I am not sure which mule you speak of - living or robotic. I linked this above so you'll probably not see it: http://olive-drab.com/od_army-...
The US military still uses animals for carrying stuff and for transportation - they've done so fairly recently. Google has a bunch of other information - if you're curious.
At risk of being pedantic, you're not absolutely correct. If the mule (or horse) was limited and could *only* carry it's own food then they'd have not used them for years and years as a pack animal. I forget which episode it is but either War on the Eastern Front or Soviet Storm gets into some of the math and it's viable to use a mule or horse for a period of time that's longer than this thing runs on batteries and the number of batteries that it can carry.
Is there a finite time that the animal can maintain that pace and work load? Yup. It's why they refreshed them and why they took great care of them (usually). That way they'd have some reserves. I'm willing to speculate that the pack animal can last longer than this BD robot can while being forced to carry its own weight in energy storage. Of course that's probably not applicable to every single location but it's almost certainly applicable to many other situation. There have been many instances where the supply wagon/train has not been able to effectively provide the required food and the animals have done well enough and for quite some time.
However, you're probably right. I doubt it has the range and carrying capacity. That doesn't mean it doesn't have other useful applications but it does mean the HMMWV isn't going anywhere any time soon. If you get the chance, even the original civilian models aren't bad, then you absolutely will love it. If you work, really hard, then you can get it stuck. However, with some ingenuity, you can extract the vehicle with a second vehicle or all by itself.
Block and tackle are standard equipment. Many models come with a winch.
My job (MOS) was a driver in motor pool. I was not the first but I was one of the earliest to drive one as a Marine not directly involved in the trials - this was after the trials. I stationed at Quantico at the time. Prior to that, I'd mostly been a staff driver. However, I've done the qual on a bunch of vehicles and my preference is the "Humvee." In fact, I'm looking to buy one but I'm unwilling to pay what people are asking when they're in the condition that they're in. Whilst i was not a mechanic MOS, I had to be fairly adept at doing repairs and I'm rather familiar with the HMMWV so I don't really want to buy junk and end up sad.
Oh, most people have two questions. No, it is not a manual transmission (but there's a real linkage between the lever and the transmission) and no, they do not need a key to start them (though I understand that some later models came equipped with one - I've not seen one). Losing a key and being unable to start your vehicle is a very bad thing to do in the middle of a crisis.
As an aside, I'd really like an MRAP but, as near as I can tell, those aren't ever going to be sold to civilians - though they once made that claim about the HMMWV. If one comes up and I've got access, I'd love to own one. No, I don't have any "good" reason for wanting to own one except it will be lots of fun and make an awesome ATV.
Assuming one is going for accuracy (and you probably should be unless you're laying down suppressive fire) then just as you start your exhale (and this should not have been from holding your breath) you *squeeze* the trigger. You do not pull the trigger. You squeeze it, like you do your wife's tit. You do not pull it, like you pull your pecker. Gently squeeze the trigger to the break point and even pause there if needed. When confident, squeeze the trigger.
Ideally, you'll also time your breathing to match your heartbeat. The exhale will occur at the same time the heart beats. This may seem trivial but it actually can improve your accuracy quite a bit. Unless you're a competitive shooter, in a prone position, and working with something like iron sights at 500 yards then don't really worry about it.
The big thing is not to pull the trigger. People think pull and jerk it or don't find it's break point and don't really control the motion. Thus you squeeze the trigger and maintain equal pressure throughout.
Source: Well, every Marine (even an accountant, cook, desk jockey, pilot, or driver) is first and foremost a rifleman. Even Lady Marines are first and foremost riflemen. I spent a goodly amount of time enlisted as it was needed to pay for my education - though I was able to take a number of courses while I was still enlisted.
Squeeze the trigger, do not pull the trigger. It's a fine detail but one that's kind of important to people (like some of the above posters) if they're unfamiliar with the concept. It was also something I had some issues learning to do as well as I can now. This was even after participating on the high school rifle and pistol teams.
The leading thing comes natural after a few hundred rounds, sooner if you're at all adept I imagine, and I'm sure there is plenty of math behind it - I've never bothered to figure it out. It's something you sense and get right with enough practice.
Another good discussion would be your stance and ability to "lock" the firearm in. Your officer should be able to hit the end of your barrel and it should barely move. Proper use of a sling will assist in this and that too becomes second nature after enough rounds go downrange. I suspect, strongly, that you know all of this. I'm simply adding it for clarification.
I think everyone should have, at least, a working familiarity if not a proficiency in safe and accurate operation of a firearm. I'd not force it on anyone but I'd like more people to seek out that training as well as making it a cultural norm. Squeeze, not pull.;-) Find the breaking point and, well, gently apply the required pressure. This can be tuned (in some firearms) by a decent gunsmith and made to suit individual preferences. It's not really all that expensive and, in theory, I know how to do it on a variety of firearms but I'd recommend a professional.
All of the above assumes you're following the various safety rules and any specific safety rules for the range at which one is shooting.
Ah no. I should have been more articulate. The Park and Ride's are fine but not very efficient uses of space in congested areas. I was thinking you were referencing something else which I've worked at getting implemented in the past.
Imagine, if you will, a spot, like a bus stop, in a city only not quite as frequent but still in easy walking distance. Not quite heavy, down-town, city but somewhere between there and suburbia. Now, like a bus stop, put something to protect people from the elements and encourage people to pick up passengers, wait for rides, and make use of that as a centralized spot for a specific area.
Those seeking rides can congregate there and those offering them (perhaps in return for financial assistance) can seek passengers there. A benefit might be use of the car pooling lane or even fewer fares. Even without benefits there are benefits to getting someone to help pay for gas, parking, and things of that nature.
Not only could they use them as centralized locations, they could use them as hubs to make connections with people and arrange for closer pickup (if needed) or even something like alternating the responsible driver. Given some advertisement, and being done well, this could reduce congestion greatly.
I'll thread this hear so that both of you might see it. You may have standing as you've lost reasonable use of a purchased product without redress. This means not having to get into trouble and face stiff penalties. You'll need to have owned the property before this ban goes into place. You'll likely have to show that the need to relocate to use the property is unreasonable.
If anyone is interested in this then I may, or may not, be able to find someone who will give legal assistance. I may, or may not, be willing to help pay for this legal assistance but, I gotta admit, I'm kind of tired of offering to help these drone folks only to have 'em respond in the way that they do. *sighs* See comment up-thread (also threaded under you) for more information on that whole thing. I dunno, I'm kind of tired of it and reading this thread hasn't improved my mood any.;-)
It has to suck for you guys. It's not quite a travesty but it's friggen unnecessary and stupid as shit for them to enact regulations like this. The word "unfortunate" springs to mind, over and over again, at this juncture.
They have created the caricature that they think is Libertarianism and will not be swayed. The funny thing is, I've been a member of the party for a *very* long time. At one point in time, the Republicans were in power and we were portrayed, by the media, as the loony left. Now, we're the anarcho-capitalists on the right. Even though very few of us fit that description (and there are some) it's amusing to see the vast amounts of ignorance that is parroted by people who seem otherwise intelligent.
