> It could (and some do) fire 9mm or.22 rounds, making them not more powerful than a handgun.
I'm not aware of a rifle that fires 9mm rounds. There are some carbines that do, of course.
The important part here is- *barrel length matters*. The more barrel, the more force you get behind the bullet- the bullet only accelerates inside the barrel, once it leaves it is a ballistic missile. This means that the exact same round can be a LOT more powerful firing out of a rifle barrel than a pistol barrel, and the differences between pistol lengths are also relevant too. It's not unheard of for a rifle to fire the same round 40% faster than a pistol. Same exact round loaded in each.
So no, rifles and carbines are always more powerful than handguns given the same ammunition.
And of course, most rifles fire different and more powerful rounds than pistols anyway. It sounds like the bad guys here were using.223 or 5.56 Nato- this is the same round fired by the AR-15 family, a very popular rifle round for a very broad family of popular rifles.
I bet if I googled for a few hours, I could find some ludicrous correlation. Like, "oh, the size of this molecule, which is in DNA, is similar to a multiple of the wavelength" or some horse shit. The point is that if you find the idea that she can be allergic to radio waves in miniscule flux compelling, then you should find the idea that she's allergic to a certain FREQUENCY compelling too, via the same logic.
And no, no one should tell any of these nocebo sufferers any random bullshit like gamma rays from thunderstorms, or radioactivity from flight, or any other thing. These people are sick enough, and no one knows how to cure them. We need like a shaman to cast a protective blessing on them or some fucking shit. Sell them a crystal with some fun microscopic pattern and claim that because the number of molecules per structure element is a prime number or evenly divides the wavelength in yards or something, that they are protected. They are suffering under a bullshit belief system that they didn't consciously choose. And even if you believe that everyone should be rational enough to not suffer from this shit (again, an unproven correlation, but likely), do you really hold a minor responsible? Her head isn't developed enough to legally drive without supervision or vote, how can you expect her to have deprogrammed herself of the pieces of society that tie into your body in ways we don't even fully understand yet?
Hand out magic crystals or have a priest bless her or a monk say her name under a fountain. I dunno.
- Difficult to conceal - Much more powerful than a gun that isn't a long gun - Much less powerful than crew served weaponry - Not generally capable of projecting explosives at range - Less able to be maneuvered at close range or in buildings - More capable of punching through light cover - Able to fire more powerful rounds, and at longer ranges, than other weapons
The long gun could be a rifle or shotgun. It's not obvious which from long distance glimpses, so to claim it's a "semi automatic rifle" might be wrong- it could be a shotgun.
It's tactically useful, it's descriptive, and unlike bullshit media fuckstick terms, it's *correct*. It's also common parlance among anyone who deals with guns.
I liked it better when he was an idealistic hippie. The idea that one moronic but well meaning CEO was doing bullshit to help people, even if it had long term ruinous consequences, was pleasant.
Now it's just another greedy 0.1%er nomming up cash and playing a good game of sociopathic prisoner's dilemma. Boring. That's so ubiquitous in corporations that it's just a common stereotype in all the netflixes and youtubes. Hell, prolly the redtubes too.
They now appear to be calling them "AR-15" style of weapons. That's much more reasonable, as that's generally considered a type of gun, not just the specific Colt model. It's also not a name that implies that the weapons are fully automatic capable, as "M16" or "AK-47" does, both selective fire weapons. If they are editing for that kind of detail then it wasn't scare-mongering, just a reporter who isn't a gun guy trying to get copy out to people in time.
You can rest assured that these mass murderers, in addition to being willing to kill people (hint: this is against the law!) were ALSO willing, shockingly, to break the law on what guns are allowed for legal ownership in California.
But I know your routine. Everytime something bad happens, you cry and pout and try to rewrite the constitution. It's all politics from the start. So predictable and useless.
"Long gun" is a correct way of referring to them, as is "rifle". "AK-47-type" is fearmongering- everything is an "AK-47-type" if you want it to be. It's like "Assault Weapon"- no meaning at all, just scare words.
Well, studies show that viewing a stove doesn't make your skin itch, but once I put my finger briefly on a hot stove burner and my skin got all red.
Totally different effects. No one is talking about an intense EMF. It's not outside the realm of science that radio waves could mess someone up, but the point is regarding wifi allergies that they are demonstrated to change with the BELIEF about the wifi being present, not the physical thing.
Also it's EMF or EM Field. Unless it really was a field of electromagnetic fields:P
> Studies show that if you put folks that exhibit these symptoms in a room with no wifi, but say there is, they exhibit symptoms. So it's placebo effect, or version thereof.
