You ever get the urge to go trolling in real life? 'Cause, I have that urge now.
I'd like to sign up for a university, I'm sure I'll get accepted. Then, I'd like to say some of the most outlandish things - each time ensuring to not actually break the rules. I imagine I could have some fun with it. See, I'm mixed racially... Part of that mix is Black African. "Oh no, I don't dislike all black people, I just dislike black women." My other races are Amerindian and Honky. I wonder if I can get away with saying phrases like, "Mohawk scalping, spear chucking, redneck."
I suppose they could then kick me out and I could sue 'em - except I don't want their money. No, I think I'd sue for a public apology from everyone involved - and make them call me a "Mohawk scalping, spear chucking, redneck" right in their apology. And publish it in all the school papers and the local papers - and maybe on television. While calling me a Mohawk scalping, spear chucking, redneck. In fact, they can call me Mr. Mohawk scalping, spear chucking, redneck if they want.
Yes, I hate idiots and ignorant people to and I do wish they'd shut up. However, I wish they'd shut up of their own volition and not because of force. Yes, I just wish they'd learn something and how to express their ideas without being offensive. The important part is that I want them to learn. I don't want the government, or agencies funded by the government, preventing speech.
It's really bothersome that there are people who will stand by each and every one of these actions. There are people who don't actually value their liberties. It disheartening as they appear to be growing in number and they come from all ends of the political spectrum.
I had no idea FIRE existed until just the other day. I meandered over and gave 'em a donation. For the record, it was Cold Fjord who pointed them out to me.
Also, if you look around their site, you'll find that they have some "leftist" outrage material there as well. The reality is, there's going to be more leftists in the mix when it comes to this sort of thing. I know that some folks have trouble accepting this so I'd suggest a good start to do some research would be reading the Wikipedia article about "Free Speech Zones." Those zones were put in place by the Democrats, at DNC, in 1988.
The right is many things. Safe spaces is not one of them.
Dump Ghostery and use uMatrix. It's lighter. They don't sell your data. It's free and open. It's not intrusive. It's a billion and three times more effective. (Err... I'm making that number up.) It does many, many things that Ghostery does not do. Search your favorite browser's extensions for "uMatrix" and have a look. It puts Ghostery to shame.
I like your style. Me? I don't get 'em often but I kind of like it when I get down-mods. Sometimes it was, indeed, me being a dick intentionally. Other times, it's usually something that they're just too pissed off to accept. The ego is a frail thing. If I get a down-mod on an otherwise normal comment, I'm not displeased - it means I left an impression. That means that I've impressed them and that's a good thing - even if they believe it's an impression that they'd rather not have.
If I'm just repeating what everyone else says for the sake of karma, I can spend my time better elsewhere. I like being challenged, challenging to new thoughts, learning, and that includes sometimes stepping on some toes. If we don't challenge our thoughts and hold them up to scrutiny then we are not growing. Bugger 'em... 'Snot like I'm gonna run out of karma. I'm not actually sure if I could?
Just an FYI. If you post in the thread, after making a bad mod, it removes that mod. It also removes all the other mods you've made in that thread but it's possible to at least correct a mistaken mod. It's also important to note that it *only* sacrifices the mods you made in that thread. So, if you ever make an error, you can always opt to submit a reply anywhere in the thread and it will undo the moderation.
uBlock is excellent. As is uMatrix. With uMatrix, you can do a whole lot of fun stuff. It's a veritable old-school software firewall for your browser. There's even a version for Firefox now. It's like NoScript on steroids. Once you figure it out, you're all set. There's a slight learning curve but it's not bad. It's just a whitelist approach. If you want, you can lock everything down and have nothing but text, nothing from third parties, and not even images or scripts on the page. It works at wildcard, domain, and sub-domain levels. It's fantastic.
I've been using it for years now. There's also HTTP Switchboard, by the same guy, but there is no Firefox version of that. With a wee bit of extra invested time, you can just install uMatrix and dump uBlock. Though, admittedly, it doesn't give you those handy statistics about how much has been blocked overall.
For this page, there are 37 requests. I'm allowing 11 though. That's uMatrix.
uBlock 9 items, or 33% of total content. Over time, it has blocked 23%. You don't really get those numbers with uMatrix. Meh... No big deal. uMatrix works quite well and you don't have to run them together or anything. You can but there's no real need to - though sometimes uBlock hides the fact that it hid stuff a bit better. Though they both block the same thing - sometimes uMatrix will leave you with a gaudy blank spot.
But, if you want, you can just run uMatrix and save the RAM. It's really quite configurable. The upper-left part of the control panel is actually a click-able area. When you click there, you can set sub-domain, domain, and even wildcard. Wildcard settings apply to all sites. That means you can block even first party scripts until you specifically enable them. You can block first party images, CSS, frames, etc... You can block third party, allow third party, select by domain, block per domain, and all sorts of fancy stuff.
It's really kind of nice to be able to have the web your way. Add to that GreaseMonkey and Stylish? It's like a whole new web out there. Once you set the settings in uMatrix, make sure to click save. Then you've only got to do it once and the next time you return it will retain the same settings. You can do all sorts of things - including using blocking lists and hosts files - and they'll update automatically. 'Snot a bad application.
I'm not affiliated. I'm just a happy customer. Oddly, you can't even pay for it. The author wants no donations. The author will accept no donations. The code is open. Have at it.
For certain definitions of lost, sure. If you want to go by body count (which is a much better metric for deciding this) then you might want to rethink that. However, feel free to make that choice. I'd also note that the M is in a lot of weapons. For instance, I own an M-22. The M-22 is a Chinese made AK-47.
I gotta be honest here... Don't let this hurt your ego or anything but I'm starting to think you might not actually be qualified to opine with any authority. That's okay. You're still free to hold those opinions. It's just that they carry very little weight. That you count politics in your choice, or weigh it as heavy as you do, when picking a firearm that you'd be depending on then I'm not really sure that you can be objective. Then, you don't seem to actually know what you're talking about or which metrics would even be valuable, I'm not sure you've an understanding of the topic at hand.
And that's okay. Don't let it hurt your feelings or bruise your ego. Really. It's all good and we can't know everything. I appreciate that you have an opinion and, I suppose, it's always good to voice that opinion. If you're open to suggestions (and you're probably not) then I'd suggest staying away from video game "knowledge" and "gun" forums. I'd further suggest openly engaging a few local people to see if they'll help you learn about firearms - if you're actually interested and want to offer an opinion that carries any weight and is based on meaningful characteristics.
A good example would be you'd discount the MG 42 just because the Germans lost. That's pretty silly. You're discounting a bunch of the weapons based on a letter. The letter M is in use by lots of countries - some of them refer to the AK-47 that you're praising. So, yeah, you're not really qualified to opine and to be taken seriously. Duly noted. I appreciate you letting me know how well you understand the topic and sharing your views to ensure that I know the quality of your future comments.
While I tend to agree, within reason, there's a problem with that. There unjust laws but that's too deep for you and I to get into today.
So, here's the important part and it's the simple part. We can go deeper than this if you want...
You do not know the laws. Chances are, you're breaking at least one law right now. You might not think so but you are. You are a criminal, you're just not convicted yet. Nobody knows all the laws. Some of them are even felonies. (The bullshit about a felony a day is just that, bullshit. No need for hyperbole here.)