If you tell them a few things about your political ideology (and I have done this, many times, on this very site) and then let them opine - then tell them that you're a Libertarian then they're often quite astonished. Some simply refuse to believe it - no matter how many links you provide and what you give for proof, and they'll repeat the same stupid things a few days later - probably hoping you don't notice. Others get it and I've noticed that I've actually managed to show a few people that they are mistaken and they've made the effort to learn.
I hate to cite it but, well, the first five or so paragraphs on Wikipedia are actually pretty good. The whole article is pretty good but they really only need to read the first few paragraphs - just the opening four or five (I forget how many). Getting them to read it (I've had people tell me that they won't read it and they "know" what a Libertarian is) can be tough but, once you get that far, they might realize that they've been subjected to some biased media and some heavy propaganda.
Don't get me wrong, we've got some straight up fucking lunatics in the party - people that shouldn't be allowed to be in control of a household budget, never mind another human being. They don't represent the majority. They seem to think we're all Randians, extremists, anarchists, etc... They seem to all think we believe in some free market voodoo when, really, Libertarianism is a political ideology and not an economic model.
It's unfortunate to see otherwise smart people being so vulnerable to propaganda when the information is right there and takes maybe 90 seconds to read and 30 seconds to digest well enough to actually understand. It's not even complicated. It is, however, rather encompassing so we do end up with a whole bunch of lunatics and kicking them out of the party or taking away their voice would be a bit antithetical.
Well, unless I'm misreading what you wrote, the whole peaceably assemble thing is already kind of in that thing we call the First Amendment. My memory is failing as I age but I think it goes like this:
... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...
It might be peacefully? I'm too lazy to look. So, yeah, if you're assembled and not behaving peacefully then that right doesn't actually exist. If you're assembling for the purpose of not being peaceful then that right definitely doesn't exist.
Of course, they might be redefining 'peaceful' and that may be what you're getting at. I kind of hope that's what you're getting at because, no, you don't have the right to riot. I'm pretty sure that I'm quoting it close to verbatim, I'm sure someone can check, but I'm pretty sure you can't just riot and claim you have a Constitutional right to do so.
I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer. This is not an attorney/client relationship. If you plan on rioting then, by all means, I encourage you to consult a qualified legal professional in your jurisdiction. The good news is that, should you decide to riot without the financial ability to consult a lawyer then the State will provide one for you - the quality of said legal professional, and their dedication to your case, may not be quite as good as you are hoping.
I would send you money to buy more. You don't even need to make it a charity, I don't need to write it off in taxes. For those familiar with my posting history, they know how I feel...
That would be AWESOME!
I might even splurge, once a month or so, and buy you one of those big ones like the giant RedBull thing. We're gonna cover it with tannerite and probably get you a few that run on alcohol or JP5/JP6. We're gonna do this DAILY, at least once a day, even if we can only afford to do it with some smaller ones a few days a week. Maybe if you do it often enough, they'll let me come push the button and shoot it down!
It should be noted that they don't let the average Marine play with things like that, and for good reason. I've never, ever, fired anything even close to that and to do so would mean that I'd be able to die slightly happier than I already would be. I have fired a belt fed grenade launcher which is also awesome but not as awesome as I'm imagining a missile. Hell, I'll settle just to see it in person.
Yes, yes I am a five year old in spirit and maturity. NYE is gonna be awesome. Hmm... Someone should bring a drone.
Ah - just the UID I was looking for. This gonna effect you? If so, sorry. In all fairness, I've been warning the RC aircraft folks that this was coming for, well, years now. Literally, years - I've even offered possible solutions.
They said, "You can't stop me!" I said, "That's not what regulations do, they establish punishments - often draconian, for violators." They said, "They can't find me." I said, "You need to get lucky *every* time and they need only be lucky once." They stuck their fingers in their ears.
I said, "Hey, I'll give you free space and even get you guys a domain name and you can make a site, get sponsor buy-in, and have the vendors give out the URL and some safety instructions in all the packages - I'm sure they'll hop right on it AND sponsor you so that one or two of you might actually manage to make a career out of it." They said, "TL;DR"
I said, "You should find that guy and punch them in the nuts." They said, "And go to jail?" I said, "Sure, if you want to keep your hobby alive and healthy, otherwise you're going to be stuck with draconian regulation." They said, "There you go with that draconian regulation. You Libertarians are stupid!"
Ya know... I've wasted a lot of time typing out long posts. I've tried to explain it. I've made a good-faith effort to help AND I'm not even a fan of the hobby. I just hate to see people getting screwed over by other people's actions - I know what it's like to have a hobby ruined by other people. (I'm very much a firearm and automobile aficionado.)
So, to you specifically - as I know you're into a variety of tech hobbies but unsure of this one, I do offer my sincere sorrow for this and your future losses. It's unfortunate that you'll be further restricted because of the idiots who have managed to turn an otherwise group of fine people into a group that's seen as a bunch of idiots and assholes. (I know some of these guys, they've been doing it since we were kids, they're neither of those.)
Could you get PC-BSD to look good? I tried, I really tried. I just couldn't do it and I'm really not even remotely picky. I use LXDE, for FSM's sake. It just looks like a really bad remake of Windows 2000 by a five year old - no matter what I did. On the other hand, GhostBSD is absolutely beautiful and speedy as hell - even in a VM. No matter what I did with PC-BSD, I just couldn't get it to look better than a bad copy of Win2k. It's disappointing, really, because it seemed really stable and was otherwise fine.
I have bumped into it before but, well, now I'm settled in Florida for the duration (probably until spring - though we may go to Nevada after the kids leave to resume their regularly scheduled lives) and I have VMWare. Well, it flaked out on a newer kernel but I should be able to get it squared away. I just haven't tried yet.
It's an OS with a guide to talking in tongues and speaking with God and yet, oddly, I've never once booted a VM image of it. I mean, hell, I've got an image for MINIX, DLS, Puppy, Solaris, Indiana, etc... There's obviously something wrong with my life if I don't have TempleOS installed somewhere and I never have.
This must be remedied, given a thorough review, and documented. I think after the NYE festivities, that might make a good (probably short) project.
A large corporation security officer that enabled logging in with Microsoft accounts as opposed to local accounts and AD would be a bit remiss in their duties. Their failure to have a preventative policy at the firewall also indicates that they probably should not hold that job.
I've yet to get a reasonable answer from the online sources to questions phrased like the second one. It's like they, the programmers, have so far overlooked it. I confess to having spent more time than I should have poking and seeing where they fail. My guess is it *could* handle the second but that it's been overlooked.
I thought they might, I mentioned earlier that I wasn't sure. I'm quite a ways up from there (when I'm home) and I don't take the bus but I have some older friends who drive down to Portland and bus into the Boston to catch a game, go to Logan, etc.... I'm not entirely positive about the following: I am pretty sure that someone mentioned (maybe the PPH or LSJ or just a conversation) that the train down to Boston now requires ID from the person buying the ticket.
Photo Identification: Downeaster passengers, 16 and older, must present a valid photo ID when purchasing tickets and have the photo ID available onboard the train. Passengers under 18 who do not have a photo ID must have an adult, 18 or over, with a valid photo ID purchase tickets for them.
