If somebody wants to harm you or your family specifically, why would they invade your house that way? Why can't they toss a few Molotov cocktails through your windows, and then shoot you with a rifle when you guys run out of the house? What if they just just monitor your routine and get you in a drive-by shooting when you exit your workplace at the same exit as you always do?
This is again a fantasy scenario. You're assuming a situation where the attacker does exactly what he would have to do in order for you to get the opportunity to successfully use your gun to defend yourself.
You keep dismissing this as a "fantasy scenario"--but it actually happens. Read up on it a bit. Look at all of the people found dead in their homes during attempted robberies, look at how many women wind up raped in their own homes. We're not making this stuff up. Home invasions happen. Ones targeted specifically to hurt people happen happen for a reason--there are fewer witnesses around, it attracts less attention (vs arson, for example, or a hit in a public place), and it's more intimidating (the "we can hit you anywhere" factor). Others are intended to rape or assault, where the attacker has already decided to use force.
And, people actually do use their guns to defend themselves during break-ins. It happens every day. It doesn't normally make the news, though, because most of the time the criminal flees at the first sign of resistance from his intended victim. Most uses of guns for self-defense don't even involve shots being fired--mere display of them is enough to end the encounter.
If you're a threatening target, you're putting your attacker in a situation where he needs to use lethal force in order to survive. I.e., you've escalated the situation into one where one of you will likely get killed.
No, he has already escalated the situation to one where you stand a good chance of being killed. Resisting with a gun makes your odds of dying less, and makes his much greater. The myth that criminals won't hurt you if you just comply with them is the real fantasy; fast, effective resistance gives you your best shot at survival.
Note that this doesn't assume that the situation of the unarmed person is a safe one; it is extremely risky. The crucial question here is whether the gun makes you any safer, which it is not at all clear it does. It gives you a shot (literally) at ending the risk to you right away, but it also puts you at a greater risk of being killed.
No it doesn't! Studies repeatedly and conclusively show that your chances of being injured or killed are lower if you resist with a gun than resisting by any other means, or not at all. These include studies by European governments and law enforcement agencies--hardly big proponents of private firearms ownership. Further, interviews of convicted criminals show that their greatest fear is generally an armed and resisting victim.
Unless the other guy kills you to stop you from shooting him
He's more likely to kill you if you don't do anything at all.
And we're trying to do it on a budget, rather than spending lots of money.
The problem is that skimping on funds now means the overall cost is going to wind up higher. Look at what happened with the space shuttle--they tried to cut development costs by getting the air force on board and moving to an easier-to-develop design... which wound up costing $500 million a flight because of all the support costs for their less-robust and easier-to-develop design.
Fighting poverty would be a lot cheaper and better for everyone than fighting its symptoms
FTFY.
An overall policy of fighting/solving poverty will solve things long-term. But fighting poverty in the big picture doesn't help the guys on the ship being attacked by pirates. They need something to protect themselves, and they need it right now.
To make a bad analogy, let's say piracy is a disease, like cholera--generally spawned and spread by certain social conditions. Cholera is bad, but it can be largely prevented with the proper measures (good sanitation, clean drinking water, etc). What you're advocating (helping desperate people in bad conditions) is like implementing a program to clean up water supplies and teach people hygiene. That's a good thing, don't get me wrong. But clean water and proper hygiene don't help the guy with cholera who's literally shitting himself to death. He needs to deal with the symptoms and drink a lot of water/electrolytes, and take antibiotics to kill the disease posing an immediate threat to his life. Similarly, aid programs and anti-poverty efforts don't help the sailors on the ships being attacked or boarded by pirates. They need a more immediate solution.
These burglaries are uncommon compared to those where the house is not occupied. Having a gun at home optimizes for the uncommon risk; the rest of the time (which will more likely be all of the time), you have to bear the risks of having a gun in the home.
The risks of accidents or access by children are easily mitigated by safe handling and proper storage techniques. Gun safety is actually very simple.
A burglar who knowingly targets an occupied residence has larger commitment at using violence to get his way than his victims, and also more experience and skill at doing so. He has chosen the time and place for the act, and has the initiative. The victim is at a disadvantage in such a situation; and the gun escalates it to a lethal one.
So you're better off just letting him do whatever he wants to you? Don't fight back because it might make him mad? Sorry, that theory just doesn't hold water. A deliberate home invasion by someone prepared to commit violence is already escalated to a potentially lethal situation--and those who deliberately invade occupied homes are generally already prepared use lethal force. Those just looking for a smash-n-grab will usually flee once they realize someone is home.