Studies show you didn't bother to even read my post. Also it would be a nocebo effect. Also that isn't really important in any way- the symptoms are real, after all. The fact that it's belief based is of course true.
Interesting you should pick that as an example. Red light doesn't hurt your night vision as much as multispectrum light, and blue light suppresses melatonin much more than lower energy wavelengths.
Additionally, if you are a photodiode, you could generate energy from the blue, but the red could be below your bandgap.
So their effects are quite similar at heating a black body, but have different effects based on the material absorbing them- and very different effects on the human organism, which uses them as input for certain important biological decisions.
Again- if you are willing to grant that radio waves can cause some effect, it's no leap at all to suppose that the effect would be frequency dependent.
> We're reasonably certain that these so-called Wi-fi "allergies" are completely bogus.
No, we are sure that they are not related to wifi or radio. The symptoms experienced by these people are completely real. If you put them in a room that they believe has active wifi, they will experience symptoms. Put them in a room that they believe does not have active wifi, they will not experience symptoms. Some of the symptoms you can verify the existence of materially. But of course, it has nothing to do with whether there is any goddamned wifi or not.
I completely concur that any number of hypothesized mechanisms could exist that care about frequency, and any number that do not. I don't think the 3G comment was helpful for that reason- it assumes that she "really" thinks she has a "radio allergy" (and omg pls don't spread that meme around or we'll have a bunch more sick with some nocebo disease), and then mocks that. A tribesman might get sick when a witch doctor curses him but not a priest- but it's not because he's pretending or anything, nor is he failing to notice some scientific commonality about religious-wizards or whatever.
Err, hold on. You think the idea of a radio allergy is compelling, but not one of a wifi specific allergy? If you take it on the square, you'd expect that the radio is somehow interacting in a harmful way with the person, but the frequency doesn't matter? Why apply the second condition? I mean, if you had a physical explanation ("the radio waves create small amounts of heat where they wouldn't be, and therefore the frequency doesn't matter within the spectrum of things that are absorbed similarly by the human body"), then you could claim that. But could you really not come up with some imagined reason why the frequency isn't important? Given that all reasons here are imaginary.
Probably dark sarcasm, but to be clear, eugenics is bad. If for no other reason than the definition of the "eu-" changes. "Medieval scientists master genetics, soon to end plague of non-religious thought!"
I mean, they are on different bands. If you think the idea of a wifi allergy is realistic, it wouldn't necessarily extend to all radiation- she's not allergic to 3G, obviously. People who have these nonsense allergies are experiencing real symptoms, they just aren't caused physically by the wifi (or whatever).
> If a baseless accusation of being a John ruins your marriage, you got bigger problems to worry about. I'd recommend you visit a good divorce attorney tomorrow.
Good fucking grief. No, if a baseless accusation of being a John ruins your marriage, you sue for libel.
You understand that there are a lot of people who have a relationship that is ok, but that something like this would make a lot worse, right? And that your moralizing about how their relationship should be perfect or not exist at all wouldn't help that?
(short version- your opponent chooses either "heads then tails" or "tails then heads"- you then flip a coin twice, and if it is heads then heads, or tails then tails, you repeat. You repeat until the two throws return either "heads then tails" or "tails then heads"- this makes a fair coin flip out of a coin that flips heads 9999/10000 times- though you'd be there awhile)
You can't simulate a die roll in software. You need hardware. You can pretend to simulate a die roll in software trivially, but it's not really random.
Your random levels are ROUGHLY:
Shitty pseudorandom- some ghetto thing with just modular math, and you can often see the patterns pop up yourself. Good pseudorandom- you won't see the patterns, but an analysis could. Hardware random or die roll- these are determined when the die is cast, but you lack the information to determine what it will be. Hardware random with quantum effects, such as a beam splitter- legit random, you poll the gods directly.
Slashdot Mirror
Can your incantation do 16 things?
Mozilla didn't do it right. There's no correct way to do ads. Ads are harmful.
But does he KNOW he's an ad?
I'm glad that they learned their lesson. Maybe if Pale Moon starts to be bad ever, I'll consider switching back.
> It could (and some do) fire 9mm or .22 rounds, making them not more powerful than a handgun.
I'm not aware of a rifle that fires 9mm rounds. There are some carbines that do, of course.