I don't think I could pass for being under the age of 18. I have considered taking the train down and spending some time down there with friends and family. Mostly just to take the train and to see the family and friends and because I am kind of tired of Boston's traffic. I'm retired to NW Maine some years ago and, while I love to drive, I've realized how much I hate Boston's traffic. I spent a lot of time there in my youth and then working in the area before moving the business to NC. I did, on the other hand, do a lot of work there still until... Well, that's a topic for another day. Let's just say the municipality is less than ethical and I can not, in good conscious, work for them - no matter how well they pay. (See "The Big Dig" for more information.)
Did they actually make those official? I was recommending that back in the 1990s. It's a great way to reduce congestion and to save on pollutants. They can even work it out among themselves. "Hey, I'll give you $20 a week to help with gas if you pick me up at my house instead of my needing to walk down here." The goal being that people would ultimately figure it out for themselves and the hub would be a starting point - not a finishing point. They could either centralize or not.
What I do see, as a compromise, is the Park and Rides but those aren't quite what I was envisioning. I was seeing something a bit more ubiquitous and formal. I'd noticed the trend in Atlanta but it was entirely informal and it had somehow worked itself out just fine. I thought that making it formal, perhaps with a hut of some type to keep the elements away, would be a worthy investment. Sadly, I got absolutely zero implemented - ever. (Err... I worked in traffic modeling, consulting, engineer, etc.)
I've been retired since 2007 (2008 technically but I stopped working in 2007 during the sale process) and, at that time, I'd managed to convince absolutely zero municipalities to do so. I did get several to do the Park and Ride thing near popular ingress and egress points with closed access highways or a few other areas but never anything quite like what I'd envisioned and what you appear to be describing. We found a few, informal things, that had sprung up in various areas but Atlanta was the first time we found it in our initial research and data collection stage.
That is awesome and more municipalities should do it - and they should encourage it. I have zero data to *prove* it will help but I can model it and show that, with a reasonable adoption rate, it *can* help - and then I can likely justify the expense. Sadly, when you give them a list of a few hundred suggested improvements, you'll be lucky to see an 80% action rate - and not always the least expensive improvements are taken. Often the extras amount to a rounding error.
As a lark, someone should start the American Authoritarian Party. "We know what's best for you, citizen. Do not raise alarm and be prepared to submit." We could then run parody caricatures who both look similar and can mimic candidates from the two major parties. I would actually donate to that party. It might be jarring enough to get noticed.
It's not important so I'll post this as an AC. See the "Golden Road" in Maine. It's private property but, for part of the year, open to the public. There is on such example, though it does nothing to disprove your point. I'm only mentioning it because of the curious nature and to demonstrate that, while unrealistic, it is possible. I wonder, if on a large scale, if the government would try to intercede? I imagine they would attempt to regulate it 'in the name of public safety.'
It is almost 100 miles and I haven't a clue why the Wikipedia article indicates it is past tense. It is still very much available to drive on. I used to have a rally-equipped Saab 900S Turbo, with giant studs, and would take that road multiple times in the spring and winter. I was last on it in this past summer and the gate was open. In fact, I've never found the gate to be closed. They've held a rally race on it, aired on television even - I didn't watch it but I'm told it was on ESPN, a few times.
There was a motorcycle rally that traveled across it in 2009 (I think) which is later than their 2007 date. The NEFR has raced on it as recently as 2012 (and it was awesome). I am no longer partaking because I've yet to have my engine rebuilt and I've not yet found quite the right vehicle to replace it. I am not so much interested in winning as I am in pushing a particular vehicle to its limits and seeing how well I perform against much better vehicles. I could, I suppose, just buy a nice Subaru and probably take the field because I can afford to throw more money at it - that defeats the point, in my view. (Yes, I guess someone could find out who I am by looking at past results for some of the NEFR events but that's okay - in another thread I invited people to my house on NYE.)
So, I'm thinking something like a slightly modified Audi Quatro (or VW Quantum) from the late 1980s or, maybe, an Eagle from AMC might be fun to put through their paces. I've just not found one and then had the work done on it. I can do a lot of the work but I'm not going to. I hate smacking my knuckles with a wrench so I pay a local mechanic's shop and he sends one of his employees in to work on my stuff, pretty much every Saturday when I'm home - even if I've nothing specific for him to do. I'd pay the person directly but this way ensures there's always someone there when I need them, I don't need to deal with the hassle, and he has always sent very qualified people. I've a lift and a selection of tools so they needn't bring much of anything. Body work is sent out to a shop way down in Wilton but it's well worth the distance and price.
Anyhow, there's an example of a road, why I know it's there, how it is used, and some of the history. This doesn't negate a damned thing you said, it just shows that it is possible, albeit unrealistic. My property is covered with "tote roads." Tote roads are roads used by the logging companies. They're unimproved roads and don't always go anywhere you want to go but others and myself make good use of them - especially during the spring but they're often traveled during the summer and fall - the foliage is beautiful. If you've got the appropriate vehicle (you can do it in a car on some hills) you can get to the top of the mountain and see all the way to Mt. Washington from there.
Again, doesn't negate your point one bit but there are exceptions to the rule and privately owned and maintained roads do exist and some allow for public travel. It's possible, for example, to drive from my house to Canada but you should let them know that you intend to come in that way or they're REALLY going to be kind of pissed. There's no fence, border patrol, or even a sign. The first time I did it, well, it was kind of surprising. However, people do that and similar on a snowmobile during the winter - it's not even remotely uncommon. My land is almost all posted with custom signs that say "Publ
It is also of value to note that the Amendment does not specify that the militia is the exclusive reason, it's just a singular enumerated reason - it is justification for the amendment as a specific and not exclusive of other reasons. This has been rather clearly decided on. I own, properly taxed and licensed, two firearms that are capable of burst and fully automatic firing. (One an M-14 and the other an AK-47 which is technically an M22 from China.)
At risk of sounding like I'm trolling (I'm not - I'm completely serious) my reading indicates that the Supremes did not, in fact, follow the letter of the law when challenged. We should be able to own most anything that is not a WMD (I can see a reasonable restriction at that point) so long as we are not a felon. No, I have no problem with someone owning a Browning 30 cal or even Ma Deuce. Yes, I think such should be legal for private ownership. Yes, I think a true reading of the Constitution affords us such liberties. No, I am not worried about the safety implications - damned things are expensive.
And yes, I typed all of that with a straight face. I do understand that I'm in the minority and that the Supremes do not agree with me. I find it unfortunate but there's little I can do about it. I can, technically, own both of those firearms but they must have been made before the ban, they're expensive as hell, and reproductions are not legal. I also can not find anyone willing to sell an M-202 at a reasonable price but I did hear about one coming up at auction at Rock Island in April (I think) of 2016. I'm not sure if I'll bid or not.
That said, I own a couple of firearms that I feel are far better than what I was issued or what/most/ had access to. Of course, this is depending on the job at hand. I have a variety of sidearms that I feel are better than what I was issued when I was an escort/chaser. I have rifles that are probably equal to or better than what is issued in some countries. An example might be, I have a (again, fully legal) Barret, chambered in.50 cal, that was expensive but not prohibitively so - it has decent optics and, with some practice, I'm quite certain I can be quite accurate with it at great distances. I used to have a suppressed.22, custom drilled, from Ruger (Mark II - Target, fluted) but it is expressly forbidden by Maine law so I no longer own such.