Right now, you're guilt of some offense and with selective enforcement you need only offend someone enough for them to prosecute you. That this has not happened to you does not mean it will not happen to you and once you get their attention they will have their hooks in you for the rest of your life. This is not a slippery slope argument, this is a legitimate concern.
Specifically, with Tor, you can compound this with things like "parallel construction." I encourage you, if you're unfamiliar, to Google these terms. This *is* a real risk and there may come a time when you are the target and the target is not some drug dealing terrorist. You might be okay with the current administration, I encourage you to take a closer look at the current candidates. Keep in mind that they'll be setting policy and have access to these same tools starting next January.
I implore you to think carefully about this subject. If you've thought this through and reasoned your way to that sort of flippant response then I'm not going to be able to reason with you. I'm not the spittle flecked zealot, I'm the rational guy and I take a ration of shit for it sometimes. If you need help understanding why this is a problem, I'll help you with that. Someone will...
The ability to be monitored in all that you do has no good end. There is no way, no way at all, that it can end up well. Literally... There is no conceivable benefit, in the long-term, to being unable to communicate without being monitored. That path leads to oppression and it always has.
I really want to engage in some hyperbole but I'm afraid that would ruin my chance to help you understand why this is a problem. Do some reading of history, do some reasoning, and start to think about what unchecked power does. And, yes... Information is power. Being unable to communicate without interception and monitoring is a very basic requirement for a healthy society - even if it goes unused or even if it is used for bad things. Freedom means that bad things happen to otherwise good people. This is an acceptable risk.
There's a huge swath between this and a lawless society with zero governance. The excluded middle has many shades of gray.
You seem to know what you're talking about. Let me pick your brain?
If I understand this, they didn't really attack it. What they did was simply add more exit nodes and then observe the traffic. Is that correct?
If that is correct, why are we calling it attacking instead of spying, monitoring, or otherwise? Then, as it was their equipment, their exit nodes, their physical property - is the monitoring (in and of itself) illegal?
I'd argue that it is immoral but even my web sites have logs. If you're accessing my hardware, I have every right to monitor, observe, or whatever. Is that also correct? It might be immoral to take it to a certain level, is this a level too far?
I would argue on your side that I agree, the data should have been anonymized from the very beginning. If they're going to be collecting this data, the data should have been anonymized from the start. If you collect it or store it in a non-anonymous form then it can be subject to a subpoena which we're seeing here.
Given the nature of Tor, I'd have liked them to take greater precautions with this. It's disappointing that they did not. However, I'm not sure that they really attacked anything and I'm not sure that they did anything illegal. (You're not claiming illegality but others are.)
Not positive but I believe the legal term is "Royally Fucked and Fucked Hard" if you destroy data after it has been subpoenaed. You can fight a subpoena. Destroying that data, or refusing to submit it after a "fair hearing,"* you are going to pound-me-in-the-ass prison. You are in SERIOUS trouble for not submitting all data if the subpoena is challenged and the challenge is overturned.
I'm not sure there's an "ethical" way to destroy the data.* I really don't have an answer.
* That's assuming a fair hearing and adherence to the law.
Heh, the ones I'm thinking of were horrific with both a sidearm and a rifle. The kicker was, they *were* part of the tactical teams. However, in their defense, they had a few people who were the exception to the rule. They actually had some decent sniper talent. One of the range's we used to frequent was good up to 800 yards. It could be windy, raining, etc and there were exactly two of them who could plink at that range with great accuracy. They were pretty good.
That's saying something... I know, as in know personally, a number of Scout Snipers. (Those guys are phenomenal. Each and every one.) These guys were good in comparison with them. They weren't (I don't think) as good - but still pretty damned good. If you've ever seen a sniper at work, they're amazing. Or at least the skilled ones are. So, they had at least a couple of good snipers. We all kind of shot together for a couple of years, actually. Almost every weekend, when we had time, we'd be out there with our personal firearms.
If you've never actually seen what the training and testing looks like for the USMC Scout Sniper, you might want to check that out. These guys weren't *that* good but were pretty good. They were also not really scouts - I can speak only for their marksmanship. I like to think I'm pretty good - in fact, if you don't mind my saying so, I am pretty good. I am nowhere near that good. I can buy all the equipment I want, spend all the hours practicing I want, and I'll never be that good. It's a long list of things that goes into the training for a Scout Sniper and the testing is brutal. I do mean brutal.
If you want, I'll see if I can dig you up a documentary or you can probably find one on your own - I'm sure there's at least one. Just search for "USMC Scout Sniper" and filter for long. I'm sure something will pop up. Serious - it's impressive and the display of marksmanship is amazing. Seriously, toss a documentary on in the background and give it a watch/listen - unless you're already familiar. I'll even go *find* you one, if you want.
Hell, let me see what I can find... Alright, I didn't watch this but it is Nat Geo so it might be good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There's a playlist and it will auto-play some more. If you're unfamiliar, it will blow your mind.
Or, do what I do... More often than not, I've nothing stronger than a.22 LR on me. Nope. It probably won't kill someone on the first shot. It probably won't even kill them on the second shot. However, I've got a whole magazine full of 'em and just a few of them will likely be enough. I don't want to kill anyone. I just want them to stop being a threat. If they continue being a threat, I'll keep poking holes in them until they stop. Is it ideal for every situation? Absolutely not. It's fine for mine.
At any rate, I believe frangible rounds have come a long ways in just the past few years. I've put a few boxes of DRT downrange and through a 1911 (I've not tried any other calibers) and they seemed to do fine. I even set up a sheet of plywood and paper behind it and put some rounds down through that. They held up okay and did alright. I'm not positive, do your own research, but I'm pretty sure they're fairly reliable at certain distances.
In other words, I could see them coming in handy at distances of less than 25 yards. Obviously, they do not do well if you want them to penetrate walls and there's sometimes justification for that. Seldom but sometimes...
I gave 'em a try and shot a few things. I'd like to get some ballistics gel and make some videos at some point. I shot water jugs with 'em and they broke up well there. They didn't seem to break up at all with a melon. They broke up with plywood. I had no gypsum board to test with. I don't really have much of a need for them but they've come a long ways and they might be a valid choice in certain circumstances.
Hmm... I really should start shooting some videos of that stuff. I wonder if other folks would wanna watch? I'm always trying new and interesting things. Well, interesting to me.
I didn't even cheat and go look at the numbers first. There are also very few stretches of single lane highways in the FHS. That's because convoys need to have a second lane in order to have some flexibility and safety. Yes, it has added benefits where civilian traffic is concerned. However, convoys need to be able to route around a damaged vehicle, be able to move specialty vehicles up and down the line, and things like that. The feds can, and will, come stomp that highway closed if they need to.
Of course, the fecal matter will have needed to hit the fan by then... There are still occasional drills and convoys. By the way, you can fit 3 HMMWVs on a 2 lane federal highway with room for the mirrors. Turned sideways, they will block a complete 2 lane highway and the breakdown lane. Staggered in a line, a full five lengths apart, will create a slalom that a semi can fit through. Three is enough for the M1 Abrams to fit through. One is enough for your average passenger vehicle at five miles per hour. And if folks don't think they'll stop, I'd like to remind them that they carry a.50 cal on them if needed. I believe, I'm not positive, that two M1s at a 45 deg angle blocks the entire 2 lane highway.
