Presumably the Flying Spaghetti Monster's appendages are saucer shaped. The idea of many is that these flying saucers are nothing but the ends of his noodly appendages. I don't see why this isn't likely to be the case.
No you don't. Foster's isn't even brewed in Australia! I found that out when, while in a Canadian bar, I saw Fosters listed as a domestic beer. Long story short, Fosters is actually brewed in Canada.
If you're firing THAT much, I don't think giving away your position is your main concern:)
Too much firing heats up the barrel, causing expansion, which causes more material to escape and burn up outside the barrel. Also, the carbon built up in the barrel from your first 5 mags will start getting ejected by subsequent bursts, and ignite outside the barrel. So yes, prolonged firing will cause an increase in the muzzle flash. And yes, there is some at night time to begin with, but nothing even close to what you see in the movies.
And you're right about the m67. It was a hell of a shock hearing one go off for the first time. No goddamn holywood fireball, but the concussion sure is impressive. First time seeing a dud blown was even more impressive.
Yep. Speaking about flying kicks and launching people across the room, I once hit a 100lb punching bag hard enough that it swung up and broke the ceiling. If that had been a person, they deffinitely would have "flown across the room". But that's because prior to hitting the target my body had "flown" for a good few meters, adding horizontal momentum, acceleration provided by gravity, and force exerted by my muscles, all focused into one point in space. The result is a flying target, and me landing where I hit.
No, it's called "entertainment". And your condition is called "paranoia". And this place is called "slashdot". Let me know if you need help with any other definitions!
If your M-16 muzzle flash is looking anything CLOSE to what you see in the movies, there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with your flash suppressor. Granted, I've never used the a2, only the a4 and the m4a3, so the flash suppressors on 'em might be different, but I doubt it.
Actually from what I know, they get that effect by using over-charge blanks. Normally blanks won't cycle the bolt without a BFA on the end of the barrel, so using a larger than normal charge in the blanks has two purposes - cycling the bolt, and creating a more impressive flash.
Everything I see convinces me that there it is indeed opposition to widespread use of technologies that threaten to disenfranchise the powers that be (i.e. Big Oil)
I've seen this argument before, and I don't want to get into too much detail because it's a topic which you could really write a book (or several) about. I just want to say that as far as I can see, such arguments hinge on the idea that "Big Oil" executives and board members are the stupidest people in the world. Think about it; they know that oil will run out, and that someone is going to come up with an alternative. Why would they sit around on their collective behinds, waiting for someone to put them out of business? Maybe I just have much more faith in capitalism than you do. Certainly if I knew that my business was going to become obsolete, I'd be throwing a good chunk of my profits into developing alternative products/markets.
In short, you're right that I'm attacking the straw man, but it's not of my making. I replied to someone who argued precisely that change would be wrong because of the expense: It would adversely affect 'countless millions', according to GP.
I think you're misreading his statement. Certainly I also would argue that pushing most of the "solutions" which have been proposed would be prohibitively expensive, and ultimately ineffective. That doesn't mean that I'm opposed to change - it simply means that I'm opposed to squandering money on things which are not true solutions. I think most of the people you're refering to feel the same way; you're simply misinterpreting their arguments. People tend to do that a lot in politics and ideological battles. These stereotypes we create are a good tool for riling up our own ideological group, but they're a horrible tool if we're actually trying to understand other peoples viewpoints.
So yes, I believe that the current initiatives are wasteful and futile, and I oppose them on those grounds. I firmly believe that the vast majority of people like the GP feel the same way. You used historical examples before, so let me pose a question in that context: how far do you think the human race would have gotten if our ancestors had insisted on trying to start fires by rubbing together a chicken and a trout?
Members of the human race suffer with every significant change it undergoes; that's indisputable. But writ large, the population always benefits.
Tell that to the Romans.
You're right, but it's my nature as a human being to desire my culture, my people, and my offspring, to be part of the human population which benefits and advances. You're absolutely right, even if the entire western world destroys itself tomorrow, humanity will probably recover, and will continue to progress at some point in the future. But I, personally, would rather not see us go through another Dark Ages, AND I would definitely not like to see my children living in third world conditions. The fact that, say, China may be experiencing a Golden Age at the same time would be of little comfort.