Perhaps it is unfortunate but, well, I have a friend who is an avid trader/collector and is also a licensed dealer. I have given that man far more money than I probably should have. In my basement, I have a room that is concrete on all sides and has a steel door that has its frame embedded into the concrete. Inside that are a bunch of safes and boxes and boxes of ammunition. (I am not home to find them again but I posted pics not too long ago - probably within the past year.)
Hell... Back in 2010, or so, I ended up sending someone on/. a few boxes of.22 LR (and some 9 mm, as I recall) because they were unable to find any and wanted to go shooting with their son. It might have been +/- a year? My memory isn't that great. I'd have done so more recently, for a different poster, but it was not long after I left Maine to go on my current wanderlust. I'm that much an aficionado and believer in the right to own firearms - to the point where I'll help others exercise their rights.
By the way, I didn't do the clear out the shelves/hoard thing, I've just been buying boxes of both for years out of habit. I have friends over and we go through a whole lot of ammunition in a single go. Our preparations for hunting season are quite an event and generally, literally, turn into an event with many people showing up - the "event" generally lasts for a weekend or two. We have a semi-private "machine gun shoot" where the proceeds go to DAV. That doesn't take place on my property but I'd hold it here if it had to be. I have one neighbor who can hear loud reports but they don't mind and we've di
It's curious that you think you're smarter than they, the scholars, and the courts. Don't you find it remarkable that your presumptions are incorrect?
Allow me, if you will, to give a bit of anecdotal evidence. I am a firearm aficionado. I've slaughtered countless innocent bits of paper who have done nothing to harm anyone - and I'll do it again. I spent a total of eight years enlisted in the Marines, had the misfortune of seeing combat, and would hate to harm anyone and would only use violence as a last resort and, even then, would only apply enough force to immediately stop the threat. (Or, at least, make them think twice about continuing to act in a life-threatening manner - I carry.22 LR for a reason.)
The vast majority of people that I know, who are also firearm owners and/or aficionados, are very similar in many ways - including serving in one branch or another. No, I know there are some really stupid people who own firearms. I know that violence with firearms will happen. You're given a choice, false security or greater liberties. Which do you prefer?
Your fear is not significant motivation to take my liberties and, honestly, the vast majority of scholar, experts, court findings, readings, and interpretations all support my right to own firearms and you've provided no compelling evidence to take that liberty away. Even if you cite the violence, the deaths, the injuries, and all that - you've still not provided sufficient motivation to take my liberty. Your fear and cowardice is not reason enough to take away my liberties.
People, right now, are scared and trying to take away encryption based on their fear. People can literally be aided in their attempt to harm others with the use of encryption. I'm reasonably certain that, at this very moment in time, someone is planning on causing harm and using encryption to keep those plans secret. I'm okay with that. I'm okay that there's a minuscule chance of harm coming to me, my loved ones, or to innocents by means of firearm violence. I accept those risks because liberty is essential and maintaining the maximum rights realistically possible is vital to our survival as free people.
"Oh but look at all these other nations that restrict them!" Yes, look at them. Who do you think will be called upon to help save them when their governments are too restrictive and become abusive? Even if that's *not* what will happen (and it likely will - as is evidenced by many other instances and assuming they've got a few resources that we want to protect/purloin) there's no justification to use your cowardice to strip away my liberties. Piss yourself quietly in the corner, thanks. The rest of us can have a reasonable discussion about resolving the issues with violence, notice that it is trending down and has been for years, and work to find reasonable solutions without being distracted by your nonsense.
It's fortunate that you're wrong and that the vast majority of study concurs with my view and interpretation. You will need to amend the Constitution in order to make changes to that view. That is not going to happen without violence, that choice is not yours to make. No, it is not me threatening violence, it is me telling you what it will take to get that amendment changed. I can tell you, quite certainly, that the military is not going to simply obey orders and disarm the population nor are they going to follow orders to attack the civilians. How do I know? Well, long nights standing watch and lonely nights stuck in the barracks. We've discussed this and, as far as I can tell, very few people would consider those to be lawful orders and would not follow them. Are you going to wield the firearm required to take away theirs? Do you expect the police, many are also veterans, to do so on your behalf? Good luck with that.
Your proposals will result in a civil war. Are you prepared for that? This is not a gung-ho threat, this is an observation. Good luck with that. Fortunately, nobody is going to give you the power to enact such ch
Only if you go by means other than an automobile or foot or horse or something. You can still drive all around and only show ID if you're stopped for something. I don't know but I think they require it for long-distance bus travel now (they didn't used to) and I think you need it for long-distance rail travel (they didn't used to) and you need it if you're going to take a commercial flight (I don't think that was required when I was younger).
I haven't taken rail or bus in a very long time so I'm not entirely sure. I imagine they're required. You wouldn't need them on a local bus, subway, etc.... At least not yet. If it's in-country then I tend to drive or charter and simply avoid the hassle. I don't really have anything to hide, I just don't feel like dealing with the absurdity that is the TSA.
There's a reason for that. Donations to campaigns need to be attributable in order to avoid abuses. They're still (probably) rife with abuse but the goal is noble. I believe you can donate to a PAC and get away with some level of anonymity.
Heh... I'm pretty sure there used to be an edit button back when you opened the reply in a new window. I'm not sure how long it lasted but I sort of recall the option to edit - I think it was time limited but I do not recall. I even remember some debate as to why it was taken away but I could be conflating that with another site. I'm thinking early 2000s?
I had an older account back then and I no longer have access to the email nor do I recollect the username but I used to use/. and then took a few years off in the mid-2000s and only posted as AC - if at all. (I was simply too busy. I was also dealing with a bunch of proprietary stuff and didn't want to give indications about the direction the work was taking that could be attached to me.) So, if I posted, it was as an AC and the UID was forgotten, the email lost, and the account is now gone. I think it was a 4 or 5 digit account? I didn't spend much time commenting back then, I was pretty busy.
At any rate, I *think* there was an edit button. I seem to recall that it was in the lower-right and you could click to edit your post. There's some chance that I'm misremembering but I think it was here? Perhaps someone else recalls it as well or can confirm that it was not a feature. I want to say that people were trolling with it and that might have been why they got rid of it? They'd type one thing outlandish, wait for replies, and then type something innocent so that the replies were "wrong" and would be considered stupid.
Meh, I may well be mistaken but that's my recollection. Err... I've put a whole variety of illicit substances into my system between then and now. There's a good chance that my memory is faulty.
The fear of the "big brain" has been present since the 1960s at least. There are numerous movies and shows that touch on the subject. I forget the name but one is a couple of ladies in an office, doing accounting work, and they're worried about the "big brain" (computer) taking over that and then, with artificial intelligence, taking over everything.
One might also cite movies such as Terminator and The Matrix as examples of this fear being portrayed in movies.
Slashdot Mirror
Quite simply the mule no longer serves a purpose.
I am not sure which mule you speak of - living or robotic. I linked this above so you'll probably not see it:
http://olive-drab.com/od_army-...
The US military still uses animals for carrying stuff and for transportation - they've done so fairly recently. Google has a bunch of other information - if you're curious.