And people think that's just coincidence... No, they do... If you expand the sub-thread, you'll see an "enlightened" AC has decided to tell me that I'm wrong. I gave them a citation all the way back to the beginning - in 1916, before Eisenhower. Then I gave 'em a second citation to let them check and see that it was the earliest start of our federal highway system as ordained by the government. *sighs*
You can lead 'em to water, but you can't make 'em drink. At any rate, thanks for pulling the numbers out. If you want to see how close they cut it, check the width of the HMMWV with the door's on both sides open to full extension. They'll fit - and the doors will be able to open, fully, with enough room to walk between them though I think it's a tight squeeze. The lines for parking them on-base are that same width, there are training courses that are that same width, and you will learn to operate them safely and effectively in that same width. Depending on your height, when you look out the passenger side window from the driver's seat and line it up so that the bottom of the door-handle is even with the top of the passenger side bottom window sill, you'll be the exact distance apart. (Or close enough for government work.) Oddly enough, that'd put you "exactly" dead center with your lanes on the highway system if traveling in parallel.
Surely, it's just like you said - coincidental. *snickers*
There's more... There's the reflectivity of the marking paint used at a certain number of lumen. Coincidentally enough, that lowest value would actually have a strong correlation with the lumen used with blackout lights. Coincidentally enough, that reflectivity (different for signage) is also using that same lowest value for the minimal amount.
Yup, like you said, it's surely coincidental. Oh, the USSR is like that too... So aren't the main routes in China. So aren't they in Israel. As you noted, the UK, etc...
You know, you're right! It must be coincidental! *sighs* No, I've no idea why the AC wanted to argue. I do feel like making fun of them. I'm tired and about as mature as a five year old.
Well, in my defense, look at how it was used... I'm not really sure how to articulate it more clearly. It's also important that you note what it is in response to. Taken out of context (which it seems to have been) really changes the tone. I don't know if you read at >0 or not but there's an AC post that it is in response to.
Unless, of course, you think we're at the apex of knowledge, correct, and the epitome of morality? In which case, I'd suggest an ego check. Every single person in the past has felt the same as you do. There's every reason to believe that, in 200 years, we'll look back at today's science and think about how our current scientists have stood on the shoulders of giants and how silly and wrong we were back then.
If that's not what you believe then I'm not sure what to tell you? I think it will be great and that they'll be standing on those shoulders and doing great things. All evidence points to my being correct in my presumptions. Go back just 200 years and look at the state of science at that time. Now imagine 200 years in the future. Do you really think we're that much more intelligent today? No, I don't mean have access to more information - or more work already completed for us. Do you really think we're that much more intelligent?
I do not believe we are. I've even heard a reasonable argument that we're less intelligent now than we've ever been. We might be better at passing tests, that's true. What we do have, however, is greater availability of information. We've got vast bodies of work to use and build on. But I don't think we're more intelligent. Not in any significant manner. I'm not so egotistical as to believe that I'm the evolutionary end, the epitome of intellect, nor the pillar of morality. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that I'm no such thing and that in 200 years my beliefs will be scoffed at, my intelligence mocked, and my accomplishments rendered trivial. I'm actually okay with that.
The AC seems to think we're at some transition. I disagree. I think we're steadily trending upward while our amassed work increases on a logarithmic scale. I'm certainly not somehow against this sort of advance in engineering. I'm not even sure how that one could be against it? I'm actually kind of confused as to why you might think I am against bio-engineering? I'm wondering if I didn't articulate it clearly or if you're reading into it more than what I said? I am many things, but against bio-engineering is not one of those things.
I imagine it's not that hard but just a question of how many compute cycles they are going to throw at it. It's currently done with scripting,
There's a few other ways. They can go for some sort of communication - send a packet from that address and if it's not sending an ACK then dump to a different page or don't display the content at all. They can check browser extensions, I'm not sure how that's done - I've not kept up with site design as much as I could/should have. They can use cookies, if the cookie isn't accepted then they don't display the content. So, they load a cookie and the ad loads a cookie of its own, if they don't match then you don't get a page. I'm sure there are other ways.
I'm also sure there are ways passed that and ways to get around them. It's just a question of how many compute cycles we're going to throw at it - at either end.
I was an "early adopter." I had broadband at work. I owned my own company and let me tell you, broadband was more meaningful back then. I had fiber by the mid 1990s as I recall. (I wanna say a T3?) Anyhow, at home I had dial-up. I hated it... Man, did I hate it. I came across an application that ran in the system tray. It was like Proximatron only different. It was some yellow icon but not "Cookie Muncher." (I've had this conversation here on Slashdot before and we all tried to find it again - can't remember, can't find it, but a few others remember it.)
Basically, you changed your proxy settings and used it or it would automatically do it with Internet Explorer from a right click menu. It was Windows 95, I'm pretty sure. You could download updated lists, apply your own filters, it filtered based on size, it filtered based on names, and it supported wildcards, subdomains, and things like that.
At any rate, I've been blocking ads for this whole time. I'll be blocking ads for a long time in the future. But... Here's the thing - they're going to find a way around it. They can detect lots of things - I'm pretty sure. If you don't let the script load, they don't display content. They can wrap it in JavaScript. They can check cookies and alter the cookies if they ad is loaded. They can have the script send back a packet that says the content has been displayed, etc... There's probably quite a few ways to do this - and they probably will at some point. And we'll leapfrog and figure it out as we go along.
Right now, I think they don't because it's wasted computational overhead. But, if they absolutely have to do it then they just might. It will kind of suck because I'm not letting them through. There's no way I'm letting them through. I'll just use other sites. I'll happily pay sites that I use some money if it's worth it. Or, if they want, I'll give them something more valuable - namely content, such as here. (Though I have paid for Slashdot use in the past.)
One odd side effect? Now that everyone's starting to block ads, I'm seeing more and more restricted content. Now that the practice is gaining in popularity, it's ruining my internet experience. Ah well... It's for the best but it is an odd side effect. In hindsight, I should have anticipated it. I expect a rapidly escalating war between blockers and site owners. However, I dare say that we blockers have more compute cycles than they have.
It's tough but I've managed to actually get people to alter their views in meaningful ways. It takes two to do that, they have to be receptive to changing their views and have to be able to do it without their ego being in the way. You're not going to do that if there's an attack on the person.
I like this example...
You probably don't know about it - but I've been telling people about it for about 15 years now. You can actually read some of the Windows source code. It's called the Shared Source Initiative. We, a bunch of Microsoft MVPs, were the ones that got that started. We are the ones who showed that it was important and needed. We were the ones who got MS going on their open source.
It wasn't the spittle flecked zealots. It wasn't the people who were vulgar. It wasn't the idealist. It was the pragmatic, it was the calm, it was the polite, and it was the communicative with clarity. It wasn't RMS. It wasn't Slashdot. It was the MVPs, the "Most Valuable Professional" award winners who were given true insider access (nothing like the Insider Access program of today). By the way, I participated for about a half dozen years. I mis-typed earlier, in another post, and said a dozen years. It was half that. I've not actually taken part since 2006 or 2007 so I can't speak about today's program.