The important part here is- *barrel length matters*. The more barrel, the more force you get behind the bullet- the bullet only accelerates inside the barrel, once it leaves it is a ballistic missile. This means that the exact same round can be a LOT more powerful firing out of a rifle barrel than a pistol barrel, and the differences between pistol lengths are also relevant too. It's not unheard of for a rifle to fire the same round 40% faster than a pistol. Same exact round loaded in each.
So no, rifles and carbines are always more powerful than handguns given the same ammunition.
And of course, most rifles fire different and more powerful rounds than pistols anyway. It sounds like the bad guys here were using .223 or 5.56 Nato- this is the same round fired by the AR-15 family, a very popular rifle round for a very broad family of popular rifles.
I bet if I googled for a few hours, I could find some ludicrous correlation. Like, "oh, the size of this molecule, which is in DNA, is similar to a multiple of the wavelength" or some horse shit. The point is that if you find the idea that she can be allergic to radio waves in miniscule flux compelling, then you should find the idea that she's allergic to a certain FREQUENCY compelling too, via the same logic.
And no, no one should tell any of these nocebo sufferers any random bullshit like gamma rays from thunderstorms, or radioactivity from flight, or any other thing. These people are sick enough, and no one knows how to cure them. We need like a shaman to cast a protective blessing on them or some fucking shit. Sell them a crystal with some fun microscopic pattern and claim that because the number of molecules per structure element is a prime number or evenly divides the wavelength in yards or something, that they are protected. They are suffering under a bullshit belief system that they didn't consciously choose. And even if you believe that everyone should be rational enough to not suffer from this shit (again, an unproven correlation, but likely), do you really hold a minor responsible? Her head isn't developed enough to legally drive without supervision or vote, how can you expect her to have deprogrammed herself of the pieces of society that tie into your body in ways we don't even fully understand yet?
Hand out magic crystals or have a priest bless her or a monk say her name under a fountain. I dunno.
Bullshit! A long gun is:
- Difficult to conceal
- Much more powerful than a gun that isn't a long gun
- Much less powerful than crew served weaponry
- Not generally capable of projecting explosives at range
- Less able to be maneuvered at close range or in buildings
- More capable of punching through light cover
- Able to fire more powerful rounds, and at longer ranges, than other weapons
The long gun could be a rifle or shotgun. It's not obvious which from long distance glimpses, so to claim it's a "semi automatic rifle" might be wrong- it could be a shotgun.
It's tactically useful, it's descriptive, and unlike bullshit media fuckstick terms, it's *correct*. It's also common parlance among anyone who deals with guns.
I liked it better when he was an idealistic hippie. The idea that one moronic but well meaning CEO was doing bullshit to help people, even if it had long term ruinous consequences, was pleasant.
Now it's just another greedy 0.1%er nomming up cash and playing a good game of sociopathic prisoner's dilemma. Boring. That's so ubiquitous in corporations that it's just a common stereotype in all the netflixes and youtubes. Hell, prolly the redtubes too.
They now appear to be calling them "AR-15" style of weapons. That's much more reasonable, as that's generally considered a type of gun, not just the specific Colt model. It's also not a name that implies that the weapons are fully automatic capable, as "M16" or "AK-47" does, both selective fire weapons. If they are editing for that kind of detail then it wasn't scare-mongering, just a reporter who isn't a gun guy trying to get copy out to people in time.
Lol. "Sensible speech control". This is going places.
I think we need more guns. If everyone there had had a gun, things could have gone differently.
Note well: California has gun laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You can rest assured that these mass murderers, in addition to being willing to kill people (hint: this is against the law!) were ALSO willing, shockingly, to break the law on what guns are allowed for legal ownership in California.
But I know your routine. Everytime something bad happens, you cry and pout and try to rewrite the constitution. It's all politics from the start. So predictable and useless.
"Long gun" is a correct way of referring to them, as is "rifle". "AK-47-type" is fearmongering- everything is an "AK-47-type" if you want it to be. It's like "Assault Weapon"- no meaning at all, just scare words.
> an intense EMF field
Well, studies show that viewing a stove doesn't make your skin itch, but once I put my finger briefly on a hot stove burner and my skin got all red.
Totally different effects. No one is talking about an intense EMF. It's not outside the realm of science that radio waves could mess someone up, but the point is regarding wifi allergies that they are demonstrated to change with the BELIEF about the wifi being present, not the physical thing.
Also it's EMF or EM Field. Unless it really was a field of electromagnetic fields :P
> Studies show that if you put folks that exhibit these symptoms in a room with no wifi, but say there is, they exhibit symptoms. So it's placebo effect, or version thereof.