There's one other thing which you're ignoring, and it's actually pretty darn important. Depending on how much we screw up, we may not have the resources to ever again achieve this level of technology. In order to get here, we've used up a massive amount of oil and other natural resources. If we manage to knock ourselves down into a pre-industrial civilization, the lack of oil would be a significant barrier to re-establishing a modern society. If this happened on a global level, it'd be the end of humans as a technological species. If it happened on a local level, it'd mean misery and abject poverty until some other nation decided to take pity on us. That's why it's important to develop viable alternate fuel sources NOW, instead of wasting our remaining resources pushing policies and technologies which will not work.
Well I could simply have said "go fist yourself you useless waste of skin", or "maybe if you had half a brain you wouldn't have to make a living by sucking cocks at the bus station", but, you know, I was trying to be polite.
You're attacking a strawman - you won't find anyone opposed to researching and using alternate energy sources. Even the most strident opponents of the popular global warming theories will tell you they support research into alternate fuels. What the GPP was referring to is things like idiotic Kyoto style wealth-distribution schemes, and unreasonable controls on carbon emissions for private industry. I know your strawman attack was unintentional, but please, try not to do that in the future. It's intellectually dishonest, and it tends to derail discussions which might otherwise be productive.
Forgetting greenhouse gases, changes in the sun, etc for a moment, isn't is conceivable that the fact we're burning so much stuff, and putting out so much heat is a factor in global warming?
Hah. That's almost as silly as some of the stuff in Al Gore's movie!
The ammount of heat being generated by human activity is so small when compared to solar and geothermal sources that it's not even worth mentioning. It's like saying "every time I pee, I make the oceans bigger".
If you're talking about steam injection, that's a totally different process. Please, go RTFA. This water isn't sitting around just waiting to be pumped, it's literaly merged with the rock at a ration of 15% water, 85% rock. That means that for each liter of water you'd need to heat about 6 kilos of rock. Do you have any idea how inefficient that is? Especially if you're using STEAM to do it?
Silly? You're talking about trying to de-hydrate rocks at unimaginable depths, and I'm the one that's silly? What do you do for an encore? Tell me I'm dumb for thinking that we could never power a space-ship on orange-juice?
(the Synaptic package manager on my system tells me I've currently got access to 20,304 bits of software, so much for the old: 'There isn't any software available for Linux' argument)
A bit of false advertising there, eh? 1/4 of those 20,304 are source code packages, 1/4 are help files and extended documentation, and 1/4 are dummy packages or alternate versions. Of the remaining 5,076 programs, probably half are development applications, and another quarter are hosting or server apps. Leaving maybe 1,269 programs for the end user, encompassing everything from games and useless resource wasters to media players, to office apps.
Well, why do we read Shakespeare? Why do we have a course called "world religions"? Why study theatre, politics, and law?:)
Some things are worth learning, despite the fact that they're not scientific. If astrology were taught as a form of entertainment, I suppose I'd have no problem with it. Where astrology crosses the line is when it's adherents start claiming to actually be able to predict the future, or pretend that there's any sort of science to what they're doing.
While the Yanks are more likely to be religious and believe in concepts like creationism, Europeans are MUCH more likely to believe in junk science like Homoeopathy or the healing-touch. When you break it down, both yanks and Europeans are more or less equally likely to believe in concepts which have zero scientific evidence.
Also, while overall Europeans tend to be more scientifically literate, the US still produces most of the truly great scientific minds and discoveries. To put it another way: while the people in the US who aren't scientists tend to be more ignorant of science than their European counterparts, the people who ARE scientists tend to be better educated and more creative than their European counterparts.
You're kidding about the astrology thing, right? You do realize that it's just as much bunk as the other stuff you've mentioned, right?? Why should it be taught in schools, exactly?