When you're specked with spittle, smell bad, and ranting - nobody listens, no matter how correct you might be. Like it or not, how you carry yourself and how you portray yourself is significant. It is not the message that matters but how it is delivered and the sooner people realize it then the sooner those of us who have cooler heads can actually start to have meaningful discourse. It's the zealots who hold back progress more than the those who are opposed to the ideals.
Yes and no. Some still had the four position selector. (Safe, single, burst, auto.) Some only had the three choices. I am, I repeat, not a historian or anything but I want to say the model was M16A2E1 but I'm not sure AND I think there may be more than one model like that. Do not quote me on that or this next part... I want to say that they were trivial to change. The difference was limited to the selector itself. It simply didn't move into the auto position. Again, do not quote me on that or on the model number. I imagine a search engine will find that information out for you if you're curious.
Now, to make things even more confusing... I want to say that there was also an M16A1E1 that had just the three point selector switch. I'm really damned certain that I've seen the A2 version and I don't believe I've seen the A1 version. I think the Army got those? I really don't know? I am almost certain that the Army had the A2 and I'm pretty sure I've seen it. Do not quote me on that... And...
To make it even more confusing... I'm almost positive that's what the FBI goons carry. We had some interaction while I was stationed in Quantico. I had occasion to see them at the range. I'm not really sure that they should be allowed to fire more than three rounds at a time? I'm not much for putting things or people down but, as a whole, I'm entirely unimpressed with the marksmanship I've seen from those who were active members of the Bureau. I've seen and practiced with members of the regular police forces that shoot better than they. In short, I'm thoroughly unimpressed.
At any rate, I can't offer much more than that. I am not a historian nor am I one of those folks who can sit and recount stats. Hell, I'm not even sure of the muzzle velocity any more. I think it was around 3200 fps for the M16A2. The A2 also has an adjustable rear site. I believe, but do not quote me on this, that the M16A4 is limited to burst and has no auto mode on any of them? I have not used one so I can make no claim about it.
Yeah, you too... Get in the corner. There's NO excuse for that kind of behavior. None... *snickers* We've got standards around here!
I guess, if you time it just right, you can keep cutting the lion into it into half over and over again. Eventually, you'll end up with a very small lion piece. If you get that one piece of lion small enough, and it's just an itty bitty lion piece, you just split that last little bit of lion in half and you should have a very big boom!
Yeah, I was in in 75 and issued the A1 and then again in 83 (maybe start of 84, it's been ages) and that was the A2. I will say that it's seemingly more accurate (the A2) but by that time it was something I'd acclimated to so it's hard to be objective. If that makes sense? The A2 seems to drop a little quicker but that's not accurately expressing the physics. The round is a bit slow but spinning a bit more but over the same amount of distance it drops more. I have no idea what the ballistic characteristics would look like out beyond 500 yards. How to explain it?
Sometime between 75 and 83 they changed to the A2. I do not know when though I'm pretty sure I've been told when that was. One thing I did notice is that the physical act of aiming is easier at 500 yards. It's hard to explain and I'm not that articulate. Basically, you're using a haze that's just at the top of the front site and lining that up with the rear site. With the faster round of the aiming point, to account for drop, is actually a little more difficult to find than it is with the slower round of the A2. With the A2, you just line up the haze with just above where the white meets the black and gravity does the rest. It's just a neat difference that I recollect.
Sorry that's not the most articulate. I could show you but that's kind of difficult from here. The heavier round is just enough to make that particular shot a little easier. Unfortunate, I'm not a historian or anything. I'm not sure when they made the change to the A2. I only know that it was between 79 and 84. Yeah, it was December of 1983 when I went back in. I'm pretty sure? It has been a lot of years since then.
Hell no I can't do well under those circumstances. I've had but one opportunity, a misfortune really, to return fire. It was scary as all hell and I can tell you that "aiming" really isn't the word I'd use for it. It was suppressive fire and I pointed in the general direction and tried to show as little of my body from behind cover as possible. It was scary and, more importantly, noisy.
Now, to be a bit more clear? No, it's still no. However, it becomes largely muscle memory. That and, well, if you're trying to take a 500 yard shot from a prone position then you're probably not too worried about incoming rounds. It's not paintball where getting shot means you are out of the game. You don't just sit there sniping. It's not much like the video games, movies, or even the games you can play yourself. (Though you can get some fancy suits and lasers and have full-on mock combat if you want to invest some serious money.)
So, it's somewhere between my first paragraph and the second. There's a lot that you just do, without really thinking about it. If you're familiar, you lock the rifle into place by holding it exactly right and exactly the same way every time. Or as close as possible. You "tie in" with the strap looped and pulled so that you have a stable platform. You even do that, for the most part, in combat - or so it seems. And no, not always...
Anyhow, the round makes some sense. Frangible rounds make some sense too. Over-penetration is a real risk, especially with the.223 - it's a very high velocity round and the FMJ adds to the likelihood of over-penetration. Frangible rounds are a good option for this. If this is a viable round that works as intended with a reliability that is appropriate then I have no qualms about it. I'm not worried that it will be the only round issued. That'd be stupid but, again, how often are you going to be trying to accurately put rounds down range past 500 yards? Not that likely. So long as there are other options then, by all means, consider it and evaluate it for effectiveness. If it's effective, add it to the list of tools.
Err... I'm not one of those folks who is like, "That's not how we did it in my day! It ain't right!" No, if the tool works, serves a need, and is a good choice - then use it. Just make sure that the testing is done, that the reasons are good, that the choices are weighed, and that there's an actual need. I don't see this as a risk in lost lives, really. I don't see this leading to additional injuries or deaths. I don't see this as making combat any safer for the intended combatants. I've been stressing the need to consider alternative rounds for a long time.
I also shot competitively, by the way. We actually had a rifle and pistol team at my school and competed at the national level. I've done some competitions since but nothing serious. I'm good (I think and rate) but I'm not that good and could never go pro. My son, had he stuck with it, probably could have done well on the circuit. I actually had folks suggest that I consider representing the Marines on both the rifle and pistol teams (I had to qual with the pistol when I went to school to become an escort/chaser) and gave it some consideration but I was serving to pay for my education and wasn't going to invest that many years.
I've put some online but I'll be back in Maine in the spring. If you're curious, I'll dump some pics up. I've a rather extensive collection of firearms now. I'm not a historian or a walking fact-book but I enjoy it. I've a friend who's retired, he actually retired to Maine not long before I did and we knew each other from back in Winston-Salem. He is still a licensed dealer and has been unloading his collection to me piece by piece. I've got a couple of select-fire weapons (and yes, they're legal, yes the taxes are paid, and yes they're well aware that I own them - I'd say they're *very* aware that I own them), namely an M14 and an M22. The M22 is a Chinese made AK-47, likely meant to be sold to/used by the NVA but we're not really able
Slashdot Mirror
You ever get the urge to go trolling in real life? 'Cause, I have that urge now.
I'd like to sign up for a university, I'm sure I'll get accepted. Then, I'd like to say some of the most outlandish things - each time ensuring to not actually break the rules. I imagine I could have some fun with it. See, I'm mixed racially... Part of that mix is Black African. "Oh no, I don't dislike all black people, I just dislike black women." My other races are Amerindian and Honky. I wonder if I can get away with saying phrases like, "Mohawk scalping, spear chucking, redneck."
