Also, you'd be surprised by the effective range for some loads of shot.
If you look at a magnum load of 00 shot, you can get in the ballpark of 1450 feet per second (fps) at the muzzle (depending on barrel length, etc.).
That works out to 1025 fps at 75 yards (at normal atmospheric conditions). 1025 fps 00 buckshot will penetrate 12" in 10% gel. That's pretty fatal. Of course, the spread at 75 yards is comical, so it would make for a piss-poor choice of combat weapon.
Slugs, though, will be deadly at much longer ranges. Granted, most shotguns and ammunition types are not well-suited to targets beyond 50 yards (and no, you don't need to aim "really, really high"; on the order of 4" drop at that range), but it's not unusual to see setups that are capable of reliable kills out to 200 yards.
Your perception of buckshot is dangerously at odds with reality, and I seriously hope it doesn't inform your notion of shooting safety.
That combat in Vietnam (heavy vegetation) rarely approached the limits of effective combat range for rifles (500-1000 yards, highly dependent on cartridge) isn't really relevant. Under 50 meters, you're looking at effective combat range for shotguns.
You know America's going down the tubes when a mob of homeless and unemployed attacks a bus full of people perceived to be rich.
I mean, I understand this is a corporate bus, not AC Transit or something, but still. I thought buses were supposed to be the universal symbol of poverty. The real tragedy here was that epic beard man wasn't around to save the day.
So you're making $45.67 an hour. Woo! Big time money now. But Uncle Sam just showed up, and he wants his cut. Your biweekly was $1,826.80.
$1,826.80 / $45.67/hour = 40hours
Most software engineers work full time, which constitutes more than 40 hours of work in a biweekly pay period. Generally speaking, full time usually starts at 80 hours per biweekly pay period.
TL;DR: Double that $688.36 per week, because you fail at basic math.
Another thing I like about Cubans is they hate socialism (mainly because they've lived it and have seen first hand what it does.)
Sampling bias. See, there's this weird discrepancy between Cuban-Americans' perception of socialism in Cuba and the perception of those Cubans that still live there. Of course, many would say that this is solely due to the oppressive regime in place there which prevents Cubans from speaking critically of their government. Some, however, would say that the Cubans that fled to the United States do not constitute a representative cross-section of Cuban society. That they were targeted by the government for their exploitation of the working class, their wealth was confiscated by the state, and they fled the country bitter that their long run of abusing the poor had ended. Of course, that accusation will get your ass kicked, because no Cuban-American can tolerate being called greedy or bitter. They prefer to be called champions of capitalism.
You agree that life has no objective value, but disagree that the question "what value does life have?" is meaningless?
What value do we get from not nuking the planet to oblivion? If everyone is dead, there are no investors to worry about, and no bills to pay. What value is there in prolonging the existence of the human race beyond this very instant?
That's an interesting philosophical question. I believe the answer is loosely coupled with the answer to the question "What value does life have?"
In some sense, there is no objective value. However, there are those that find subjective value in the feeling of satisfaction that might accompany knowledge of the fact that the human race is working to move beyond the single point of failure that is the Earth.
Why am I not surprised that your line of questioning has left us exploring the most basic of philosophical questions, far removed from anything that actually means anything to anyone? You have a very low UID for such a young child. In hindsight, I think I would've been less aggravated with incessant repetition of "Why?"
Humans are getting ready to live on the cool stuff. The value in living on it is the extension of the human race's lifespan beyond that of its current host planet and expanding the pool of available [energy] resources beyond those found here on Earth.
Despite the feeling that I'm talking to a five year old stuck in the "Why? Why? Why?" phase, I'll try to address this one as well.
Propel vehicles from Earth orbit or from an Earth-Moon Lagrangian point to remote locations in the solar system for the purpose of sustaining the life functions of astronauts while they travel. Humans are in space because there's cool stuff there.
If you ask me why humans need vehicles or why there's cool stuff in space, I'm going to really wish I could reach through my monitor and severely beat you about the face and neck.
The reason that we haven't advanced space travel much in the past 30 years is because it's actually not really solvable without some huge leap in technology, such as anti-gravity drives or space elevators, which are all science fiction at the moment.
It's science fiction not because we don't understand the physics. Not because we can't solve the engineering hurdles. It's science fiction solely because we lack the political and financial will to make it happen.
Let's think for a second. How is it that planets of different mass orbit the same sun? How can it be that nearby planets are small (Mercury), moderately distant planets are large (Jupiter), and distant planet[oid]s are small (Pluto)? How is it that asteroids orbit both near (asteroid belt) and far (kuiper belt)? There seems to be no consistent requirement for orbital distance as a function of orbital mass.
