-circuit board using solenoids/servos/stepper-motors and bog-standard industrial/commercial OTS programmable controllers costing a few hundreds for the past couple of decades now. I know. I've been employed in the past to design and set up PCB-based factory assembly lines. I've built them and machines that perform similar operations while working in the industrial automation field.
Here's some info on PLCs and a pic of a commonly-seen type:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programmable_logic_controller
http://image.made-in-china.com/2f0j00EvGtRwpBaCzS/PLC-Programmable-Logic-Controller-XC3-48-60-.jpg
So, you'll have to excuse my lack of excitement if all that's happened is substituting one type of controller tech for another.
Strat
Yeah, this actually makes me want to donate outside of the bundles. It's great to see an organization that is fighting for the rights of individual citizens instead of companies and the government.
So, you're advocating people lend financial assistance to a "terrorist organization" (EFF having been placed on the double-secret-probation terrorist list by the DoJ/DHS)? Enjoy your stay at Gitmo. /sarc
Seriously though, it would not surprise me in the least to hear in the near future that the DoJ/DHS has labeled the EFF as some sort of terrorism-supporting organization. That's the problem with wars against nebulous and ill-defined groups such as "terrorists". All it takes is redefining/widening what the definition of a "terrorist" and "terrorism" is to label any political opposition as "enemies of the State".
Strat
"Ultimately, the machine will etch traces, apply solder paste, place components, cook, and test. Version 1.0 places components."
FTFY on the quotation marks.
My thinking is why replicate functionality that's been available for many years with V.1.0? There are already machines that do that, that have been around for decades.
Here, take your pick: http://www.wotol.com/product-list?&category_title=auto-insertion-machine&category_ids=1091&page=5
Call me back when he starts a prototype to actually do the etching, soldering, testing, etc that is mentioned.
Strat
So you didn't read what Holder wrote? It's a pretty short letter with small words. I'm sure you can understand it.
And I'm sure he trusts Holder's statement about drones just as thoroughly as you trusted Dick Cheney's statements about Haliburton, and for many of the same reasons.
I'm sure you can understand that.
Strat
Wow, I mean just wow. Your paranoid rantings are worthy of a Kazinsky-style manifesto.
Ah yes, another false-narrative bit of propaganda from Progressives, the laughable idea that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are "extreme" and "radical" and so is anyone that speaks out in their defense. The Constitution is the *norm* and the increasingly more-Progressive/Left the nation has been going and the Progressives and fellow political-travelers that advocate for such are the "extreme" and "radical" ones. Progressives and those on the Left are who wish to grant government powers and control that are not granted to it in a plain-language reading (as it was intentionally written to be read so) of the Constitution.
Well you don't get to decide, SCOTUS does
You are also wrong about the SCOTUS determining what is Constitutional. The SCOTUS interprets what is written in the Constitution and does it's best to make a decision in a case before it that most-closely comports with the intent and meaning of the relevant portion of the Constitution. It does *not* have the power to "find" by some tortured re-interpretation of the meaning of plain words and dodgy extrapolations, new Rights, entitlements, or Federal powers.
But all of this is moot regarding whether, in the end, the SCOTUS determines what is Constitutional. We the People are who makes that determination.
And if, in our collective estimation, Government has gone beyond control and threatens rather than protects our "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"; ...it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Which is the reason for the Second Amendment, and why there is a sudden massive across-the-board push on by the government and the Progressive/Left against civilian gun ownership. The big US economic/monetary collapse (that will either initiate or be initiated by an EU economic/monetary crisis) which is imminent, maybe only a couple of months away, will create the masses of desperate, hungry, and angry people that will provide the excuse to roll out martial law and militarized domestic forces.
Much more difficult to put US citizens in camps (as happened before in the US...*twice* in recent history...in WW1/WW2...both under Progressive POTUSs, btw) when a lot of them are well-armed and you're on *their* home-ground, not yours, regardless of how much more military force you have. If you try to use military muscle, better have lots of replacement troops ready and plenty of body-bags. Vietnam and Afghanistan are examples. If so many civilians in both countries had not been armed the US would have two victories it does not now have.
They may be hoping that they can control/restrict food and energy supplies after the collapse and trade food and heat for turning in firearms. A twisted "Hunger Games" scenario. "Sorry you and your kids are starving and freezing, but we've allowed you all we can for just a .22 revolver three months ago. Don't you know any neighbors you could turn in? Those guns would count towards you and your kids eating and not freezing."
Strat
I know I'll be modded down, but screw it.
Yes, those terrible Conservatives and that stupid old, dusty, ancient Constitution thing, right? Thank goodness the Progressives (who are in BOTH major parties) are here with their "modern" ideas courtesy of Marx & Lenin to provide us with such modern institutions as eugenics (which the Nazis got from Progressives in the US and eventually lead to the Holocaust...nice job guys) in the form of Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood, designed to destroy the family structure, upward mobility, and social fabric of minorities and the poor/disadvantaged along with the entitlement society (working as designed, btw...see: Detroit).