That was one of the stupidest things I've ever read on here. The fact that it got modded insightful proves that people don't need religion to keep them ignorant.
Middle-eastern armies can't stand up to western armies precisely because of the factor of leadership. It's not just about who your General is any more - an intelligent, well trained, and self-motivated "middle management" makes a massive difference in your ability to wage war. I'd say that the structure of our armies gives us an even bigger advantage than our technology.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a scientician with a BS in ufology! We should team up!
Presumably the Flying Spaghetti Monster's appendages are saucer shaped. The idea of many is that these flying saucers are nothing but the ends of his noodly appendages. I don't see why this isn't likely to be the case.
No you don't. Foster's isn't even brewed in Australia! I found that out when, while in a Canadian bar, I saw Fosters listed as a domestic beer. Long story short, Fosters is actually brewed in Canada.
If you're firing THAT much, I don't think giving away your position is your main concern :)
Too much firing heats up the barrel, causing expansion, which causes more material to escape and burn up outside the barrel. Also, the carbon built up in the barrel from your first 5 mags will start getting ejected by subsequent bursts, and ignite outside the barrel. So yes, prolonged firing will cause an increase in the muzzle flash. And yes, there is some at night time to begin with, but nothing even close to what you see in the movies.
And you're right about the m67. It was a hell of a shock hearing one go off for the first time. No goddamn holywood fireball, but the concussion sure is impressive. First time seeing a dud blown was even more impressive.
Yep. Speaking about flying kicks and launching people across the room, I once hit a 100lb punching bag hard enough that it swung up and broke the ceiling. If that had been a person, they deffinitely would have "flown across the room". But that's because prior to hitting the target my body had "flown" for a good few meters, adding horizontal momentum, acceleration provided by gravity, and force exerted by my muscles, all focused into one point in space. The result is a flying target, and me landing where I hit.
Not so unrealistic. Even in real life, stupid people tend to get others killed more often than they off themselves.
No, it's called "entertainment". And your condition is called "paranoia". And this place is called "slashdot". Let me know if you need help with any other definitions!
If your M-16 muzzle flash is looking anything CLOSE to what you see in the movies, there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with your flash suppressor. Granted, I've never used the a2, only the a4 and the m4a3, so the flash suppressors on 'em might be different, but I doubt it.
Actually from what I know, they get that effect by using over-charge blanks. Normally blanks won't cycle the bolt without a BFA on the end of the barrel, so using a larger than normal charge in the blanks has two purposes - cycling the bolt, and creating a more impressive flash.
I've seen this argument before, and I don't want to get into too much detail because it's a topic which you could really write a book (or several) about. I just want to say that as far as I can see, such arguments hinge on the idea that "Big Oil" executives and board members are the stupidest people in the world. Think about it; they know that oil will run out, and that someone is going to come up with an alternative. Why would they sit around on their collective behinds, waiting for someone to put them out of business? Maybe I just have much more faith in capitalism than you do. Certainly if I knew that my business was going to become obsolete, I'd be throwing a good chunk of my profits into developing alternative products/markets.
I think you're misreading his statement. Certainly I also would argue that pushing most of the "solutions" which have been proposed would be prohibitively expensive, and ultimately ineffective. That doesn't mean that I'm opposed to change - it simply means that I'm opposed to squandering money on things which are not true solutions. I think most of the people you're refering to feel the same way; you're simply misinterpreting their arguments. People tend to do that a lot in politics and ideological battles. These stereotypes we create are a good tool for riling up our own ideological group, but they're a horrible tool if we're actually trying to understand other peoples viewpoints.
So yes, I believe that the current initiatives are wasteful and futile, and I oppose them on those grounds. I firmly believe that the vast majority of people like the GP feel the same way. You used historical examples before, so let me pose a question in that context: how far do you think the human race would have gotten if our ancestors had insisted on trying to start fires by rubbing together a chicken and a trout?
Tell that to the Romans.