Being armed and having a means to defend yourself increases your chances of survival. Choosing not to resist doesn't "keep the situation from escalating"; rather, it places your life entirely at the mercy of the criminal, who has already shown how much respect he has for it. Plus, a criminal may commit to using violence for material gain, but a victim fighting back is fighting for his life. That's a bigger commitment. And if I'm going to go down anyway, I want to go down fighting, not cowering in the corner.
The problem is that all of these "defend my family and home from an attacker" scenarios used to justify gun ownership systematically assume the best circumstances to justify gun ownership. They assume:
1. that the resident is peaceful and not prone to turn the gun against the family in a moment of passion;
That's actually a very good assumption. The overwhelming majority of the population, gun-owning or not, does not snap and attempt to kill his or her family in mere fits of anger. Those who are prone to lashing out violently have usually already gotten themselves in trouble before, by way of other acts of violence (fights, etc.). Many anti-gun people have the mistaken belief that all gun owners are just ticking time bombs waiting to go off on a hair-trigger, and that just isn't the case. After all, would you just turn on your family and kill them because you're momentarily pissed off? I didn't think so. So why do you expect everyone else will?
2. that the gun is well-secured in a gun safe at all times, but yet instantaneously available when needed;
Guns do not necessarily have to be in a safe to be well-secured when the owner is home. Many people take the guns out while home and leave them in a known spot (by the bed or on the nightstand if no children are around, or in a holster on the hip, etc), and secure them in a safe while away. There are also many quick-release safes on the market that can be opened in a second or two (example). It's not hard.
3. that the burglary will happen while the gun-owner is at home;
But it still does happen. I don't feel like gambling my life by simply hoping it won't. You don't plan on getting in a car accident, yet you still wear your seatbelt, right? Besides, the attacks that happen when somebody's home are the ones that put lives at risk, and that is the first concern. Not property. I'll take the slight risk that my guns will be stolen for the advantage they give me when I'm home.
4. that the gun-owner will correctly assess the developing situation quic
The gun then just serves two functions: One more thing for the burglars to steal.
That's why you secure it in a proper safe. It won't stop a determined thief with the proper equipment and lots of time on his hands, but it will be enough trouble to deter 99+% of burglars.
A useful tool for household suicide or homicide.
Those aren't by any means the "only" functions. Apparently you've bought into Kellerman's repeatedly-discredited "study" (that even the author later admitted was deeply flawed and biased).
Fortified, well-lit entries and good, posted alarm systems are good deterrents; make the house too much trouble and he'll go elsewhere. Most criminals breaking into houses simply to make off with expensive but easy-to-grab items won't hit an occupied house, and are relatively easily deterred by the above methods. But it's the criminals who specifically target occupied residences, either because they're after something more valuable or they wish to harm said occupants, that are the concern. Notifying the police even as soon as they enter the house isn't going to help the occupants--unless they're incredibly lucky and the officer just happens to be driving down their street, it will take at least a couple minutes for them to arrive. In that situation, where there's an intruder in the house, the homeowner's only viable defense is to be armed. I've listened to too many 911 tapes of home invasions where the residents are completely defenseless and end up hurt or killed because the police arrived too late (if at all) to think that they'll get there in time.
That is what the gun at home is useful for--stopping an active home invader who means to harm you or your family. It's the most effective and reliable means of doing so. There's a reason the home invasion rate in the US is so much lower than it is in the UK.
Who the hell modded this insightful? While parent seems to have an understanding of what it means, the light-year is an internationally-accepted unit of length. Everybody knows what it means. His pedantic rephrasing of it is redundant, if that...
1. The Soviets already had working, deployed ABM technology decades ago. So did the US. Trick is, those were terminal-phase interceptors with nuclear warheads. SDI sought to produce space-based boost-phase interception systems.
2. The effectiveness of chaff and decoys on terminal-phase interception systems is highly overrated. Chaff is only good for obscuring radar returns, and can easily be sorted out with infrared sensors. It also decelerates much faster in atmosphere than a warhead. Decoys are a little better, but not much; in order for them to be effective and not easily separated from real warheads, you need to match the thermal and radar signatures of a real warhead (meaning you need to approximate the heat signature, shape, and materials of a warhead) and have comparable ballistics to a warhead (so if your shape and size are about the same per the first requirement, you need about the same mass). At that point, you're lugging around something the size, shape, and mass of a warhead... might as well carry a real one and stop wasting space.