At risk of being pedantic, you're not absolutely correct. If the mule (or horse) was limited and could *only* carry it's own food then they'd have not used them for years and years as a pack animal. I forget which episode it is but either War on the Eastern Front or Soviet Storm gets into some of the math and it's viable to use a mule or horse for a period of time that's longer than this thing runs on batteries and the number of batteries that it can carry.
Is there a finite time that the animal can maintain that pace and work load? Yup. It's why they refreshed them and why they took great care of them (usually). That way they'd have some reserves. I'm willing to speculate that the pack animal can last longer than this BD robot can while being forced to carry its own weight in energy storage. Of course that's probably not applicable to every single location but it's almost certainly applicable to many other situation. There have been many instances where the supply wagon/train has not been able to effectively provide the required food and the animals have done well enough and for quite some time.
In fact, you might be interested in this:
http://olive-drab.com/od_army-...
Here is a bit more information about carrying capacity:
http://horsetype.com/text.php?...
You, my friend, have never driven an HMMWV.
However, you're probably right. I doubt it has the range and carrying capacity. That doesn't mean it doesn't have other useful applications but it does mean the HMMWV isn't going anywhere any time soon. If you get the chance, even the original civilian models aren't bad, then you absolutely will love it. If you work, really hard, then you can get it stuck. However, with some ingenuity, you can extract the vehicle with a second vehicle or all by itself.
Block and tackle are standard equipment. Many models come with a winch.
My job (MOS) was a driver in motor pool. I was not the first but I was one of the earliest to drive one as a Marine not directly involved in the trials - this was after the trials. I stationed at Quantico at the time. Prior to that, I'd mostly been a staff driver. However, I've done the qual on a bunch of vehicles and my preference is the "Humvee." In fact, I'm looking to buy one but I'm unwilling to pay what people are asking when they're in the condition that they're in. Whilst i was not a mechanic MOS, I had to be fairly adept at doing repairs and I'm rather familiar with the HMMWV so I don't really want to buy junk and end up sad.
Oh, most people have two questions. No, it is not a manual transmission (but there's a real linkage between the lever and the transmission) and no, they do not need a key to start them (though I understand that some later models came equipped with one - I've not seen one). Losing a key and being unable to start your vehicle is a very bad thing to do in the middle of a crisis.
As an aside, I'd really like an MRAP but, as near as I can tell, those aren't ever going to be sold to civilians - though they once made that claim about the HMMWV. If one comes up and I've got access, I'd love to own one. No, I don't have any "good" reason for wanting to own one except it will be lots of fun and make an awesome ATV.
Most of that is true. However... (And I must...)
Assuming one is going for accuracy (and you probably should be unless you're laying down suppressive fire) then just as you start your exhale (and this should not have been from holding your breath) you *squeeze* the trigger. You do not pull the trigger. You squeeze it, like you do your wife's tit. You do not pull it, like you pull your pecker. Gently squeeze the trigger to the break point and even pause there if needed. When confident, squeeze the trigger.
Ideally, you'll also time your breathing to match your heartbeat. The exhale will occur at the same time the heart beats. This may seem trivial but it actually can improve your accuracy quite a bit. Unless you're a competitive shooter, in a prone position, and working with something like iron sights at 500 yards then don't really worry about it.
The big thing is not to pull the trigger. People think pull and jerk it or don't find it's break point and don't really control the motion. Thus you squeeze the trigger and maintain equal pressure throughout.
Source: Well, every Marine (even an accountant, cook, desk jockey, pilot, or driver) is first and foremost a rifleman. Even Lady Marines are first and foremost riflemen. I spent a goodly amount of time enlisted as it was needed to pay for my education - though I was able to take a number of courses while I was still enlisted.
Squeeze the trigger, do not pull the trigger. It's a fine detail but one that's kind of important to people (like some of the above posters) if they're unfamiliar with the concept. It was also something I had some issues learning to do as well as I can now. This was even after participating on the high school rifle and pistol teams.
The leading thing comes natural after a few hundred rounds, sooner if you're at all adept I imagine, and I'm sure there is plenty of math behind it - I've never bothered to figure it out. It's something you sense and get right with enough practice.
Another good discussion would be your stance and ability to "lock" the firearm in. Your officer should be able to hit the end of your barrel and it should barely move. Proper use of a sling will assist in this and that too becomes second nature after enough rounds go downrange. I suspect, strongly, that you know all of this. I'm simply adding it for clarification.
I think everyone should have, at least, a working familiarity if not a proficiency in safe and accurate operation of a firearm. I'd not force it on anyone but I'd like more people to seek out that training as well as making it a cultural norm. Squeeze, not pull. ;-) Find the breaking point and, well, gently apply the required pressure. This can be tuned (in some firearms) by a decent gunsmith and made to suit individual preferences. It's not really all that expensive and, in theory, I know how to do it on a variety of firearms but I'd recommend a professional.
All of the above assumes you're following the various safety rules and any specific safety rules for the range at which one is shooting.
Ah no. I should have been more articulate. The Park and Ride's are fine but not very efficient uses of space in congested areas. I was thinking you were referencing something else which I've worked at getting implemented in the past.
Imagine, if you will, a spot, like a bus stop, in a city only not quite as frequent but still in easy walking distance. Not quite heavy, down-town, city but somewhere between there and suburbia. Now, like a bus stop, put something to protect people from the elements and encourage people to pick up passengers, wait for rides, and make use of that as a centralized spot for a specific area.
Those seeking rides can congregate there and those offering them (perhaps in return for financial assistance) can seek passengers there. A benefit might be use of the car pooling lane or even fewer fares. Even without benefits there are benefits to getting someone to help pay for gas, parking, and things of that nature.
Not only could they use them as centralized locations, they could use them as hubs to make connections with people and arrange for closer pickup (if needed) or even something like alternating the responsible driver. Given some advertisement, and being done well, this could reduce congestion greatly.
I'll thread this hear so that both of you might see it. You may have standing as you've lost reasonable use of a purchased product without redress. This means not having to get into trouble and face stiff penalties. You'll need to have owned the property before this ban goes into place. You'll likely have to show that the need to relocate to use the property is unreasonable.
If anyone is interested in this then I may, or may not, be able to find someone who will give legal assistance. I may, or may not, be willing to help pay for this legal assistance but, I gotta admit, I'm kind of tired of offering to help these drone folks only to have 'em respond in the way that they do. *sighs* See comment up-thread (also threaded under you) for more information on that whole thing. I dunno, I'm kind of tired of it and reading this thread hasn't improved my mood any. ;-)
It has to suck for you guys. It's not quite a travesty but it's friggen unnecessary and stupid as shit for them to enact regulations like this. The word "unfortunate" springs to mind, over and over again, at this juncture.
They have created the caricature that they think is Libertarianism and will not be swayed. The funny thing is, I've been a member of the party for a *very* long time. At one point in time, the Republicans were in power and we were portrayed, by the media, as the loony left. Now, we're the anarcho-capitalists on the right. Even though very few of us fit that description (and there are some) it's amusing to see the vast amounts of ignorance that is parroted by people who seem otherwise intelligent.
