If you have 8in accuracy from 1.5miles away no matter the wind you have an effective weapon for a very specialized use outside of that there are not many situations where the weapon can out-compete traditional bullets to justify the cost.
Yep they can do it with a piece of lead, but the thing is, now you take a group of very skilled shooters, whom don't have the skills to hide like a sniper and bang, on target multiple hits from very great distances. or cannon fodder troops with this sort of weapon, sniper get's the laser in the target area and people just keep shooting till they get killed LOL
All for the low low price of $5k per shot. ??? It doesn't actually say how much it costs, but what does it matter? No one questions the defense budget in the US.
All I'm saying is that it's something that we can currently do with a piece of lead.
They are offered and they solicit outside contributions because they must.
They must accept contributions from lobbyists? Why?
Assuming that you can come up with some remotely valid reason for the above, does the biggest contribution not win?
And is that not the same as having a government that is for sale?
I would sooner live in a world where blockbuster films were uneconomical to produce, and therefore simply didn't exist, than one where the internet miracle is smothered.
Goddamned right. Quality films would still be produced. Clerks, for instance, which cost less than $30,000 to make and went on to make 10 times that in the theate... >
Wikipedia:
Clerks, which had been shot for US$27,575 in the convenience store where director Kevin Smith worked in real life, grossed over US$3 million in theaters, launching Smith's career.
I agree. I am learning Japanese. I speak poorly, and I want to be corrected so I can speak well. Not just in grammar but also in accent. People who willfully remain ignorant and reject corrections are silly.
I had a guide in Tokyo who spoke perfect Japanese. Our man in Tokyo. A white fellow from the US. An incredible accomplishment.
Good luck learning Japanese, it's NOT easy.
Since the only way to be safe is to have a special shield so you have to take your card out to use it anyway, it might as well ditch the near field and go back to contact only.
The new technology gains you nothing (it actually cost you the price of the special case) and exposes a lot of people to fraud. (which still costs you since those losses are recouped through fees that show up on the retail price).
I didn't ask for the rfid on my card, they made me take it. I'm not defending it, I'm keeping it in an aluminum case.
While I agree with you, it's "should have," not "should of."
Yes, that irritated me too. There is an acceptable excuse, where English a second language of the writer; in which case he would likely welcome a correction. It seems that that is rarely the case. Most people think that it is their prerogative to write however they please and put the burden of deciphering their gibberish on the reader, rather than learn a few simple rules of grammar.
Naw, I bet it's a script, makes replying useless./. should tag a few parts of the spam so that when posted it receives an error and doesn't successfully post. Even if they just put the restriction in temporarily it should still have the appropriate effect. I'm rather surprised they haven't done that yet.
That never occurred to me, yeah, that would be easy to do.
Hm... When hydrogens separate from oxygens, do they always take their original electron back? Or are we getting a random one out of the, say, two valence electrons the molecule was using previously? If we're possibly getting a different electron, isn't there a constant swap going on in the universe, for perhaps all covalent molecular configuration changes?
That is, atoms reform constantly?
So, the hydrogen and oxygen atoms that make up water could themselves be relatively fresh.
You certainly could look at it that way. IANAP (Physicist) but I think that electrons swap out fairly frequently. Don't we take advantage of that and call it electricity?
So, to qualify further, excepting electrons, which are all over the map, the nuclei of those atoms should be fairly old. I think it takes a bit more persuasion to shake those up.
Anyway, at the end of the day, all the water molecules are fairly new, even if you discount the fickle nature of electrons.
Water is formed from hydrogen and oxygen. It is not inert, it decomposes and reforms constantly. So, no, water molecules are not at least 4.5 billion years old.
The hydrogen and oxygen atoms that make up water, or at least most of them, may well be much older than that. Particularly the hydrogen, which may be over 13 billion years old.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a Linux project for a Kinect driver.
yes we do that, but that is not a web site
Sigh, but it is a social network, and it's only the one I use.
He said "sites", as in "websites", which all rely on the HTTP(S) protocol. IRC is a completely different protocol.
You must be really hurting to correct someone.
Regardless of the magic number in the packet headers, I use IRC as a social network. I don't use FaceBook.
Bought fucking time.
Down at the corner?
It's a good deal.
I don't have a windows os on anything at home, but I have a Kinect.
IRC
If you have 8in accuracy from 1.5miles away no matter the wind you have an effective weapon for a very specialized use outside of that there are not many situations where the weapon can out-compete traditional bullets to justify the cost.
Yes, good use case.