Even a degree from a "physical" school is hardly enough to really qualify someone for an engineering job. The so-called "hands-on" work done in those classes, even at major engineering schools like MIT, Georgia Tech, etc., is still overwhelmingly theory-based. If I'm looking for an entry-level engineer to do anything other than pure CFD work or something like that, I'm going to look for somebody with acutal hands-on experience even if their grades aren't quite as good.
If I want a mechanical guy, for example, I'm going to look for the kids who work on cars in their spare time, or have experience with machine tools (or at least some carpentry). Same thing for aero guys; some mechanical experience and/or flying (real or even remote control). Civil types (coughsnickercough) would benefit from mechanical experience (see a trend?), work with construction companies, or DIY stuff around the house. And so on.
I'm pretty sure that app was originally developed for competitive shooters in the civilian world. While the equipment and techniques may be different, the same principles of ballistics and physics apply to military/police snipers as to benchrest shooters. Calculating things like windage and bullet drop for a given round based on wind, barometric pressure, and temperature (like this app does) applies just as much to military use as to long-range target shooting and hunting.
Bear in mind that Heinlein's works don't necessarily reflect his actual, personal opinion on a given matter. He was noted several times to have said that his characters "speak for themselves", not for him.
In other words, assuming this is true, many of his works were intended to generate critical thought, and not necessarily push a set of ideas. I doubt Heinlein really supported a government elected and run solely by civil-service veterans (mostly from the military) any more than Huxley supported a government encouraging sterilization, drug use, and rampant sex to control the populace.
That "secondary America" you're talking about is the sort of place that produced Sarah Palin. I'd be very careful about romanticizing it - it's a quite dangerous place, and not suitable for decent people.
Palin is likely one of the most benign things to come from that "secondary america"
Wow, bigoted much? "If you're from out in the country, or not from a big, dense, liberal city, you're an undeducated redneck barbarian?"
"Palin is from a rural area, and she's a bitch. Therefore, everyone from such places is as bad as she is".
I don't like the woman either. But what the hell does she have to do with the subject at hand, and how the hell do you generalize from her lone (poor) example to all the rest of us who aren't from your big "primary America" cities?
Sounds just like Atlanta. If you're not doing at least 15 over, your life is in danger. I don't think cars even come with turn signals down here. 80+ on 285 or the connector is common.
Note to the yankees in Atlanta: If it snows (which does happen occasionally), just stay home. I know that you know how to drive in feet of snow, but nobody else here can even handle half an inch. You'll just get hit. And watch out when it rains, too--a single drop, and everything goest to hell.
Go down to Savannah, and they aren't nearly as aggressive--but they often drive very slow, and don't know how to deal with traffic, either. Get a line of five or six cars, and everyone suddenly forgets how to drive.
Maryland, I take it? Move to the other side of the Potomac; Virginia's a lot friendlier about that.
Per federal law, a resident buying a gun from, or transferring one through, a dealer requires a government-issued photo ID (driver's license, military ID, etc), an instant background check, and (I think) some proof of residency (usually satisfied by item 1). Non-residents are subject are also subject to the laws of their state of residence and to some additional federal requirements. If you posess a valid state-issued firearms license or carry permit meeting the background check requirements for a normal purchase, or you have a federal firearms license (FFL) as a dealer or collector, you are exempt from the instant check.
Federal law does not prohibit the private sale of firearms between two residents of the same state, obstinately because that is not "interstate commerce" and therefore not subject to the federal background check requirement. Provided that both people are citizens of the same state and neither has reason to believe that the gun is stolen, that the other person is prohibited from owning guns, or that the gun is intended for use in a crime, it is legal under federal law. Individual states may also have their own restrictions; relatively free states (ie, the majority) do not, but others like California, Illinois, and several New England states require additional licensing and other restrictions.
This, in a nutshell, is the origin of the media's so-called "gun show loophole". There is no clause or omission that says "you don't need to do background checks at gun shows"--the same law applies to sales there as anywhere else. Licensed dealers must perform background checks, whether at gun shows or their own shop. Private individuals or collectors do not, but they may only sell to residents of their own state (otherwise, the transfer must go through a dealer, and would be subject to the restrictions on dealers).