If you tell them a few things about your political ideology (and I have done this, many times, on this very site) and then let them opine - then tell them that you're a Libertarian then they're often quite astonished. Some simply refuse to believe it - no matter how many links you provide and what you give for proof, and they'll repeat the same stupid things a few days later - probably hoping you don't notice. Others get it and I've noticed that I've actually managed to show a few people that they are mistaken and they've made the effort to learn.
I hate to cite it but, well, the first five or so paragraphs on Wikipedia are actually pretty good. The whole article is pretty good but they really only need to read the first few paragraphs - just the opening four or five (I forget how many). Getting them to read it (I've had people tell me that they won't read it and they "know" what a Libertarian is) can be tough but, once you get that far, they might realize that they've been subjected to some biased media and some heavy propaganda.
Don't get me wrong, we've got some straight up fucking lunatics in the party - people that shouldn't be allowed to be in control of a household budget, never mind another human being. They don't represent the majority. They seem to think we're all Randians, extremists, anarchists, etc... They seem to all think we believe in some free market voodoo when, really, Libertarianism is a political ideology and not an economic model.
It's unfortunate to see otherwise smart people being so vulnerable to propaganda when the information is right there and takes maybe 90 seconds to read and 30 seconds to digest well enough to actually understand. It's not even complicated. It is, however, rather encompassing so we do end up with a whole bunch of lunatics and kicking them out of the party or taking away their voice would be a bit antithetical.
Well, unless I'm misreading what you wrote, the whole peaceably assemble thing is already kind of in that thing we call the First Amendment. My memory is failing as I age but I think it goes like this:
... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble ...
It might be peacefully? I'm too lazy to look. So, yeah, if you're assembled and not behaving peacefully then that right doesn't actually exist. If you're assembling for the purpose of not being peaceful then that right definitely doesn't exist.
Of course, they might be redefining 'peaceful' and that may be what you're getting at. I kind of hope that's what you're getting at because, no, you don't have the right to riot. I'm pretty sure that I'm quoting it close to verbatim, I'm sure someone can check, but I'm pretty sure you can't just riot and claim you have a Constitutional right to do so.
I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer. This is not an attorney/client relationship. If you plan on rioting then, by all means, I encourage you to consult a qualified legal professional in your jurisdiction. The good news is that, should you decide to riot without the financial ability to consult a lawyer then the State will provide one for you - the quality of said legal professional, and their dedication to your case, may not be quite as good as you are hoping.
I would send you money to buy more. You don't even need to make it a charity, I don't need to write it off in taxes. For those familiar with my posting history, they know how I feel...
That would be AWESOME!
I might even splurge, once a month or so, and buy you one of those big ones like the giant RedBull thing. We're gonna cover it with tannerite and probably get you a few that run on alcohol or JP5/JP6. We're gonna do this DAILY, at least once a day, even if we can only afford to do it with some smaller ones a few days a week. Maybe if you do it often enough, they'll let me come push the button and shoot it down!
It should be noted that they don't let the average Marine play with things like that, and for good reason. I've never, ever, fired anything even close to that and to do so would mean that I'd be able to die slightly happier than I already would be. I have fired a belt fed grenade launcher which is also awesome but not as awesome as I'm imagining a missile. Hell, I'll settle just to see it in person.
Yes, yes I am a five year old in spirit and maturity. NYE is gonna be awesome. Hmm... Someone should bring a drone.
Anyone from Florida?
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Ah - just the UID I was looking for. This gonna effect you? If so, sorry. In all fairness, I've been warning the RC aircraft folks that this was coming for, well, years now. Literally, years - I've even offered possible solutions.
They said, "You can't stop me!"
I said, "That's not what regulations do, they establish punishments - often draconian, for violators."
They said, "They can't find me."
I said, "You need to get lucky *every* time and they need only be lucky once."
They stuck their fingers in their ears.
I said, "Hey, I'll give you free space and even get you guys a domain name and you can make a site, get sponsor buy-in, and have the vendors give out the URL and some safety instructions in all the packages - I'm sure they'll hop right on it AND sponsor you so that one or two of you might actually manage to make a career out of it."
They said, "TL;DR"
I said, "You should find that guy and punch them in the nuts."
They said, "And go to jail?"
I said, "Sure, if you want to keep your hobby alive and healthy, otherwise you're going to be stuck with draconian regulation."
They said, "There you go with that draconian regulation. You Libertarians are stupid!"
Ya know... I've wasted a lot of time typing out long posts. I've tried to explain it. I've made a good-faith effort to help AND I'm not even a fan of the hobby. I just hate to see people getting screwed over by other people's actions - I know what it's like to have a hobby ruined by other people. (I'm very much a firearm and automobile aficionado.)
So, to you specifically - as I know you're into a variety of tech hobbies but unsure of this one, I do offer my sincere sorrow for this and your future losses. It's unfortunate that you'll be further restricted because of the idiots who have managed to turn an otherwise group of fine people into a group that's seen as a bunch of idiots and assholes. (I know some of these guys, they've been doing it since we were kids, they're neither of those.)
There you go, demonstrating that binary thinking that they mentioned. You don't actually know any Libertarians, do you?
Could you get PC-BSD to look good? I tried, I really tried. I just couldn't do it and I'm really not even remotely picky. I use LXDE, for FSM's sake. It just looks like a really bad remake of Windows 2000 by a five year old - no matter what I did. On the other hand, GhostBSD is absolutely beautiful and speedy as hell - even in a VM. No matter what I did with PC-BSD, I just couldn't get it to look better than a bad copy of Win2k. It's disappointing, really, because it seemed really stable and was otherwise fine.
I have bumped into it before but, well, now I'm settled in Florida for the duration (probably until spring - though we may go to Nevada after the kids leave to resume their regularly scheduled lives) and I have VMWare. Well, it flaked out on a newer kernel but I should be able to get it squared away. I just haven't tried yet.
It's an OS with a guide to talking in tongues and speaking with God and yet, oddly, I've never once booted a VM image of it. I mean, hell, I've got an image for MINIX, DLS, Puppy, Solaris, Indiana, etc... There's obviously something wrong with my life if I don't have TempleOS installed somewhere and I never have.
This must be remedied, given a thorough review, and documented. I think after the NYE festivities, that might make a good (probably short) project.
A large corporation security officer that enabled logging in with Microsoft accounts as opposed to local accounts and AD would be a bit remiss in their duties. Their failure to have a preventative policy at the firewall also indicates that they probably should not hold that job.
I've yet to get a reasonable answer from the online sources to questions phrased like the second one. It's like they, the programmers, have so far overlooked it. I confess to having spent more time than I should have poking and seeing where they fail. My guess is it *could* handle the second but that it's been overlooked.
I thought they might, I mentioned earlier that I wasn't sure. I'm quite a ways up from there (when I'm home) and I don't take the bus but I have some older friends who drive down to Portland and bus into the Boston to catch a game, go to Logan, etc.... I'm not entirely positive about the following: I am pretty sure that someone mentioned (maybe the PPH or LSJ or just a conversation) that the train down to Boston now requires ID from the person buying the ticket.
Ah, a quick look at the mighty Google finds this:
http://www.amtrakdowneaster.co...