I suppose they could then kick me out and I could sue 'em - except I don't want their money. No, I think I'd sue for a public apology from everyone involved - and make them call me a "Mohawk scalping, spear chucking, redneck" right in their apology. And publish it in all the school papers and the local papers - and maybe on television. While calling me a Mohawk scalping, spear chucking, redneck. In fact, they can call me Mr. Mohawk scalping, spear chucking, redneck if they want.
Yes, I hate idiots and ignorant people to and I do wish they'd shut up. However, I wish they'd shut up of their own volition and not because of force. Yes, I just wish they'd learn something and how to express their ideas without being offensive. The important part is that I want them to learn. I don't want the government, or agencies funded by the government, preventing speech.
It's really bothersome that there are people who will stand by each and every one of these actions. There are people who don't actually value their liberties. It disheartening as they appear to be growing in number and they come from all ends of the political spectrum.
See the FIRE site. There are *hundreds* and *hundreds* of enumerated complaints and more being listed all the time.
I had no idea FIRE existed until just the other day. I meandered over and gave 'em a donation. For the record, it was Cold Fjord who pointed them out to me.
Also, if you look around their site, you'll find that they have some "leftist" outrage material there as well. The reality is, there's going to be more leftists in the mix when it comes to this sort of thing. I know that some folks have trouble accepting this so I'd suggest a good start to do some research would be reading the Wikipedia article about "Free Speech Zones." Those zones were put in place by the Democrats, at DNC, in 1988.
The right is many things. Safe spaces is not one of them.
I really don't like vegan pizza. Vegans aren't really all that tasty unless you dip 'em in bacon grease first.
Dump Ghostery and use uMatrix. It's lighter. They don't sell your data. It's free and open. It's not intrusive. It's a billion and three times more effective. (Err... I'm making that number up.) It does many, many things that Ghostery does not do. Search your favorite browser's extensions for "uMatrix" and have a look. It puts Ghostery to shame.
I like your style. Me? I don't get 'em often but I kind of like it when I get down-mods. Sometimes it was, indeed, me being a dick intentionally. Other times, it's usually something that they're just too pissed off to accept. The ego is a frail thing. If I get a down-mod on an otherwise normal comment, I'm not displeased - it means I left an impression. That means that I've impressed them and that's a good thing - even if they believe it's an impression that they'd rather not have.
If I'm just repeating what everyone else says for the sake of karma, I can spend my time better elsewhere. I like being challenged, challenging to new thoughts, learning, and that includes sometimes stepping on some toes. If we don't challenge our thoughts and hold them up to scrutiny then we are not growing. Bugger 'em... 'Snot like I'm gonna run out of karma. I'm not actually sure if I could?
Just an FYI. If you post in the thread, after making a bad mod, it removes that mod. It also removes all the other mods you've made in that thread but it's possible to at least correct a mistaken mod. It's also important to note that it *only* sacrifices the mods you made in that thread. So, if you ever make an error, you can always opt to submit a reply anywhere in the thread and it will undo the moderation.
> What happened to "If its not broke, don't fix it" mentality?
Not everyone has that mentality. I usually find that's held by systems administrators. The rest of 'em are saying, "If it ain't broke, tweak it."
It's what we do. I've been breaking stuff in new and interesting ways for a long time.
uBlock is excellent. As is uMatrix. With uMatrix, you can do a whole lot of fun stuff. It's a veritable old-school software firewall for your browser. There's even a version for Firefox now. It's like NoScript on steroids. Once you figure it out, you're all set. There's a slight learning curve but it's not bad. It's just a whitelist approach. If you want, you can lock everything down and have nothing but text, nothing from third parties, and not even images or scripts on the page. It works at wildcard, domain, and sub-domain levels. It's fantastic.
I've been using it for years now. There's also HTTP Switchboard, by the same guy, but there is no Firefox version of that. With a wee bit of extra invested time, you can just install uMatrix and dump uBlock. Though, admittedly, it doesn't give you those handy statistics about how much has been blocked overall.
For this page, there are 37 requests. I'm allowing 11 though. That's uMatrix.
uBlock 9 items, or 33% of total content. Over time, it has blocked 23%. You don't really get those numbers with uMatrix. Meh... No big deal. uMatrix works quite well and you don't have to run them together or anything. You can but there's no real need to - though sometimes uBlock hides the fact that it hid stuff a bit better. Though they both block the same thing - sometimes uMatrix will leave you with a gaudy blank spot.
But, if you want, you can just run uMatrix and save the RAM. It's really quite configurable. The upper-left part of the control panel is actually a click-able area. When you click there, you can set sub-domain, domain, and even wildcard. Wildcard settings apply to all sites. That means you can block even first party scripts until you specifically enable them. You can block first party images, CSS, frames, etc... You can block third party, allow third party, select by domain, block per domain, and all sorts of fancy stuff.
It's really kind of nice to be able to have the web your way. Add to that GreaseMonkey and Stylish? It's like a whole new web out there. Once you set the settings in uMatrix, make sure to click save. Then you've only got to do it once and the next time you return it will retain the same settings. You can do all sorts of things - including using blocking lists and hosts files - and they'll update automatically. 'Snot a bad application.
I'm not affiliated. I'm just a happy customer. Oddly, you can't even pay for it. The author wants no donations. The author will accept no donations. The code is open. Have at it.
For certain definitions of lost, sure. If you want to go by body count (which is a much better metric for deciding this) then you might want to rethink that. However, feel free to make that choice. I'd also note that the M is in a lot of weapons. For instance, I own an M-22. The M-22 is a Chinese made AK-47.
I gotta be honest here... Don't let this hurt your ego or anything but I'm starting to think you might not actually be qualified to opine with any authority. That's okay. You're still free to hold those opinions. It's just that they carry very little weight. That you count politics in your choice, or weigh it as heavy as you do, when picking a firearm that you'd be depending on then I'm not really sure that you can be objective. Then, you don't seem to actually know what you're talking about or which metrics would even be valuable, I'm not sure you've an understanding of the topic at hand.
And that's okay. Don't let it hurt your feelings or bruise your ego. Really. It's all good and we can't know everything. I appreciate that you have an opinion and, I suppose, it's always good to voice that opinion. If you're open to suggestions (and you're probably not) then I'd suggest staying away from video game "knowledge" and "gun" forums. I'd further suggest openly engaging a few local people to see if they'll help you learn about firearms - if you're actually interested and want to offer an opinion that carries any weight and is based on meaningful characteristics.
A good example would be you'd discount the MG 42 just because the Germans lost. That's pretty silly. You're discounting a bunch of the weapons based on a letter. The letter M is in use by lots of countries - some of them refer to the AK-47 that you're praising. So, yeah, you're not really qualified to opine and to be taken seriously. Duly noted. I appreciate you letting me know how well you understand the topic and sharing your views to ensure that I know the quality of your future comments.
While I tend to agree, within reason, there's a problem with that. There unjust laws but that's too deep for you and I to get into today.
So, here's the important part and it's the simple part. We can go deeper than this if you want...