With the US on the cusp of a total takeover by the Progressives, we can look forward to all of the US soon becoming like the Progressive crown-jewel that is Detroit. With warrant-less drone strikes, indefinite detention, nationwide gun bans, and no-probable-cause-or-warrant stop-and-frisks and home searches thrown in for laughs.
Progressivism is an old and failed ideology that's been tried over and over, and failed each and every time Progressives have had political/economic control. They failed miserably and were widely discredited in the 1920s, but they re-branded themselves and are back with the same failed ideology to sell it to a fresh generation that has never been educated in the history of Progressivism.
This time around they learned their lesson, and they made sure they seized control of public education first. An educated & informed populous is Progressives' and any other tyrant's or authoritarian regime's worst enemy.
Strat
So you're saying Eric Holder and other prosecutors are used car salesmen?
Come, walk with me.
Let me take you on a little trip back to '90s TV auto ads and Holder's apparent mentor. Only Holder is even less believable.
Just call him "Joe": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJMq_7alQpU
I'm tempted to ask older people who defend Holder and his testimony if they also bought an Isuzu in the '90s, just out of morbid curiosity.
No wonder we're fucked.
Indeed, as long as everyone remains asleep.
Strat
And it was identified as man less flaying machine...
How in the world did someone manage to launch a lesbian sadist to that altitude?
I think I now understand Janet Napolitano's intense personal interest in the incident, however.
Strat
You're still bound by the laws of physics; you'll only get so much energy out of a projectile while producing a certain amount of recoil.
I suppose you could concentrate the energy into a smaller area by firing a smaller projectile at a higher velocity...
Yes, I'm aware of the limitations imposed by Newton. Still, as you say, a small projectile at hyper-velocity is quite possible. Look at the Barret Arms M107 series of .50-cal semi-automatic rifles.
I also find it curious that my OP was modded "Flamebait". These weapons already exist in experimental form, the discoveries mentioned in TFS will surely be incorporated into them if at all practical/possible. Could it be that someone is afraid they'll get a firearms ban enacted only to find that conventional firearms have become almost obsolete in the face of this new superconductor tech combined with 3D printing, making attempts at controlling who can obtain them futile?
Strat
It is simplistic to think that power transmission is the major application.
If a practical (not requiring extreme/complex/large/heavy systems) superconducting electrical conductor material became commonly available at reasonable costs, count on it being used to make powerful and practical electromagnetic railgun-type rifles/pistols, as well as larger weapons systems whose performance and lethality can far-outstrip similar-class conventional firearms.
Imagine a gunpowder-less fully automatic rifle-like weapon that can make Swiss-cheese of a Bradley FV's armor, take down combat helicopters, etc, with only the snap of the high-velocity projectiles' sonic boom. Or a spec-ops/sniper/assassination gun that fires a larger-caliber (~.45-cal?) sub-sonic projectile with less noise than any normally-silenced/suppressed modern gunpowder-based firearm could.
This is all even more possible if this material (or better ones developed in the near future) can be used to greatly enhance energy storage density/weight/size ratios as well.
It could make for a very flexible weapon, as theoretically, the rate of fire and muzzle velocity could be made adjustable by the user to adapt to a wide range of combat scenarios and target types, amount of charge and/or projectile ammo remaining, etc.
Strat
Airplane engines aren't expensive because they're cheap to make.
Also features like updraft carbs make them shitty car engines from a maintenance standpoint. Fixing that requires changing the heads.
Aircraft engines are more expensive than comparable automobile engines because they must pass numerous certifications and comply with strict regulations in both the design as well as the manufacturing process. Every single step must be documented and referenced back to an FAA-approved procedure for that particular engine documented in an approved manual, thoroughly inspected/tested, and signed-off on by an FAA inspector.
The engine Tucker chose used fuel injection, not carburation. Wikipedia has some information regarding the auto, engine, and Tucker's story. There are also websites that go into more detailed accounts of Tucker, the Tornado, and the history & politics behind his destroyed car company.
Strat
The Tucker? I never did understand how he expected to make a profit selling cars with fucking airplane engines in them.
Sure they have great power and are light, they also cost a fucking fortune. Assume he could have produced them at half cost as he didn't need any FAA paper. He still couldn't have made money.
That said I'd love to put an over-hour airplane engine in my Fiat 850 sport. Perhaps a helicopter turbine.
Well Tucker liked the engine so much, he bought the company. That helped. BTW, the engine was meant for the Bell 47 (the helo that was featured as a med-evac chopper in the TV show M*A*S*H).
Tucker was also going to buy TWO steel plants to supply his car factory and the engine factory to further reduce costs, but the government (at the behest of competing car makers) blocked the acquisition of the steel plants.
Strat
As usual: one rule for the state, and one rule for the peons. They just forgot to add exemptions for their pals in certain industries.
What's so surprising?
Subjects of a totalitarian regime don't have "rights". The very idea is absurd. Recording the actions of those in the regime or their friends, or possessing arms to defend oneself from the regime or their friends, is anathema to a police state, comrade. Freedom is slavery, after all. You are engaging in badthink, which is double-plus ungood.
Please look up for telescreen-equipped government drone facial-recognition ID. Miniluv officers are already on the way to your location.
Strat