Indeed! It turns out, if you were to make half of the moon's mass simply disappear, the moon's orbit wouldn't really change. See, the gravitational attraction between a planet and its moon is directly proportional to that moon's mass. Additionally, the momentum of the moon is proportional to that moon's mass as well. That means that when you vanish half of the moon, you halve both the force exerted on the moon by gravity but also the required force to adjust its momentum to keep it in orbit. That is, it all just works out.
More important, though, is to remember the scale we're talking about. The moon really is quite large. Even if we mined a lot of water from it (there's really not that much to mine, as far as we know), an amount equal to all the water here on Earth, we'd be changing the moon's mass by 1.9%. The impact on terrestrial tides would be virtually immeasurable. An earlier post of mine examines this in more detail. The tidal acceleration we experience because of the moon is around 1.1E-7 g, which is quite small. In fact, the tidal acceleration we experience because of the sun is about 45% of that (0.52E-7 g). A 1.9% decrease in the moon's mass (an extreme worst-case scenario) would result in the moon's tidal acceleration being reduced to 1.08E-7 g, a change of 2.09E-9 g. Since apparent gravity varies up to 0.5% across different locations on the surface of the Earth, it's safe to say that even extreme mining of the moon won't have any measurable effect on Earth.
All those materials (water) you mine on the moon (not in space) would be used for fuel to propel vehicles, water and air to keep humans alive, and radiation shielding. I thought that was sufficiently obvious.
I fear that you are the typical single neuron voter.
Uncalled for. Concerns for expediency are no less valid than concerns for freedom.
While I personally sympathize with Stallman's stance on these issues, I recognize that different people value different things differently. While you may believe freedom to be of utmost importance, that is a subjective belief. It can not be objectively demonstrated that freedom is worth sacrificing expediency for.
In other words, yea, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
In many ways, computational capacity is our most valuable resource. Today, a truly staggering amount of this resource is being allocated to... bitcoin. Not curing cancer. Not figuring out how to get off this rock. Mining BTC.
I'm not suggesting that paypal or some other commercial entity ought to have brought a decentralized currency to market. I only brought them up because they too facilitate lots of financial transactions of a digital variety. While I understand that their service is nothing like what is offered by bitcoin in many ways, in the end, the practical effect is the same. Money goes from person A to person B. Paypal accomplishes this with but a tiny fraction of the computational power that bitcoin requires (even for transaction processing). In that sense, paypal's service is incredibly more efficient than that available through bitcoin. Of course, there are trade-offs (decentralization, pseudonymity, etc.), but I'm talking specifically about efficiency. Is decentralization and pseudonymity in digital financial transactions really worth this much computational cost? I think this is a legitimate question, and I expect a full range of different answers. After all, some people value decentralization and pseudonymity a lot more than others do. Some people value efficient utilization of our most valuable resource more than others. It's subjective, but it's a conversation worth having.
Regarding the surge in interest in bitcoin and the resulting advances in computing hardware, I'm not sure if I buy into that. It's not like we're seeing new semiconductor fabrication technologies coming out of this. No breakthroughs in semiconductor physics either. Really, we haven't even seen anything new in terms of computer engineering. There's really not much value in a bunch of guys implementing SHA256 in logic gates, since nothing truly new is being created. The algorithm is understood, and it's really no feat to go from there to an ASIC. When the mining craze dies down, it's not like these ASICs will be repurposed for something else; they're called application-specific integrated circuits for a reason.
My insurance company wouldn't be paying out if the fault lies with the driver who rear-ends me. The other driver's liability insurance would be the source of my windfall, leaving my own insurance rates intact. Of course, this all hinges upon Ravaldy's original claim that liability always, with no excuses or exceptions, falls on the rear driver.
In any case, I think we agree that this would be both immoral and stupid. The issue, however, is whether or not the law promotes such immoral and stupid choices. If there is indeed a standard of strict liability as Ravaldy claims, and the law actually does rest the blame entirely on the rear driver regardless of actions undertaken by the front driver, then this immoral and stupid choice is in practice promoted by legislation. Conversely, if Ravaldy's claim is false, then there may indeed be some semblance of reason in our legal code.
Being ignorant of the law itself, I'd have to guess that Ravaldy is probably spot on. A rational legal code is not something I'd expect to find in these United States.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you be using shot if you're in combat?
Also, you'd be surprised by the effective range for some loads of shot.
If you look at a magnum load of 00 shot, you can get in the ballpark of 1450 feet per second (fps) at the muzzle (depending on barrel length, etc.).
That works out to 1025 fps at 75 yards (at normal atmospheric conditions). 1025 fps 00 buckshot will penetrate 12" in 10% gel. That's pretty fatal. Of course, the spread at 75 yards is comical, so it would make for a piss-poor choice of combat weapon.