You're right, but it's my nature as a human being to desire my culture, my people, and my offspring, to be part of the human population which benefits and advances. You're absolutely right, even if the entire western world destroys itself tomorrow, humanity will probably recover, and will continue to progress at some point in the future. But I, personally, would rather not see us go through another Dark Ages, AND I would definitely not like to see my children living in third world conditions. The fact that, say, China may be experiencing a Golden Age at the same time would be of little comfort.
There's one other thing which you're ignoring, and it's actually pretty darn important. Depending on how much we screw up, we may not have the resources to ever again achieve this level of technology. In order to get here, we've used up a massive amount of oil and other natural resources. If we manage to knock ourselves down into a pre-industrial civilization, the lack of oil would be a significant barrier to re-establishing a modern society. If this happened on a global level, it'd be the end of humans as a technological species. If it happened on a local level, it'd mean misery and abject poverty until some other nation decided to take pity on us. That's why it's important to develop viable alternate fuel sources NOW, instead of wasting our remaining resources pushing policies and technologies which will not work.
and, ofcourse, a bunch of nerds are gonna go stare at it.
Well I could simply have said "go fist yourself you useless waste of skin", or "maybe if you had half a brain you wouldn't have to make a living by sucking cocks at the bus station", but, you know, I was trying to be polite.
You're attacking a strawman - you won't find anyone opposed to researching and using alternate energy sources. Even the most strident opponents of the popular global warming theories will tell you they support research into alternate fuels. What the GPP was referring to is things like idiotic Kyoto style wealth-distribution schemes, and unreasonable controls on carbon emissions for private industry. I know your strawman attack was unintentional, but please, try not to do that in the future. It's intellectually dishonest, and it tends to derail discussions which might otherwise be productive.
The ammount of heat being generated by human activity is so small when compared to solar and geothermal sources that it's not even worth mentioning. It's like saying "every time I pee, I make the oceans bigger".
If you're talking about steam injection, that's a totally different process. Please, go RTFA. This water isn't sitting around just waiting to be pumped, it's literaly merged with the rock at a ration of 15% water, 85% rock. That means that for each liter of water you'd need to heat about 6 kilos of rock. Do you have any idea how inefficient that is? Especially if you're using STEAM to do it?
Silly? You're talking about trying to de-hydrate rocks at unimaginable depths, and I'm the one that's silly? What do you do for an encore? Tell me I'm dumb for thinking that we could never power a space-ship on orange-juice?
if you combined them into a RAID array, would that give you better performance, or just wipe out all your data?
Obviously you didn't RTFA. There's really no way to access this water.
Gotcha. I wasn't aware of these bans, and I agree that it's not right.
Well, why do we read Shakespeare? Why do we have a course called "world religions"? Why study theatre, politics, and law? :)
Some things are worth learning, despite the fact that they're not scientific. If astrology were taught as a form of entertainment, I suppose I'd have no problem with it. Where astrology crosses the line is when it's adherents start claiming to actually be able to predict the future, or pretend that there's any sort of science to what they're doing.
Don't get on your European high-horse, buddy :)
While the Yanks are more likely to be religious and believe in concepts like creationism, Europeans are MUCH more likely to believe in junk science like Homoeopathy or the healing-touch. When you break it down, both yanks and Europeans are more or less equally likely to believe in concepts which have zero scientific evidence.
Also, while overall Europeans tend to be more scientifically literate, the US still produces most of the truly great scientific minds and discoveries. To put it another way: while the people in the US who aren't scientists tend to be more ignorant of science than their European counterparts, the people who ARE scientists tend to be better educated and more creative than their European counterparts.
You're kidding about the astrology thing, right? You do realize that it's just as much bunk as the other stuff you've mentioned, right?? Why should it be taught in schools, exactly?
That was one of the stupidest things I've ever read on here. The fact that it got modded insightful proves that people don't need religion to keep them ignorant.
Middle-eastern armies can't stand up to western armies precisely because of the factor of leadership. It's not just about who your General is any more - an intelligent, well trained, and self-motivated "middle management" makes a massive difference in your ability to wage war. I'd say that the structure of our armies gives us an even bigger advantage than our technology.