You do not know the laws. Chances are, you're breaking at least one law right now. You might not think so but you are. You are a criminal, you're just not convicted yet. Nobody knows all the laws. Some of them are even felonies. (The bullshit about a felony a day is just that, bullshit. No need for hyperbole here.)
Right now, you're guilt of some offense and with selective enforcement you need only offend someone enough for them to prosecute you. That this has not happened to you does not mean it will not happen to you and once you get their attention they will have their hooks in you for the rest of your life. This is not a slippery slope argument, this is a legitimate concern.
Specifically, with Tor, you can compound this with things like "parallel construction." I encourage you, if you're unfamiliar, to Google these terms. This *is* a real risk and there may come a time when you are the target and the target is not some drug dealing terrorist. You might be okay with the current administration, I encourage you to take a closer look at the current candidates. Keep in mind that they'll be setting policy and have access to these same tools starting next January.
I implore you to think carefully about this subject. If you've thought this through and reasoned your way to that sort of flippant response then I'm not going to be able to reason with you. I'm not the spittle flecked zealot, I'm the rational guy and I take a ration of shit for it sometimes. If you need help understanding why this is a problem, I'll help you with that. Someone will...
The ability to be monitored in all that you do has no good end. There is no way, no way at all, that it can end up well. Literally... There is no conceivable benefit, in the long-term, to being unable to communicate without being monitored. That path leads to oppression and it always has.
I really want to engage in some hyperbole but I'm afraid that would ruin my chance to help you understand why this is a problem. Do some reading of history, do some reasoning, and start to think about what unchecked power does. And, yes... Information is power. Being unable to communicate without interception and monitoring is a very basic requirement for a healthy society - even if it goes unused or even if it is used for bad things. Freedom means that bad things happen to otherwise good people. This is an acceptable risk.
There's a huge swath between this and a lawless society with zero governance. The excluded middle has many shades of gray.
You seem to know what you're talking about. Let me pick your brain?
If I understand this, they didn't really attack it. What they did was simply add more exit nodes and then observe the traffic. Is that correct?
If that is correct, why are we calling it attacking instead of spying, monitoring, or otherwise? Then, as it was their equipment, their exit nodes, their physical property - is the monitoring (in and of itself) illegal?
I'd argue that it is immoral but even my web sites have logs. If you're accessing my hardware, I have every right to monitor, observe, or whatever. Is that also correct? It might be immoral to take it to a certain level, is this a level too far?
I would argue on your side that I agree, the data should have been anonymized from the very beginning. If they're going to be collecting this data, the data should have been anonymized from the start. If you collect it or store it in a non-anonymous form then it can be subject to a subpoena which we're seeing here.
Given the nature of Tor, I'd have liked them to take greater precautions with this. It's disappointing that they did not. However, I'm not sure that they really attacked anything and I'm not sure that they did anything illegal. (You're not claiming illegality but others are.)
What am I missing?
Not positive but I believe the legal term is "Royally Fucked and Fucked Hard" if you destroy data after it has been subpoenaed. You can fight a subpoena. Destroying that data, or refusing to submit it after a "fair hearing,"* you are going to pound-me-in-the-ass prison. You are in SERIOUS trouble for not submitting all data if the subpoena is challenged and the challenge is overturned.
I'm not sure there's an "ethical" way to destroy the data.* I really don't have an answer.
* That's assuming a fair hearing and adherence to the law.
A subpoena is not a warrant. That's not a difference without distinction. From a subpoena they may get a warrant.
I do not know the facts in this case. However, they are two very different legal concepts. I offer no other opinion at this time.
Heh, the ones I'm thinking of were horrific with both a sidearm and a rifle. The kicker was, they *were* part of the tactical teams. However, in their defense, they had a few people who were the exception to the rule. They actually had some decent sniper talent. One of the range's we used to frequent was good up to 800 yards. It could be windy, raining, etc and there were exactly two of them who could plink at that range with great accuracy. They were pretty good.
That's saying something... I know, as in know personally, a number of Scout Snipers. (Those guys are phenomenal. Each and every one.) These guys were good in comparison with them. They weren't (I don't think) as good - but still pretty damned good. If you've ever seen a sniper at work, they're amazing. Or at least the skilled ones are. So, they had at least a couple of good snipers. We all kind of shot together for a couple of years, actually. Almost every weekend, when we had time, we'd be out there with our personal firearms.
If you've never actually seen what the training and testing looks like for the USMC Scout Sniper, you might want to check that out. These guys weren't *that* good but were pretty good. They were also not really scouts - I can speak only for their marksmanship. I like to think I'm pretty good - in fact, if you don't mind my saying so, I am pretty good. I am nowhere near that good. I can buy all the equipment I want, spend all the hours practicing I want, and I'll never be that good. It's a long list of things that goes into the training for a Scout Sniper and the testing is brutal. I do mean brutal.
If you want, I'll see if I can dig you up a documentary or you can probably find one on your own - I'm sure there's at least one. Just search for "USMC Scout Sniper" and filter for long. I'm sure something will pop up. Serious - it's impressive and the display of marksmanship is amazing. Seriously, toss a documentary on in the background and give it a watch/listen - unless you're already familiar. I'll even go *find* you one, if you want.
Hell, let me see what I can find... Alright, I didn't watch this but it is Nat Geo so it might be good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There's a playlist and it will auto-play some more. If you're unfamiliar, it will blow your mind.
Or, do what I do... More often than not, I've nothing stronger than a .22 LR on me. Nope. It probably won't kill someone on the first shot. It probably won't even kill them on the second shot. However, I've got a whole magazine full of 'em and just a few of them will likely be enough. I don't want to kill anyone. I just want them to stop being a threat. If they continue being a threat, I'll keep poking holes in them until they stop. Is it ideal for every situation? Absolutely not. It's fine for mine.
At any rate, I believe frangible rounds have come a long ways in just the past few years. I've put a few boxes of DRT downrange and through a 1911 (I've not tried any other calibers) and they seemed to do fine. I even set up a sheet of plywood and paper behind it and put some rounds down through that. They held up okay and did alright. I'm not positive, do your own research, but I'm pretty sure they're fairly reliable at certain distances.
In other words, I could see them coming in handy at distances of less than 25 yards. Obviously, they do not do well if you want them to penetrate walls and there's sometimes justification for that. Seldom but sometimes...
I gave 'em a try and shot a few things. I'd like to get some ballistics gel and make some videos at some point. I shot water jugs with 'em and they broke up well there. They didn't seem to break up at all with a melon. They broke up with plywood. I had no gypsum board to test with. I don't really have much of a need for them but they've come a long ways and they might be a valid choice in certain circumstances.
Hmm... I really should start shooting some videos of that stuff. I wonder if other folks would wanna watch? I'm always trying new and interesting things. Well, interesting to me.
I'm still trying to figure out how to take that remark. ;-) Should I take it literally?
;-)
I didn't even cheat and go look at the numbers first. There are also very few stretches of single lane highways in the FHS. That's because convoys need to have a second lane in order to have some flexibility and safety. Yes, it has added benefits where civilian traffic is concerned. However, convoys need to be able to route around a damaged vehicle, be able to move specialty vehicles up and down the line, and things like that. The feds can, and will, come stomp that highway closed if they need to.