Note that none of these requirements, even the super-strict laws of Chicago and DC, have ever stopped violent criminals from stealing a gun or buying one off the black market. These and other gun laws are simply inconveniences--mere words that the criminal violates as casually as he does those against murder, assault, rape, and drugs; they cause no more obstacle to his behavior than speed limits, age restrictions, and copyright laws do to drivers, college students, and music downloaders.
Note also that the above does not apply to sales of NFA firearms--that is, machine guns, suppressors, and short-barreled rifles or shotguns. With those, regardless of who the buyer and seller are, the buyer must undergo the entire class III transfer process, including lengthy background check, law-enforcement signoff, and $200 transfer tax. This process can take several weeks, and is also subject to state law.
Probably not very long, really. The art of the TLA, and the related art of the backronym, are practiced in highly refined form by government agencies and the aerospace industry. NASA, being formed from the union of those sets, brings those arts very near to perfection. It's almost instinctual for them.
.45 shouldn't be that hard to find. If nothing else, online places should have it on backorder. It may take a month or two to get in, but the sooner you order, the sooner it gets there. Make sure you read up on the applicable state laws regarding firearms and lawful use of deadly force, and get some competent instruction (covering safety, technique, legal aspects, and safety), if you haven't already. And if you live in Georgia, I can give you some helpful links for the former.
On my end, I bought a Kel-tec P3AT back in February... not my first gun by any means, but I haven't shot it yet, either..380 is hard to find at a reasonable price (I'm not paying $1.15 per round like Bass Pro wants, especially when I have a couple hundred rounds for my other pistol). I also inherited an old Bubba'd Mauser that I want to test out as a deer rifle. Assuming it's accurate, I'll mount a scope and have it ready for October.
They haven't curtailed sales; ammo sales are up just like firearms sales. It's just that demand and prices are higher, but even with a small increase in supply, stores are bought out as soon as the stuff gets on dock. That's why your walmart is out; everybody who sells ammo is experiencing a big rush with people buying cases at a time as soon as it shows up. Total rounds sold have gone up, but it doesn't look like it because the shelves are empty.
I've heard that most manufacturers have gone to three shifts, and I think a couple of them are considering opening up new production lines.
Incidentally, what did you buy? I'm looking at getting into reloading myself (if I can find primers), and in the meantime have dropped to shooting rimfire almost exclusively. It's hard to justify casually expending $.40/round, particularly when you can't easily replace it.
During most of the year, geostationary satellites spend 100% of the time in sunlight. During "eclipse season" (which happens around the spring/fall equinoxes), they get eclipsed, for a few minutes up to about 70 (at the peak of the season). A discussion of this can be found here: http://celestrak.com/columns/v04n09/
During those times, you could redirect from another satellite, use an alternative power source (batteries, capacitors, fueled generators, etc), and/or have a "brownout". Power outages suck, but if you're in a place where conventional power sources are unavailable/impractical/infeasable, it's better than nothing.
To be more specific, the solid rocket boosters on the shuttle stack have devices designed to split the motor cases open. Neither the tank nor the orbiter have destruct devices.
Of course, TFA makes it clear that the problems are largely of the Government's own making. Denying a site exists when it's obvious it does simply draws attention to it - they very thing they SHOULD have been avoiding. Describing it in horribly boring terms would have been much more effective.
If you want to hide something that is in plain sight, the LAST thing you want to do is be seen trying to keep it out of sight. Call it a launch-pad for target balloons for night-fighter practice, if you like.
[puts on tinfoil hat]
Seems to me that making a big show of trying to hide something in plain sight would also do a very good job of drawing attention away from the things that you really want to hide.
...or (more likely) it was just stamped with a standard 50-year classification, and nobody wanted to be bothered to declassify it earlier. See, they don't know how long in advance things will have to remain classified, so they pick an arbitrary number far enough ahead that it won't release while it could still put our people and operations in jeopardy.
Slashdot Mirror
If somebody wants to harm you or your family specifically, why would they invade your house that way? Why can't they toss a few Molotov cocktails through your windows, and then shoot you with a rifle when you guys run out of the house? What if they just just monitor your routine and get you in a drive-by shooting when you exit your workplace at the same exit as you always do?
This is again a fantasy scenario. You're assuming a situation where the attacker does exactly what he would have to do in order for you to get the opportunity to successfully use your gun to defend yourself.