Studies show you didn't bother to even read my post. Also it would be a nocebo effect. Also that isn't really important in any way- the symptoms are real, after all. The fact that it's belief based is of course true.
Interesting you should pick that as an example. Red light doesn't hurt your night vision as much as multispectrum light, and blue light suppresses melatonin much more than lower energy wavelengths.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
Additionally, if you are a photodiode, you could generate energy from the blue, but the red could be below your bandgap.
So their effects are quite similar at heating a black body, but have different effects based on the material absorbing them- and very different effects on the human organism, which uses them as input for certain important biological decisions.
Again- if you are willing to grant that radio waves can cause some effect, it's no leap at all to suppose that the effect would be frequency dependent.
> We're reasonably certain that these so-called Wi-fi "allergies" are completely bogus.
No, we are sure that they are not related to wifi or radio. The symptoms experienced by these people are completely real. If you put them in a room that they believe has active wifi, they will experience symptoms. Put them in a room that they believe does not have active wifi, they will not experience symptoms. Some of the symptoms you can verify the existence of materially. But of course, it has nothing to do with whether there is any goddamned wifi or not.
I completely concur that any number of hypothesized mechanisms could exist that care about frequency, and any number that do not. I don't think the 3G comment was helpful for that reason- it assumes that she "really" thinks she has a "radio allergy" (and omg pls don't spread that meme around or we'll have a bunch more sick with some nocebo disease), and then mocks that. A tribesman might get sick when a witch doctor curses him but not a priest- but it's not because he's pretending or anything, nor is he failing to notice some scientific commonality about religious-wizards or whatever.
Err, hold on. You think the idea of a radio allergy is compelling, but not one of a wifi specific allergy? If you take it on the square, you'd expect that the radio is somehow interacting in a harmful way with the person, but the frequency doesn't matter? Why apply the second condition? I mean, if you had a physical explanation ("the radio waves create small amounts of heat where they wouldn't be, and therefore the frequency doesn't matter within the spectrum of things that are absorbed similarly by the human body"), then you could claim that. But could you really not come up with some imagined reason why the frequency isn't important? Given that all reasons here are imaginary.
I dunno, they seem different enough to any device created to distinguish them.
Probably dark sarcasm, but to be clear, eugenics is bad. If for no other reason than the definition of the "eu-" changes. "Medieval scientists master genetics, soon to end plague of non-religious thought!"
I mean, they are on different bands. If you think the idea of a wifi allergy is realistic, it wouldn't necessarily extend to all radiation- she's not allergic to 3G, obviously. People who have these nonsense allergies are experiencing real symptoms, they just aren't caused physically by the wifi (or whatever).
> If a baseless accusation of being a John ruins your marriage, you got bigger problems to worry about. I'd recommend you visit a good divorce attorney tomorrow.
Good fucking grief. No, if a baseless accusation of being a John ruins your marriage, you sue for libel.
You understand that there are a lot of people who have a relationship that is ok, but that something like this would make a lot worse, right? And that your moralizing about how their relationship should be perfect or not exist at all wouldn't help that?
This whole thing is ludicrous.
Well, it isn't fair, but it's not too far off from it.
The ranges from 0 to 15 (mapping from 1 to 16) appear 3277 times.
The ranges from 16 to 19 (mapping from 17 to 20) appear 3276 times.
This means that your average roll is not the desired 10.5, but instead... 10.49951.
If you cared, you could eliminate any initial result greater than or equal to 65520, rerolling it.
I think the real issue is, if you care that much, you should not just be calling rand or whatever.
I mean, there's several open source email clients. Thunderbird is valuable, but it's assuredly not the only one.
I hope he does it, but in the meantime, use a fair coin flip, or both roll the same die.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
(short version- your opponent chooses either "heads then tails" or "tails then heads"- you then flip a coin twice, and if it is heads then heads, or tails then tails, you repeat. You repeat until the two throws return either "heads then tails" or "tails then heads"- this makes a fair coin flip out of a coin that flips heads 9999/10000 times- though you'd be there awhile)
You can't simulate a die roll in software. You need hardware. You can pretend to simulate a die roll in software trivially, but it's not really random.
Your random levels are ROUGHLY:
Shitty pseudorandom- some ghetto thing with just modular math, and you can often see the patterns pop up yourself.
Good pseudorandom- you won't see the patterns, but an analysis could.
Hardware random or die roll- these are determined when the die is cast, but you lack the information to determine what it will be.
Hardware random with quantum effects, such as a beam splitter- legit random, you poll the gods directly.