Of course, the fecal matter will have needed to hit the fan by then... There are still occasional drills and convoys. By the way, you can fit 3 HMMWVs on a 2 lane federal highway with room for the mirrors. Turned sideways, they will block a complete 2 lane highway and the breakdown lane. Staggered in a line, a full five lengths apart, will create a slalom that a semi can fit through. Three is enough for the M1 Abrams to fit through. One is enough for your average passenger vehicle at five miles per hour. And if folks don't think they'll stop, I'd like to remind them that they carry a .50 cal on them if needed. I believe, I'm not positive, that two M1s at a 45 deg angle blocks the entire 2 lane highway.
And people think that's just coincidence... No, they do... If you expand the sub-thread, you'll see an "enlightened" AC has decided to tell me that I'm wrong. I gave them a citation all the way back to the beginning - in 1916, before Eisenhower. Then I gave 'em a second citation to let them check and see that it was the earliest start of our federal highway system as ordained by the government. *sighs*
You can lead 'em to water, but you can't make 'em drink. At any rate, thanks for pulling the numbers out. If you want to see how close they cut it, check the width of the HMMWV with the door's on both sides open to full extension. They'll fit - and the doors will be able to open, fully, with enough room to walk between them though I think it's a tight squeeze. The lines for parking them on-base are that same width, there are training courses that are that same width, and you will learn to operate them safely and effectively in that same width. Depending on your height, when you look out the passenger side window from the driver's seat and line it up so that the bottom of the door-handle is even with the top of the passenger side bottom window sill, you'll be the exact distance apart. (Or close enough for government work.) Oddly enough, that'd put you "exactly" dead center with your lanes on the highway system if traveling in parallel.
Surely, it's just like you said - coincidental. *snickers*
There's more... There's the reflectivity of the marking paint used at a certain number of lumen. Coincidentally enough, that lowest value would actually have a strong correlation with the lumen used with blackout lights. Coincidentally enough, that reflectivity (different for signage) is also using that same lowest value for the minimal amount.
Yup, like you said, it's surely coincidental. Oh, the USSR is like that too... So aren't the main routes in China. So aren't they in Israel. As you noted, the UK, etc...
You know, you're right! It must be coincidental! *sighs* No, I've no idea why the AC wanted to argue. I do feel like making fun of them. I'm tired and about as mature as a five year old.
Well, in my defense, look at how it was used... I'm not really sure how to articulate it more clearly. It's also important that you note what it is in response to. Taken out of context (which it seems to have been) really changes the tone. I don't know if you read at >0 or not but there's an AC post that it is in response to.
Unless, of course, you think we're at the apex of knowledge, correct, and the epitome of morality? In which case, I'd suggest an ego check. Every single person in the past has felt the same as you do. There's every reason to believe that, in 200 years, we'll look back at today's science and think about how our current scientists have stood on the shoulders of giants and how silly and wrong we were back then.
If that's not what you believe then I'm not sure what to tell you? I think it will be great and that they'll be standing on those shoulders and doing great things. All evidence points to my being correct in my presumptions. Go back just 200 years and look at the state of science at that time. Now imagine 200 years in the future. Do you really think we're that much more intelligent today? No, I don't mean have access to more information - or more work already completed for us. Do you really think we're that much more intelligent?
I do not believe we are. I've even heard a reasonable argument that we're less intelligent now than we've ever been. We might be better at passing tests, that's true. What we do have, however, is greater availability of information. We've got vast bodies of work to use and build on. But I don't think we're more intelligent. Not in any significant manner. I'm not so egotistical as to believe that I'm the evolutionary end, the epitome of intellect, nor the pillar of morality. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that I'm no such thing and that in 200 years my beliefs will be scoffed at, my intelligence mocked, and my accomplishments rendered trivial. I'm actually okay with that.
The AC seems to think we're at some transition. I disagree. I think we're steadily trending upward while our amassed work increases on a logarithmic scale. I'm certainly not somehow against this sort of advance in engineering. I'm not even sure how that one could be against it? I'm actually kind of confused as to why you might think I am against bio-engineering? I'm wondering if I didn't articulate it clearly or if you're reading into it more than what I said? I am many things, but against bio-engineering is not one of those things.
I imagine it's not that hard but just a question of how many compute cycles they are going to throw at it. It's currently done with scripting,
There's a few other ways. They can go for some sort of communication - send a packet from that address and if it's not sending an ACK then dump to a different page or don't display the content at all. They can check browser extensions, I'm not sure how that's done - I've not kept up with site design as much as I could/should have. They can use cookies, if the cookie isn't accepted then they don't display the content. So, they load a cookie and the ad loads a cookie of its own, if they don't match then you don't get a page. I'm sure there are other ways.
I'm also sure there are ways passed that and ways to get around them. It's just a question of how many compute cycles we're going to throw at it - at either end.
I was an "early adopter." I had broadband at work. I owned my own company and let me tell you, broadband was more meaningful back then. I had fiber by the mid 1990s as I recall. (I wanna say a T3?) Anyhow, at home I had dial-up. I hated it... Man, did I hate it. I came across an application that ran in the system tray. It was like Proximatron only different. It was some yellow icon but not "Cookie Muncher." (I've had this conversation here on Slashdot before and we all tried to find it again - can't remember, can't find it, but a few others remember it.)
Basically, you changed your proxy settings and used it or it would automatically do it with Internet Explorer from a right click menu. It was Windows 95, I'm pretty sure. You could download updated lists, apply your own filters, it filtered based on size, it filtered based on names, and it supported wildcards, subdomains, and things like that.
At any rate, I've been blocking ads for this whole time. I'll be blocking ads for a long time in the future. But... Here's the thing - they're going to find a way around it. They can detect lots of things - I'm pretty sure. If you don't let the script load, they don't display content. They can wrap it in JavaScript. They can check cookies and alter the cookies if they ad is loaded. They can have the script send back a packet that says the content has been displayed, etc... There's probably quite a few ways to do this - and they probably will at some point. And we'll leapfrog and figure it out as we go along.
Right now, I think they don't because it's wasted computational overhead. But, if they absolutely have to do it then they just might. It will kind of suck because I'm not letting them through. There's no way I'm letting them through. I'll just use other sites. I'll happily pay sites that I use some money if it's worth it. Or, if they want, I'll give them something more valuable - namely content, such as here. (Though I have paid for Slashdot use in the past.)
One odd side effect? Now that everyone's starting to block ads, I'm seeing more and more restricted content. Now that the practice is gaining in popularity, it's ruining my internet experience. Ah well... It's for the best but it is an odd side effect. In hindsight, I should have anticipated it. I expect a rapidly escalating war between blockers and site owners. However, I dare say that we blockers have more compute cycles than they have.
^^ THIS ^^
It's tough but I've managed to actually get people to alter their views in meaningful ways. It takes two to do that, they have to be receptive to changing their views and have to be able to do it without their ego being in the way. You're not going to do that if there's an attack on the person.
I like this example...
You probably don't know about it - but I've been telling people about it for about 15 years now. You can actually read some of the Windows source code. It's called the Shared Source Initiative. We, a bunch of Microsoft MVPs, were the ones that got that started. We are the ones who showed that it was important and needed. We were the ones who got MS going on their open source.