You keep dismissing this as a "fantasy scenario"--but it actually happens. Read up on it a bit. Look at all of the people found dead in their homes during attempted robberies, look at how many women wind up raped in their own homes. We're not making this stuff up. Home invasions happen. Ones targeted specifically to hurt people happen happen for a reason--there are fewer witnesses around, it attracts less attention (vs arson, for example, or a hit in a public place), and it's more intimidating (the "we can hit you anywhere" factor). Others are intended to rape or assault, where the attacker has already decided to use force.
And, people actually do use their guns to defend themselves during break-ins. It happens every day. It doesn't normally make the news, though, because most of the time the criminal flees at the first sign of resistance from his intended victim. Most uses of guns for self-defense don't even involve shots being fired--mere display of them is enough to end the encounter.
If you're a threatening target, you're putting your attacker in a situation where he needs to use lethal force in order to survive. I.e., you've escalated the situation into one where one of you will likely get killed.
No, he has already escalated the situation to one where you stand a good chance of being killed. Resisting with a gun makes your odds of dying less, and makes his much greater. The myth that criminals won't hurt you if you just comply with them is the real fantasy; fast, effective resistance gives you your best shot at survival.
Note that this doesn't assume that the situation of the unarmed person is a safe one; it is extremely risky. The crucial question here is whether the gun makes you any safer, which it is not at all clear it does. It gives you a shot (literally) at ending the risk to you right away, but it also puts you at a greater risk of being killed.
No it doesn't! Studies repeatedly and conclusively show that your chances of being injured or killed are lower if you resist with a gun than resisting by any other means, or not at all. These include studies by European governments and law enforcement agencies--hardly big proponents of private firearms ownership. Further, interviews of convicted criminals show that their greatest fear is generally an armed and resisting victim.
Unless the other guy kills you to stop you from shooting him
He's more likely to kill you if you don't do anything at all.
And we're trying to do it on a budget, rather than spending lots of money.
The problem is that skimping on funds now means the overall cost is going to wind up higher. Look at what happened with the space shuttle--they tried to cut development costs by getting the air force on board and moving to an easier-to-develop design... which wound up costing $500 million a flight because of all the support costs for their less-robust and easier-to-develop design.
Fighting poverty would be a lot cheaper and better for everyone than fighting its symptoms
FTFY.
An overall policy of fighting/solving poverty will solve things long-term. But fighting poverty in the big picture doesn't help the guys on the ship being attacked by pirates. They need something to protect themselves, and they need it right now.
To make a bad analogy, let's say piracy is a disease, like cholera--generally spawned and spread by certain social conditions. Cholera is bad, but it can be largely prevented with the proper measures (good sanitation, clean drinking water, etc). What you're advocating (helping desperate people in bad conditions) is like implementing a program to clean up water supplies and teach people hygiene. That's a good thing, don't get me wrong. But clean water and proper hygiene don't help the guy with cholera who's literally shitting himself to death. He needs to deal with the symptoms and drink a lot of water/electrolytes, and take antibiotics to kill the disease posing an immediate threat to his life. Similarly, aid programs and anti-poverty efforts don't help the sailors on the ships being attacked or boarded by pirates. They need a more immediate solution.
For what it's worth, I do not own a firearm. However, I fully believe in the value of a lethal defense option for personal and familial safety.
If you don't mind me asking, why not?
These burglaries are uncommon compared to those where the house is not occupied. Having a gun at home optimizes for the uncommon risk; the rest of the time (which will more likely be all of the time), you have to bear the risks of having a gun in the home.
The risks of accidents or access by children are easily mitigated by safe handling and proper storage techniques. Gun safety is actually very simple.
A burglar who knowingly targets an occupied residence has larger commitment at using violence to get his way than his victims, and also more experience and skill at doing so. He has chosen the time and place for the act, and has the initiative. The victim is at a disadvantage in such a situation; and the gun escalates it to a lethal one.
So you're better off just letting him do whatever he wants to you? Don't fight back because it might make him mad? Sorry, that theory just doesn't hold water. A deliberate home invasion by someone prepared to commit violence is already escalated to a potentially lethal situation--and those who deliberately invade occupied homes are generally already prepared use lethal force. Those just looking for a smash-n-grab will usually flee once they realize someone is home.