Slugs, though, will be deadly at much longer ranges. Granted, most shotguns and ammunition types are not well-suited to targets beyond 50 yards (and no, you don't need to aim "really, really high"; on the order of 4" drop at that range), but it's not unusual to see setups that are capable of reliable kills out to 200 yards.
Your perception of buckshot is dangerously at odds with reality, and I seriously hope it doesn't inform your notion of shooting safety.
That combat in Vietnam (heavy vegetation) rarely approached the limits of effective combat range for rifles (500-1000 yards, highly dependent on cartridge) isn't really relevant. Under 50 meters, you're looking at effective combat range for shotguns.
I think that in reality you'll find that the fine is much closer to $0 for most acts of copyright infringement.
No, no. You've got it all wrong. He thinks probably.
Have you tried The Pirate Bay? I hear web browsers and bittorrent clients run fine under Linux.
Joquain
Because Central Cali would be too easy to pronounce?
You know America's going down the tubes when a mob of homeless and unemployed attacks a bus full of people perceived to be rich.
I mean, I understand this is a corporate bus, not AC Transit or something, but still. I thought buses were supposed to be the universal symbol of poverty. The real tragedy here was that epic beard man wasn't around to save the day.
Translation: Fuck you, I got mine.
So you're making $45.67 an hour. Woo! Big time money now. But Uncle Sam just showed up, and he wants his cut. Your biweekly was $1,826.80.
$1,826.80 / $45.67/hour = 40hours
Most software engineers work full time, which constitutes more than 40 hours of work in a biweekly pay period. Generally speaking, full time usually starts at 80 hours per biweekly pay period.
TL;DR: Double that $688.36 per week, because you fail at basic math.
Another thing I like about Cubans is they hate socialism (mainly because they've lived it and have seen first hand what it does.)
Sampling bias. See, there's this weird discrepancy between Cuban-Americans' perception of socialism in Cuba and the perception of those Cubans that still live there. Of course, many would say that this is solely due to the oppressive regime in place there which prevents Cubans from speaking critically of their government. Some, however, would say that the Cubans that fled to the United States do not constitute a representative cross-section of Cuban society. That they were targeted by the government for their exploitation of the working class, their wealth was confiscated by the state, and they fled the country bitter that their long run of abusing the poor had ended. Of course, that accusation will get your ass kicked, because no Cuban-American can tolerate being called greedy or bitter. They prefer to be called champions of capitalism.
You agree that life has no objective value, but disagree that the question "what value does life have?" is meaningless?
What value do we get from not nuking the planet to oblivion? If everyone is dead, there are no investors to worry about, and no bills to pay. What value is there in prolonging the existence of the human race beyond this very instant?
That's an interesting philosophical question. I believe the answer is loosely coupled with the answer to the question "What value does life have?"
In some sense, there is no objective value. However, there are those that find subjective value in the feeling of satisfaction that might accompany knowledge of the fact that the human race is working to move beyond the single point of failure that is the Earth.
Why am I not surprised that your line of questioning has left us exploring the most basic of philosophical questions, far removed from anything that actually means anything to anyone? You have a very low UID for such a young child. In hindsight, I think I would've been less aggravated with incessant repetition of "Why?"
Humans are getting ready to live on the cool stuff. The value in living on it is the extension of the human race's lifespan beyond that of its current host planet and expanding the pool of available [energy] resources beyond those found here on Earth.
Despite the feeling that I'm talking to a five year old stuck in the "Why? Why? Why?" phase, I'll try to address this one as well.
Propel vehicles from Earth orbit or from an Earth-Moon Lagrangian point to remote locations in the solar system for the purpose of sustaining the life functions of astronauts while they travel. Humans are in space because there's cool stuff there.
If you ask me why humans need vehicles or why there's cool stuff in space, I'm going to really wish I could reach through my monitor and severely beat you about the face and neck.
Best. Retort. Ever.
The reason that we haven't advanced space travel much in the past 30 years is because it's actually not really solvable without some huge leap in technology, such as anti-gravity drives or space elevators, which are all science fiction at the moment.
Bull fucking shit.
Project Orion could have been built in the 1960s.
A lunar space elevator could have been built in the 1970s.
It's science fiction not because we don't understand the physics. Not because we can't solve the engineering hurdles. It's science fiction solely because we lack the political and financial will to make it happen.
Let's think for a second. How is it that planets of different mass orbit the same sun? How can it be that nearby planets are small (Mercury), moderately distant planets are large (Jupiter), and distant planet[oid]s are small (Pluto)? How is it that asteroids orbit both near (asteroid belt) and far (kuiper belt)? There seems to be no consistent requirement for orbital distance as a function of orbital mass.