It wasn't the spittle flecked zealots. It wasn't the people who were vulgar. It wasn't the idealist. It was the pragmatic, it was the calm, it was the polite, and it was the communicative with clarity. It wasn't RMS. It wasn't Slashdot. It was the MVPs, the "Most Valuable Professional" award winners who were given true insider access (nothing like the Insider Access program of today). By the way, I participated for about a half dozen years. I mis-typed earlier, in another post, and said a dozen years. It was half that. I've not actually taken part since 2006 or 2007 so I can't speak about today's program.
When you're specked with spittle, smell bad, and ranting - nobody listens, no matter how correct you might be. Like it or not, how you carry yourself and how you portray yourself is significant. It is not the message that matters but how it is delivered and the sooner people realize it then the sooner those of us who have cooler heads can actually start to have meaningful discourse. It's the zealots who hold back progress more than the those who are opposed to the ideals.
Yes and no. Some still had the four position selector. (Safe, single, burst, auto.) Some only had the three choices. I am, I repeat, not a historian or anything but I want to say the model was M16A2E1 but I'm not sure AND I think there may be more than one model like that. Do not quote me on that or this next part... I want to say that they were trivial to change. The difference was limited to the selector itself. It simply didn't move into the auto position. Again, do not quote me on that or on the model number. I imagine a search engine will find that information out for you if you're curious.
Now, to make things even more confusing... I want to say that there was also an M16A1E1 that had just the three point selector switch. I'm really damned certain that I've seen the A2 version and I don't believe I've seen the A1 version. I think the Army got those? I really don't know? I am almost certain that the Army had the A2 and I'm pretty sure I've seen it. Do not quote me on that... And...
To make it even more confusing... I'm almost positive that's what the FBI goons carry. We had some interaction while I was stationed in Quantico. I had occasion to see them at the range. I'm not really sure that they should be allowed to fire more than three rounds at a time? I'm not much for putting things or people down but, as a whole, I'm entirely unimpressed with the marksmanship I've seen from those who were active members of the Bureau. I've seen and practiced with members of the regular police forces that shoot better than they. In short, I'm thoroughly unimpressed.
At any rate, I can't offer much more than that. I am not a historian nor am I one of those folks who can sit and recount stats. Hell, I'm not even sure of the muzzle velocity any more. I think it was around 3200 fps for the M16A2. The A2 also has an adjustable rear site. I believe, but do not quote me on this, that the M16A4 is limited to burst and has no auto mode on any of them? I have not used one so I can make no claim about it.
Yeah, you too... Get in the corner. There's NO excuse for that kind of behavior. None... *snickers* We've got standards around here!
I guess, if you time it just right, you can keep cutting the lion into it into half over and over again. Eventually, you'll end up with a very small lion piece. If you get that one piece of lion small enough, and it's just an itty bitty lion piece, you just split that last little bit of lion in half and you should have a very big boom!
Yeah, I was in in 75 and issued the A1 and then again in 83 (maybe start of 84, it's been ages) and that was the A2. I will say that it's seemingly more accurate (the A2) but by that time it was something I'd acclimated to so it's hard to be objective. If that makes sense? The A2 seems to drop a little quicker but that's not accurately expressing the physics. The round is a bit slow but spinning a bit more but over the same amount of distance it drops more. I have no idea what the ballistic characteristics would look like out beyond 500 yards. How to explain it?
Sometime between 75 and 83 they changed to the A2. I do not know when though I'm pretty sure I've been told when that was. One thing I did notice is that the physical act of aiming is easier at 500 yards. It's hard to explain and I'm not that articulate. Basically, you're using a haze that's just at the top of the front site and lining that up with the rear site. With the faster round of the aiming point, to account for drop, is actually a little more difficult to find than it is with the slower round of the A2. With the A2, you just line up the haze with just above where the white meets the black and gravity does the rest. It's just a neat difference that I recollect.
Sorry that's not the most articulate. I could show you but that's kind of difficult from here. The heavier round is just enough to make that particular shot a little easier. Unfortunate, I'm not a historian or anything. I'm not sure when they made the change to the A2. I only know that it was between 79 and 84. Yeah, it was December of 1983 when I went back in. I'm pretty sure? It has been a lot of years since then.
Hell no I can't do well under those circumstances. I've had but one opportunity, a misfortune really, to return fire. It was scary as all hell and I can tell you that "aiming" really isn't the word I'd use for it. It was suppressive fire and I pointed in the general direction and tried to show as little of my body from behind cover as possible. It was scary and, more importantly, noisy.
Now, to be a bit more clear? No, it's still no. However, it becomes largely muscle memory. That and, well, if you're trying to take a 500 yard shot from a prone position then you're probably not too worried about incoming rounds. It's not paintball where getting shot means you are out of the game. You don't just sit there sniping. It's not much like the video games, movies, or even the games you can play yourself. (Though you can get some fancy suits and lasers and have full-on mock combat if you want to invest some serious money.)
So, it's somewhere between my first paragraph and the second. There's a lot that you just do, without really thinking about it. If you're familiar, you lock the rifle into place by holding it exactly right and exactly the same way every time. Or as close as possible. You "tie in" with the strap looped and pulled so that you have a stable platform. You even do that, for the most part, in combat - or so it seems. And no, not always...
Anyhow, the round makes some sense. Frangible rounds make some sense too. Over-penetration is a real risk, especially with the .223 - it's a very high velocity round and the FMJ adds to the likelihood of over-penetration. Frangible rounds are a good option for this. If this is a viable round that works as intended with a reliability that is appropriate then I have no qualms about it. I'm not worried that it will be the only round issued. That'd be stupid but, again, how often are you going to be trying to accurately put rounds down range past 500 yards? Not that likely. So long as there are other options then, by all means, consider it and evaluate it for effectiveness. If it's effective, add it to the list of tools.
Err... I'm not one of those folks who is like, "That's not how we did it in my day! It ain't right!" No, if the tool works, serves a need, and is a good choice - then use it. Just make sure that the testing is done, that the reasons are good, that the choices are weighed, and that there's an actual need. I don't see this as a risk in lost lives, really. I don't see this leading to additional injuries or deaths. I don't see this as making combat any safer for the intended combatants. I've been stressing the need to consider alternative rounds for a long time.
I also shot competitively, by the way. We actually had a rifle and pistol team at my school and competed at the national level. I've done some competitions since but nothing serious. I'm good (I think and rate) but I'm not that good and could never go pro. My son, had he stuck with it, probably could have done well on the circuit. I actually had folks suggest that I consider representing the Marines on both the rifle and pistol teams (I had to qual with the pistol when I went to school to become an escort/chaser) and gave it some consideration but I was serving to pay for my education and wasn't going to invest that many years.
I've put some online but I'll be back in Maine in the spring. If you're curious, I'll dump some pics up. I've a rather extensive collection of firearms now. I'm not a historian or a walking fact-book but I enjoy it. I've a friend who's retired, he actually retired to Maine not long before I did and we knew each other from back in Winston-Salem. He is still a licensed dealer and has been unloading his collection to me piece by piece. I've got a couple of select-fire weapons (and yes, they're legal, yes the taxes are paid, and yes they're well aware that I own them - I'd say they're *very* aware that I own them), namely an M14 and an M22. The M22 is a Chinese made AK-47, likely meant to be sold to/used by the NVA but we're not really able