Being armed and having a means to defend yourself increases your chances of survival. Choosing not to resist doesn't "keep the situation from escalating"; rather, it places your life entirely at the mercy of the criminal, who has already shown how much respect he has for it. Plus, a criminal may commit to using violence for material gain, but a victim fighting back is fighting for his life. That's a bigger commitment. And if I'm going to go down anyway, I want to go down fighting, not cowering in the corner.
The problem is that all of these "defend my family and home from an attacker" scenarios used to justify gun ownership systematically assume the best circumstances to justify gun ownership. They assume:
1. that the resident is peaceful and not prone to turn the gun against the family in a moment of passion;
That's actually a very good assumption. The overwhelming majority of the population, gun-owning or not, does not snap and attempt to kill his or her family in mere fits of anger. Those who are prone to lashing out violently have usually already gotten themselves in trouble before, by way of other acts of violence (fights, etc.). Many anti-gun people have the mistaken belief that all gun owners are just ticking time bombs waiting to go off on a hair-trigger, and that just isn't the case. After all, would you just turn on your family and kill them because you're momentarily pissed off? I didn't think so. So why do you expect everyone else will?
2. that the gun is well-secured in a gun safe at all times, but yet instantaneously available when needed;
Guns do not necessarily have to be in a safe to be well-secured when the owner is home. Many people take the guns out while home and leave them in a known spot (by the bed or on the nightstand if no children are around, or in a holster on the hip, etc), and secure them in a safe while away. There are also many quick-release safes on the market that can be opened in a second or two (example). It's not hard.
3. that the burglary will happen while the gun-owner is at home;
But it still does happen. I don't feel like gambling my life by simply hoping it won't. You don't plan on getting in a car accident, yet you still wear your seatbelt, right? Besides, the attacks that happen when somebody's home are the ones that put lives at risk, and that is the first concern. Not property. I'll take the slight risk that my guns will be stolen for the advantage they give me when I'm home.
4. that the gun-owner will correctly assess the developing situation quic
The gun then just serves two functions: One more thing for the burglars to steal.
That's why you secure it in a proper safe. It won't stop a determined thief with the proper equipment and lots of time on his hands, but it will be enough trouble to deter 99+% of burglars.
A useful tool for household suicide or homicide.
Those aren't by any means the "only" functions. Apparently you've bought into Kellerman's repeatedly-discredited "study" (that even the author later admitted was deeply flawed and biased).
Fortified, well-lit entries and good, posted alarm systems are good deterrents; make the house too much trouble and he'll go elsewhere. Most criminals breaking into houses simply to make off with expensive but easy-to-grab items won't hit an occupied house, and are relatively easily deterred by the above methods. But it's the criminals who specifically target occupied residences, either because they're after something more valuable or they wish to harm said occupants, that are the concern. Notifying the police even as soon as they enter the house isn't going to help the occupants--unless they're incredibly lucky and the officer just happens to be driving down their street, it will take at least a couple minutes for them to arrive. In that situation, where there's an intruder in the house, the homeowner's only viable defense is to be armed. I've listened to too many 911 tapes of home invasions where the residents are completely defenseless and end up hurt or killed because the police arrived too late (if at all) to think that they'll get there in time.
That is what the gun at home is useful for--stopping an active home invader who means to harm you or your family. It's the most effective and reliable means of doing so. There's a reason the home invasion rate in the US is so much lower than it is in the UK.
Alpha Pale Ale, Wicked Elf Pilsner or Nail Stout
Anyone know if this is available in the States? I mostly drink my own beer now that I've started brewing, but I'm always up to try something new...
Ah, I see it now. I read your post as saying
The phrase "20.5 light-years away" should read "20.5 years away, traveling at the speed of light."
I missed the "be". My apologies; it's not been a good day.
Who the hell modded this insightful? While parent seems to have an understanding of what it means, the light-year is an internationally-accepted unit of length. Everybody knows what it means. His pedantic rephrasing of it is redundant, if that...
A couple points:
1. The Soviets already had working, deployed ABM technology decades ago. So did the US. Trick is, those were terminal-phase interceptors with nuclear warheads. SDI sought to produce space-based boost-phase interception systems.
2. The effectiveness of chaff and decoys on terminal-phase interception systems is highly overrated. Chaff is only good for obscuring radar returns, and can easily be sorted out with infrared sensors. It also decelerates much faster in atmosphere than a warhead. Decoys are a little better, but not much; in order for them to be effective and not easily separated from real warheads, you need to match the thermal and radar signatures of a real warhead (meaning you need to approximate the heat signature, shape, and materials of a warhead) and have comparable ballistics to a warhead (so if your shape and size are about the same per the first requirement, you need about the same mass). At that point, you're lugging around something the size, shape, and mass of a warhead... might as well carry a real one and stop wasting space.