Yep they can do it with a piece of lead, but the thing is, now you take a group of very skilled shooters, whom don't have the skills to hide like a sniper and bang, on target multiple hits from very great distances. or cannon fodder troops with this sort of weapon, sniper get's the laser in the target area and people just keep shooting till they get killed LOL
All for the low low price of $5k per shot. ??? It doesn't actually say how much it costs, but what does it matter? No one questions the defense budget in the US.
All I'm saying is that it's something that we can currently do with a piece of lead.
We have snipers that can do that with pieces of lead.
The only way around that is to ban campaign contributions completely
No it isn't.
They are offered and they solicit outside contributions because they must.
They must accept contributions from lobbyists? Why?
Assuming that you can come up with some remotely valid reason for the above, does the biggest contribution not win?
And is that not the same as having a government that is for sale?
I would sooner live in a world where blockbuster films were uneconomical to produce, and therefore simply didn't exist, than one where the internet miracle is smothered.
Goddamned right. Quality films would still be produced. Clerks, for instance, which cost less than $30,000 to make and went on to make 10 times that in the theate ... >
Wikipedia: Clerks, which had been shot for US$27,575 in the convenience store where director Kevin Smith worked in real life, grossed over US$3 million in theaters, launching Smith's career.
100x
I agree. I am learning Japanese. I speak poorly, and I want to be corrected so I can speak well. Not just in grammar but also in accent. People who willfully remain ignorant and reject corrections are silly.
I had a guide in Tokyo who spoke perfect Japanese. Our man in Tokyo. A white fellow from the US. An incredible accomplishment.
Good luck learning Japanese, it's NOT easy.
Since the only way to be safe is to have a special shield so you have to take your card out to use it anyway, it might as well ditch the near field and go back to contact only.
The new technology gains you nothing (it actually cost you the price of the special case) and exposes a lot of people to fraud. (which still costs you since those losses are recouped through fees that show up on the retail price).
I didn't ask for the rfid on my card, they made me take it. I'm not defending it, I'm keeping it in an aluminum case.
Put them in an aluminium card case, and they won't read.
This is not something people typically do. You cant get the majority to store their cards in faraday cages just because of this.
I have one. I know lots of people who have them.
While I agree with you, it's "should have," not "should of."
Yes, that irritated me too. There is an acceptable excuse, where English a second language of the writer; in which case he would likely welcome a correction. It seems that that is rarely the case. Most people think that it is their prerogative to write however they please and put the burden of deciphering their gibberish on the reader, rather than learn a few simple rules of grammar.
Write once, irritate hundreds of times.
In his greasy yellow slope ass
Guard your watch.
I, for one, found your specific use of language inspirational and appropriate.
Wahahaha!
Me too.
I can't tell if you're a troll or just simple.
After the first sentence, I didn't read it either.
Naw, I bet it's a script, makes replying useless. /. should tag a few parts of the spam so that when posted it receives an error and doesn't successfully post. Even if they just put the restriction in temporarily it should still have the appropriate effect. I'm rather surprised they haven't done that yet.
That never occurred to me, yeah, that would be easy to do.
Obviously we have an asshole of the first order with nothing else to do.
*Rubs fingers together* Can you hear that? I'm playing a song on the worlds smallest ipod.
-> Cry Me a River
I would point out that England has long had it be illegal to engage in communications that are preliminary to serious crimes.
Does there not have to be an actual serious crime in order for something to be deemed preliminary to it?
Hm... When hydrogens separate from oxygens, do they always take their original electron back? Or are we getting a random one out of the, say, two valence electrons the molecule was using previously? If we're possibly getting a different electron, isn't there a constant swap going on in the universe, for perhaps all covalent molecular configuration changes?
That is, atoms reform constantly?
So, the hydrogen and oxygen atoms that make up water could themselves be relatively fresh.
You certainly could look at it that way. IANAP (Physicist) but I think that electrons swap out fairly frequently. Don't we take advantage of that and call it electricity?
So, to qualify further, excepting electrons, which are all over the map, the nuclei of those atoms should be fairly old. I think it takes a bit more persuasion to shake those up.
Anyway, at the end of the day, all the water molecules are fairly new, even if you discount the fickle nature of electrons.
Water is formed from hydrogen and oxygen. It is not inert, it decomposes and reforms constantly. So, no, water molecules are not at least 4.5 billion years old.
The hydrogen and oxygen atoms that make up water, or at least most of them, may well be much older than that. Particularly the hydrogen, which may be over 13 billion years old.