Salient points quoted:
Photo Identification: Downeaster passengers, 16 and older, must present a valid photo ID when purchasing tickets and have the photo ID available onboard the train. Passengers under 18 who do not have a photo ID must have an adult, 18 or over, with a valid photo ID purchase tickets for them.
I don't think I could pass for being under the age of 18. I have considered taking the train down and spending some time down there with friends and family. Mostly just to take the train and to see the family and friends and because I am kind of tired of Boston's traffic. I'm retired to NW Maine some years ago and, while I love to drive, I've realized how much I hate Boston's traffic. I spent a lot of time there in my youth and then working in the area before moving the business to NC. I did, on the other hand, do a lot of work there still until... Well, that's a topic for another day. Let's just say the municipality is less than ethical and I can not, in good conscious, work for them - no matter how well they pay. (See "The Big Dig" for more information.)
Did they actually make those official? I was recommending that back in the 1990s. It's a great way to reduce congestion and to save on pollutants. They can even work it out among themselves. "Hey, I'll give you $20 a week to help with gas if you pick me up at my house instead of my needing to walk down here." The goal being that people would ultimately figure it out for themselves and the hub would be a starting point - not a finishing point. They could either centralize or not.
What I do see, as a compromise, is the Park and Rides but those aren't quite what I was envisioning. I was seeing something a bit more ubiquitous and formal. I'd noticed the trend in Atlanta but it was entirely informal and it had somehow worked itself out just fine. I thought that making it formal, perhaps with a hut of some type to keep the elements away, would be a worthy investment. Sadly, I got absolutely zero implemented - ever. (Err... I worked in traffic modeling, consulting, engineer, etc.)
I've been retired since 2007 (2008 technically but I stopped working in 2007 during the sale process) and, at that time, I'd managed to convince absolutely zero municipalities to do so. I did get several to do the Park and Ride thing near popular ingress and egress points with closed access highways or a few other areas but never anything quite like what I'd envisioned and what you appear to be describing. We found a few, informal things, that had sprung up in various areas but Atlanta was the first time we found it in our initial research and data collection stage.
That is awesome and more municipalities should do it - and they should encourage it. I have zero data to *prove* it will help but I can model it and show that, with a reasonable adoption rate, it *can* help - and then I can likely justify the expense. Sadly, when you give them a list of a few hundred suggested improvements, you'll be lucky to see an 80% action rate - and not always the least expensive improvements are taken. Often the extras amount to a rounding error.
As a lark, someone should start the American Authoritarian Party. "We know what's best for you, citizen. Do not raise alarm and be prepared to submit." We could then run parody caricatures who both look similar and can mimic candidates from the two major parties. I would actually donate to that party. It might be jarring enough to get noticed.
It's not important so I'll post this as an AC. See the "Golden Road" in Maine. It's private property but, for part of the year, open to the public. There is on such example, though it does nothing to disprove your point. I'm only mentioning it because of the curious nature and to demonstrate that, while unrealistic, it is possible. I wonder, if on a large scale, if the government would try to intercede? I imagine they would attempt to regulate it 'in the name of public safety.'
Here's a link, if you're curious:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It is almost 100 miles and I haven't a clue why the Wikipedia article indicates it is past tense. It is still very much available to drive on. I used to have a rally-equipped Saab 900S Turbo, with giant studs, and would take that road multiple times in the spring and winter. I was last on it in this past summer and the gate was open. In fact, I've never found the gate to be closed. They've held a rally race on it, aired on television even - I didn't watch it but I'm told it was on ESPN, a few times.
There was a motorcycle rally that traveled across it in 2009 (I think) which is later than their 2007 date. The NEFR has raced on it as recently as 2012 (and it was awesome). I am no longer partaking because I've yet to have my engine rebuilt and I've not yet found quite the right vehicle to replace it. I am not so much interested in winning as I am in pushing a particular vehicle to its limits and seeing how well I perform against much better vehicles. I could, I suppose, just buy a nice Subaru and probably take the field because I can afford to throw more money at it - that defeats the point, in my view. (Yes, I guess someone could find out who I am by looking at past results for some of the NEFR events but that's okay - in another thread I invited people to my house on NYE.)
So, I'm thinking something like a slightly modified Audi Quatro (or VW Quantum) from the late 1980s or, maybe, an Eagle from AMC might be fun to put through their paces. I've just not found one and then had the work done on it. I can do a lot of the work but I'm not going to. I hate smacking my knuckles with a wrench so I pay a local mechanic's shop and he sends one of his employees in to work on my stuff, pretty much every Saturday when I'm home - even if I've nothing specific for him to do. I'd pay the person directly but this way ensures there's always someone there when I need them, I don't need to deal with the hassle, and he has always sent very qualified people. I've a lift and a selection of tools so they needn't bring much of anything. Body work is sent out to a shop way down in Wilton but it's well worth the distance and price.
Anyhow, there's an example of a road, why I know it's there, how it is used, and some of the history. This doesn't negate a damned thing you said, it just shows that it is possible, albeit unrealistic. My property is covered with "tote roads." Tote roads are roads used by the logging companies. They're unimproved roads and don't always go anywhere you want to go but others and myself make good use of them - especially during the spring but they're often traveled during the summer and fall - the foliage is beautiful. If you've got the appropriate vehicle (you can do it in a car on some hills) you can get to the top of the mountain and see all the way to Mt. Washington from there.
Again, doesn't negate your point one bit but there are exceptions to the rule and privately owned and maintained roads do exist and some allow for public travel. It's possible, for example, to drive from my house to Canada but you should let them know that you intend to come in that way or they're REALLY going to be kind of pissed. There's no fence, border patrol, or even a sign. The first time I did it, well, it was kind of surprising. However, people do that and similar on a snowmobile during the winter - it's not even remotely uncommon. My land is almost all posted with custom signs that say "Publ
It is also of value to note that the Amendment does not specify that the militia is the exclusive reason, it's just a singular enumerated reason - it is justification for the amendment as a specific and not exclusive of other reasons. This has been rather clearly decided on. I own, properly taxed and licensed, two firearms that are capable of burst and fully automatic firing. (One an M-14 and the other an AK-47 which is technically an M22 from China.)
At risk of sounding like I'm trolling (I'm not - I'm completely serious) my reading indicates that the Supremes did not, in fact, follow the letter of the law when challenged. We should be able to own most anything that is not a WMD (I can see a reasonable restriction at that point) so long as we are not a felon. No, I have no problem with someone owning a Browning 30 cal or even Ma Deuce. Yes, I think such should be legal for private ownership. Yes, I think a true reading of the Constitution affords us such liberties. No, I am not worried about the safety implications - damned things are expensive.
And yes, I typed all of that with a straight face. I do understand that I'm in the minority and that the Supremes do not agree with me. I find it unfortunate but there's little I can do about it. I can, technically, own both of those firearms but they must have been made before the ban, they're expensive as hell, and reproductions are not legal. I also can not find anyone willing to sell an M-202 at a reasonable price but I did hear about one coming up at auction at Rock Island in April (I think) of 2016. I'm not sure if I'll bid or not.