Even a degree from a "physical" school is hardly enough to really qualify someone for an engineering job. The so-called "hands-on" work done in those classes, even at major engineering schools like MIT, Georgia Tech, etc., is still overwhelmingly theory-based. If I'm looking for an entry-level engineer to do anything other than pure CFD work or something like that, I'm going to look for somebody with acutal hands-on experience even if their grades aren't quite as good.
If I want a mechanical guy, for example, I'm going to look for the kids who work on cars in their spare time, or have experience with machine tools (or at least some carpentry). Same thing for aero guys; some mechanical experience and/or flying (real or even remote control). Civil types (coughsnickercough) would benefit from mechanical experience (see a trend?), work with construction companies, or DIY stuff around the house. And so on.
I'm pretty sure that app was originally developed for competitive shooters in the civilian world. While the equipment and techniques may be different, the same principles of ballistics and physics apply to military/police snipers as to benchrest shooters. Calculating things like windage and bullet drop for a given round based on wind, barometric pressure, and temperature (like this app does) applies just as much to military use as to long-range target shooting and hunting.
Bear in mind that Heinlein's works don't necessarily reflect his actual, personal opinion on a given matter. He was noted several times to have said that his characters "speak for themselves", not for him.
In other words, assuming this is true, many of his works were intended to generate critical thought, and not necessarily push a set of ideas. I doubt Heinlein really supported a government elected and run solely by civil-service veterans (mostly from the military) any more than Huxley supported a government encouraging sterilization, drug use, and rampant sex to control the populace.
That "secondary America" you're talking about is the sort of place that produced Sarah Palin. I'd be very careful about romanticizing it - it's a quite dangerous place, and not suitable for decent people.
Palin is likely one of the most benign things to come from that "secondary america"
Wow, bigoted much? "If you're from out in the country, or not from a big, dense, liberal city, you're an undeducated redneck barbarian?"
"Palin is from a rural area, and she's a bitch. Therefore, everyone from such places is as bad as she is".
I don't like the woman either. But what the hell does she have to do with the subject at hand, and how the hell do you generalize from her lone (poor) example to all the rest of us who aren't from your big "primary America" cities?
They do 80+ and change lanes without signaling
Sounds just like Atlanta. If you're not doing at least 15 over, your life is in danger. I don't think cars even come with turn signals down here. 80+ on 285 or the connector is common.
Note to the yankees in Atlanta: If it snows (which does happen occasionally), just stay home. I know that you know how to drive in feet of snow, but nobody else here can even handle half an inch. You'll just get hit. And watch out when it rains, too--a single drop, and everything goest to hell.
Go down to Savannah, and they aren't nearly as aggressive--but they often drive very slow, and don't know how to deal with traffic, either. Get a line of five or six cars, and everyone suddenly forgets how to drive.
Since pre-paid anonymous cell phones are almost always used for no good and legal purpose this sounds like a great idea for that kind of phone.
Err, citation please?
"Give me six lines written by the most honest of men, and I will find something in them which will hang him."
--Cardinal Rechelieu
Maryland, I take it? Move to the other side of the Potomac; Virginia's a lot friendlier about that.
Per federal law, a resident buying a gun from, or transferring one through, a dealer requires a government-issued photo ID (driver's license, military ID, etc), an instant background check, and (I think) some proof of residency (usually satisfied by item 1). Non-residents are subject are also subject to the laws of their state of residence and to some additional federal requirements. If you posess a valid state-issued firearms license or carry permit meeting the background check requirements for a normal purchase, or you have a federal firearms license (FFL) as a dealer or collector, you are exempt from the instant check.
Federal law does not prohibit the private sale of firearms between two residents of the same state, obstinately because that is not "interstate commerce" and therefore not subject to the federal background check requirement. Provided that both people are citizens of the same state and neither has reason to believe that the gun is stolen, that the other person is prohibited from owning guns, or that the gun is intended for use in a crime, it is legal under federal law. Individual states may also have their own restrictions; relatively free states (ie, the majority) do not, but others like California, Illinois, and several New England states require additional licensing and other restrictions.