Indeed! It turns out, if you were to make half of the moon's mass simply disappear, the moon's orbit wouldn't really change. See, the gravitational attraction between a planet and its moon is directly proportional to that moon's mass. Additionally, the momentum of the moon is proportional to that moon's mass as well. That means that when you vanish half of the moon, you halve both the force exerted on the moon by gravity but also the required force to adjust its momentum to keep it in orbit. That is, it all just works out.
More important, though, is to remember the scale we're talking about. The moon really is quite large. Even if we mined a lot of water from it (there's really not that much to mine, as far as we know), an amount equal to all the water here on Earth, we'd be changing the moon's mass by 1.9%. The impact on terrestrial tides would be virtually immeasurable. An earlier post of mine examines this in more detail. The tidal acceleration we experience because of the moon is around 1.1E-7 g, which is quite small. In fact, the tidal acceleration we experience because of the sun is about 45% of that (0.52E-7 g). A 1.9% decrease in the moon's mass (an extreme worst-case scenario) would result in the moon's tidal acceleration being reduced to 1.08E-7 g, a change of 2.09E-9 g. Since apparent gravity varies up to 0.5% across different locations on the surface of the Earth, it's safe to say that even extreme mining of the moon won't have any measurable effect on Earth.
All those materials (water) you mine on the moon (not in space) would be used for fuel to propel vehicles, water and air to keep humans alive, and radiation shielding. I thought that was sufficiently obvious.
You just brought back some awesome memories. Jill of the Jungle!!
It can not be objectively demonstrated that freedom is worth sacrificing expediency for.
Grammar FTW.
I fear that you are the typical single neuron voter.
Uncalled for. Concerns for expediency are no less valid than concerns for freedom.
While I personally sympathize with Stallman's stance on these issues, I recognize that different people value different things differently. While you may believe freedom to be of utmost importance, that is a subjective belief. It can not be objectively demonstrated that freedom is worth sacrificing expediency for.
In other words, yea, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
In many ways, computational capacity is our most valuable resource. Today, a truly staggering amount of this resource is being allocated to... bitcoin. Not curing cancer. Not figuring out how to get off this rock. Mining BTC.
I'm not suggesting that paypal or some other commercial entity ought to have brought a decentralized currency to market. I only brought them up because they too facilitate lots of financial transactions of a digital variety. While I understand that their service is nothing like what is offered by bitcoin in many ways, in the end, the practical effect is the same. Money goes from person A to person B. Paypal accomplishes this with but a tiny fraction of the computational power that bitcoin requires (even for transaction processing). In that sense, paypal's service is incredibly more efficient than that available through bitcoin. Of course, there are trade-offs (decentralization, pseudonymity, etc.), but I'm talking specifically about efficiency. Is decentralization and pseudonymity in digital financial transactions really worth this much computational cost? I think this is a legitimate question, and I expect a full range of different answers. After all, some people value decentralization and pseudonymity a lot more than others do. Some people value efficient utilization of our most valuable resource more than others. It's subjective, but it's a conversation worth having.
Regarding the surge in interest in bitcoin and the resulting advances in computing hardware, I'm not sure if I buy into that. It's not like we're seeing new semiconductor fabrication technologies coming out of this. No breakthroughs in semiconductor physics either. Really, we haven't even seen anything new in terms of computer engineering. There's really not much value in a bunch of guys implementing SHA256 in logic gates, since nothing truly new is being created. The algorithm is understood, and it's really no feat to go from there to an ASIC. When the mining craze dies down, it's not like these ASICs will be repurposed for something else; they're called application-specific integrated circuits for a reason.
So I've got to ask... why were you clicking on advertisements?!
I'm seriously in love with your sig. Thank you for making the interwebs a better place.
My insurance company wouldn't be paying out if the fault lies with the driver who rear-ends me. The other driver's liability insurance would be the source of my windfall, leaving my own insurance rates intact. Of course, this all hinges upon Ravaldy's original claim that liability always, with no excuses or exceptions, falls on the rear driver.
In any case, I think we agree that this would be both immoral and stupid. The issue, however, is whether or not the law promotes such immoral and stupid choices. If there is indeed a standard of strict liability as Ravaldy claims, and the law actually does rest the blame entirely on the rear driver regardless of actions undertaken by the front driver, then this immoral and stupid choice is in practice promoted by legislation. Conversely, if Ravaldy's claim is false, then there may indeed be some semblance of reason in our legal code.
Being ignorant of the law itself, I'd have to guess that Ravaldy is probably spot on. A rational legal code is not something I'd expect to find in these United States.