That said, I own a couple of firearms that I feel are far better than what I was issued or what /most/ had access to. Of course, this is depending on the job at hand. I have a variety of sidearms that I feel are better than what I was issued when I was an escort/chaser. I have rifles that are probably equal to or better than what is issued in some countries. An example might be, I have a (again, fully legal) Barret, chambered in .50 cal, that was expensive but not prohibitively so - it has decent optics and, with some practice, I'm quite certain I can be quite accurate with it at great distances. I used to have a suppressed .22, custom drilled, from Ruger (Mark II - Target, fluted) but it is expressly forbidden by Maine law so I no longer own such.
Perhaps it is unfortunate but, well, I have a friend who is an avid trader/collector and is also a licensed dealer. I have given that man far more money than I probably should have. In my basement, I have a room that is concrete on all sides and has a steel door that has its frame embedded into the concrete. Inside that are a bunch of safes and boxes and boxes of ammunition. (I am not home to find them again but I posted pics not too long ago - probably within the past year.)
Hell... Back in 2010, or so, I ended up sending someone on /. a few boxes of .22 LR (and some 9 mm, as I recall) because they were unable to find any and wanted to go shooting with their son. It might have been +/- a year? My memory isn't that great. I'd have done so more recently, for a different poster, but it was not long after I left Maine to go on my current wanderlust. I'm that much an aficionado and believer in the right to own firearms - to the point where I'll help others exercise their rights.
By the way, I didn't do the clear out the shelves/hoard thing, I've just been buying boxes of both for years out of habit. I have friends over and we go through a whole lot of ammunition in a single go. Our preparations for hunting season are quite an event and generally, literally, turn into an event with many people showing up - the "event" generally lasts for a weekend or two. We have a semi-private "machine gun shoot" where the proceeds go to DAV. That doesn't take place on my property but I'd hold it here if it had to be. I have one neighbor who can hear loud reports but they don't mind and we've di
It's curious that you think you're smarter than they, the scholars, and the courts. Don't you find it remarkable that your presumptions are incorrect?
Allow me, if you will, to give a bit of anecdotal evidence. I am a firearm aficionado. I've slaughtered countless innocent bits of paper who have done nothing to harm anyone - and I'll do it again. I spent a total of eight years enlisted in the Marines, had the misfortune of seeing combat, and would hate to harm anyone and would only use violence as a last resort and, even then, would only apply enough force to immediately stop the threat. (Or, at least, make them think twice about continuing to act in a life-threatening manner - I carry .22 LR for a reason.)
The vast majority of people that I know, who are also firearm owners and/or aficionados, are very similar in many ways - including serving in one branch or another. No, I know there are some really stupid people who own firearms. I know that violence with firearms will happen. You're given a choice, false security or greater liberties. Which do you prefer?
Your fear is not significant motivation to take my liberties and, honestly, the vast majority of scholar, experts, court findings, readings, and interpretations all support my right to own firearms and you've provided no compelling evidence to take that liberty away. Even if you cite the violence, the deaths, the injuries, and all that - you've still not provided sufficient motivation to take my liberty. Your fear and cowardice is not reason enough to take away my liberties.
People, right now, are scared and trying to take away encryption based on their fear. People can literally be aided in their attempt to harm others with the use of encryption. I'm reasonably certain that, at this very moment in time, someone is planning on causing harm and using encryption to keep those plans secret. I'm okay with that. I'm okay that there's a minuscule chance of harm coming to me, my loved ones, or to innocents by means of firearm violence. I accept those risks because liberty is essential and maintaining the maximum rights realistically possible is vital to our survival as free people.
"Oh but look at all these other nations that restrict them!" Yes, look at them. Who do you think will be called upon to help save them when their governments are too restrictive and become abusive? Even if that's *not* what will happen (and it likely will - as is evidenced by many other instances and assuming they've got a few resources that we want to protect/purloin) there's no justification to use your cowardice to strip away my liberties. Piss yourself quietly in the corner, thanks. The rest of us can have a reasonable discussion about resolving the issues with violence, notice that it is trending down and has been for years, and work to find reasonable solutions without being distracted by your nonsense.
It's fortunate that you're wrong and that the vast majority of study concurs with my view and interpretation. You will need to amend the Constitution in order to make changes to that view. That is not going to happen without violence, that choice is not yours to make. No, it is not me threatening violence, it is me telling you what it will take to get that amendment changed. I can tell you, quite certainly, that the military is not going to simply obey orders and disarm the population nor are they going to follow orders to attack the civilians. How do I know? Well, long nights standing watch and lonely nights stuck in the barracks. We've discussed this and, as far as I can tell, very few people would consider those to be lawful orders and would not follow them. Are you going to wield the firearm required to take away theirs? Do you expect the police, many are also veterans, to do so on your behalf? Good luck with that.
Your proposals will result in a civil war. Are you prepared for that? This is not a gung-ho threat, this is an observation. Good luck with that. Fortunately, nobody is going to give you the power to enact such ch
Only if you go by means other than an automobile or foot or horse or something. You can still drive all around and only show ID if you're stopped for something. I don't know but I think they require it for long-distance bus travel now (they didn't used to) and I think you need it for long-distance rail travel (they didn't used to) and you need it if you're going to take a commercial flight (I don't think that was required when I was younger).
I haven't taken rail or bus in a very long time so I'm not entirely sure. I imagine they're required. You wouldn't need them on a local bus, subway, etc.... At least not yet. If it's in-country then I tend to drive or charter and simply avoid the hassle. I don't really have anything to hide, I just don't feel like dealing with the absurdity that is the TSA.
There's a reason for that. Donations to campaigns need to be attributable in order to avoid abuses. They're still (probably) rife with abuse but the goal is noble. I believe you can donate to a PAC and get away with some level of anonymity.
Heh... I'm pretty sure there used to be an edit button back when you opened the reply in a new window. I'm not sure how long it lasted but I sort of recall the option to edit - I think it was time limited but I do not recall. I even remember some debate as to why it was taken away but I could be conflating that with another site. I'm thinking early 2000s?
I had an older account back then and I no longer have access to the email nor do I recollect the username but I used to use /. and then took a few years off in the mid-2000s and only posted as AC - if at all. (I was simply too busy. I was also dealing with a bunch of proprietary stuff and didn't want to give indications about the direction the work was taking that could be attached to me.) So, if I posted, it was as an AC and the UID was forgotten, the email lost, and the account is now gone. I think it was a 4 or 5 digit account? I didn't spend much time commenting back then, I was pretty busy.
At any rate, I *think* there was an edit button. I seem to recall that it was in the lower-right and you could click to edit your post. There's some chance that I'm misremembering but I think it was here? Perhaps someone else recalls it as well or can confirm that it was not a feature. I want to say that people were trolling with it and that might have been why they got rid of it? They'd type one thing outlandish, wait for replies, and then type something innocent so that the replies were "wrong" and would be considered stupid.
Meh, I may well be mistaken but that's my recollection. Err... I've put a whole variety of illicit substances into my system between then and now. There's a good chance that my memory is faulty.
The fear of the "big brain" has been present since the 1960s at least. There are numerous movies and shows that touch on the subject. I forget the name but one is a couple of ladies in an office, doing accounting work, and they're worried about the "big brain" (computer) taking over that and then, with artificial intelligence, taking over everything.
One might also cite movies such as Terminator and The Matrix as examples of this fear being portrayed in movies.