This, in a nutshell, is the origin of the media's so-called "gun show loophole". There is no clause or omission that says "you don't need to do background checks at gun shows"--the same law applies to sales there as anywhere else. Licensed dealers must perform background checks, whether at gun shows or their own shop. Private individuals or collectors do not, but they may only sell to residents of their own state (otherwise, the transfer must go through a dealer, and would be subject to the restrictions on dealers).
Note that none of these requirements, even the super-strict laws of Chicago and DC, have ever stopped violent criminals from stealing a gun or buying one off the black market. These and other gun laws are simply inconveniences--mere words that the criminal violates as casually as he does those against murder, assault, rape, and drugs; they cause no more obstacle to his behavior than speed limits, age restrictions, and copyright laws do to drivers, college students, and music downloaders.
Note also that the above does not apply to sales of NFA firearms--that is, machine guns, suppressors, and short-barreled rifles or shotguns. With those, regardless of who the buyer and seller are, the buyer must undergo the entire class III transfer process, including lengthy background check, law-enforcement signoff, and $200 transfer tax. This process can take several weeks, and is also subject to state law.
Probably not very long, really. The art of the TLA, and the related art of the backronym, are practiced in highly refined form by government agencies and the aerospace industry. NASA, being formed from the union of those sets, brings those arts very near to perfection. It's almost instinctual for them.
.45 shouldn't be that hard to find. If nothing else, online places should have it on backorder. It may take a month or two to get in, but the sooner you order, the sooner it gets there. Make sure you read up on the applicable state laws regarding firearms and lawful use of deadly force, and get some competent instruction (covering safety, technique, legal aspects, and safety), if you haven't already. And if you live in Georgia, I can give you some helpful links for the former.
On my end, I bought a Kel-tec P3AT back in February... not my first gun by any means, but I haven't shot it yet, either. .380 is hard to find at a reasonable price (I'm not paying $1.15 per round like Bass Pro wants, especially when I have a couple hundred rounds for my other pistol). I also inherited an old Bubba'd Mauser that I want to test out as a deer rifle. Assuming it's accurate, I'll mount a scope and have it ready for October.
They haven't curtailed sales; ammo sales are up just like firearms sales. It's just that demand and prices are higher, but even with a small increase in supply, stores are bought out as soon as the stuff gets on dock. That's why your walmart is out; everybody who sells ammo is experiencing a big rush with people buying cases at a time as soon as it shows up. Total rounds sold have gone up, but it doesn't look like it because the shelves are empty.
I've heard that most manufacturers have gone to three shifts, and I think a couple of them are considering opening up new production lines.
Incidentally, what did you buy? I'm looking at getting into reloading myself (if I can find primers), and in the meantime have dropped to shooting rimfire almost exclusively. It's hard to justify casually expending $.40/round, particularly when you can't easily replace it.
During most of the year, geostationary satellites spend 100% of the time in sunlight. During "eclipse season" (which happens around the spring/fall equinoxes), they get eclipsed, for a few minutes up to about 70 (at the peak of the season). A discussion of this can be found here: http://celestrak.com/columns/v04n09/
During those times, you could redirect from another satellite, use an alternative power source (batteries, capacitors, fueled generators, etc), and/or have a "brownout". Power outages suck, but if you're in a place where conventional power sources are unavailable/impractical/infeasable, it's better than nothing.
Do you also worry about meteor directly hitting and killing you too?
No... but if I'm going to die of something besides old age, that's how I want to go. Bonus points if I'm flying in an airplane at the time.
To be more specific, the solid rocket boosters on the shuttle stack have devices designed to split the motor cases open. Neither the tank nor the orbiter have destruct devices.
Of course, TFA makes it clear that the problems are largely of the Government's own making. Denying a site exists when it's obvious it does simply draws attention to it - they very thing they SHOULD have been avoiding. Describing it in horribly boring terms would have been much more effective.
If you want to hide something that is in plain sight, the LAST thing you want to do is be seen trying to keep it out of sight. Call it a launch-pad for target balloons for night-fighter practice, if you like.
[puts on tinfoil hat]
Seems to me that making a big show of trying to hide something in plain sight would also do a very good job of drawing attention away from the things that you really want to hide.
It's a distraction, in other words...
...or (more likely) it was just stamped with a standard 50-year classification, and nobody wanted to be bothered to declassify it earlier. See, they don't know how long in advance things will have to remain classified, so they pick an arbitrary number far enough ahead that it won't release while it could still put our people and operations in jeopardy.