@Asmo

i hear what yer saying bud,and you are making valid points that many on the left just seem allergic to even acknowledge,let alone criticize.

but i do not think newt falls in that category,i do not mean to speak for him (but i will anyways,because i am a cock).newt was simply pointing out what ANTIFA meant,he was not making a moral judgment (i think they are deluded ideological cunts myself).

i am betting that newt,along with the majority of americans,had no idea how this clusterfuck of a social neanderthals found themselves clashing with their knuckledragging,piss-poor ideology of dollar store enlightenment and hyper-racist nationalism.

hell,the majority didn't even bother to ask the question :"how did this happen"?

well it didn't fall out of the fucking sky sweetheart!

if you are a conservative,a republican and you think that white nationalism is not a problem,and needs to be exposed for the bullshit tribalism it represents.

then you are part of the problem.

if you are a liberal/progressive,and a democrat and you think that it is perfectly fine to "punch a nazi in the face",attack those who you disagree with ideologically and do your best to prevent them from speaking,often using violence.

then allow me to introduce you to a fantastic word in the english language:irony

and let's tack on "hypocrite" for good measure.

because you are part of the problem as well.

i am not impressed with unenlightened,self centered and narcissistic ideologies that try to pass themselves off as relevant social issues.

i mean seriously...fuck these people.

I didn't vote for Trump, but I know God put him there. For what reason(s) I don't really know. What I do know is that there is a shaking going on and things are going to fall out much differently than they were before.

Your video, Guy falls out of waterslide and down a cliff, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 69 Badge!

She has the right to complain but he has the right to deny her service. Which he was doing when he repeatedly said "GET OUT OF MY CAR!"
She's one of those, I laugh at you getting mad and keep pushing your buttons type of people. I fucking hate them and hope she went into the ER and got an accidental enema with an over sized hose.
He is working and she doesn't have any right to piss him off and just because she is paying him.
And you SURE AS FUCK do act like that to a customer if they are pissing you off. Some other asshole can deal with them. You just have to deal with the fall out. Besides, if everybody acted nicely to each other what the hell would I watch on the Sift? Oh yeah, cat and Fail videos. Also anything with Bryan Cranston, a pretty lady, a robot, or some awesome music in it. OK, yeah we can all try to get along better, I'll live...

For obvious reasons. People that want something banned, don't want statistics showing that shows it doesn't kill. And people that don't want something banned, don't want statistics showing that it kills people.

Bed manufacturers wouldn't want the CDC studying beds - because 400+ people die each year by falling out of bed. Windows tint manufacturers would have no problem with the CDC studying the effects of window tint.
Combine that with sufficient political influence, and you get either a ban or a mandate.

Pretty much most things you encounter in the day have some lethality rate to them, just most don't have such an effective organization defending their use. Nor do most draw as much attention. Not much noise about the lethality of bad bread, or errors in GPS maps, or whatever else gets people killed each year. But if there was noise, and there was political strength behind it, you'd be seeing bans on CDC studying GPS map errors.

-scheherazade

Lawrence Wilkerson's dismissive comments about self defense are very disrespectful to people who have had to resort to self defense. He wouldn't say things like that had he been unfortunate enough to have had such a personal experience. (As one parent of a Fla victim said - his child would have given anything for a firearm at the time of the event.)

Re. 2nd amendment, yes, it's not for pure self defense. The reasoning is provided within the text. The government is denied legal powers over gun ownership ('shall not be infringed') in order to preserve the ability of the people to form a civilian paramilitary intended to face [presumably invading] foreign militaries in combat ('militia').

It's important to remember that the U.S. is a republic - so the citizens are literally the state (not in abstract, but actually so). As such, there is very little distinction between self defense and state defense - given that self and state are one.

Personally, I believe any preventative law is a moral non-starter. Conceptually they rely on doling out punishment via rights-denial to all people, because some subset might do harm. Punishment should be reserved for those that trespass on others - violating their domain (body/posessions/etc). Punishment should not be preemptive, simply to satiate the fears/imaginations of persons not affected by those punished. Simply, there should be no laws against private activities among consenting individuals. Folks don't have to like what other folks do, and they don't have to be liked either. It's enough to just leave one another alone in peace.

Re. Fla, the guilty party is dead. People should not abuse government to commit 3rd party trespass onto innocent disliked demographics (gun owners) just to lash out. Going after groups of people out of fear or dislike is unjustified.







---------------------------------------------------




As an aside, the focus on "assault rifles" makes gun control advocates appear not sincere, and rather knee-jerk/emotional. Practically all gun killings utilize pistols.

There are only around 400 or so total rifle deaths per year (for all kinds of rifles combined) - which is almost as many as the people who die each year by falling out of bed (ever considered a bed to be deadly? With 300 million people, even low likelihood events must still happen reasonably often. It's important to keep in mind the likelihood, and not simply the totals.).

Around 10'000 people die each day out of all causes. Realistically, rifles of all sorts, especially assault rifles, are not consequential enough to merit special attention - given the vast ocean of far more deadly things to worry about.

If they were calling for a ban+confiscation of all pistols, with a search of every home and facility in the U.S., then I'd consider the advocates to be at least making sense regarding the objective of reducing gun related death.

Also, since sidearms have less utility in a military application, a pistol ban is less anti-2nd-amendment than an assault rifle ban.







As a technical point, ar15s are not actually assault rifles - they just look like one (m4/m16).
Assault rifles are named after the German Sturm Gewehr (storm rifle). It's a rifle that splits the difference between a sub-machinegun (automatic+pistol ammo) and a battle rifle (uses normal rifle/hunting ammo).

- SMG is easy to control in automatic, but has limited damage. (historical example : ppsh-41)

- Battle rifles do lots of damage, but are hard to control (lots of recoil, using full power hunting ammo). (historical example : AVT-40)

- An 'assault rifle' uses something called an 'intermediate cartridge'. It's a shrunken down, weaker version of hunting ammo. A non-high-power rifle round, that keeps recoil in check when shooting automatic. It's stronger than a pistol, but weaker than a normal rifle. But that weakness makes it controllable in automatic fire. (historical example : StG-44)

- The ar15 has no automatic fire. This defeats the purpose of using weak ammo (automatic controlability). So in effect, it's just a weak normal rifle. (The M4/M16 have automatic, so they can make use of the weak ammo to manage recoil - and they happen to look the same).

Practically speaking, a semi-auto hunting rifle is more lethal. A Remington 7400 with box mag is a world deadlier than an ar15. An M1A looks like a hunting rifle, and is likewise deadlier than an ar15. Neither are viewed as evil or dangerous.

You can also get hunting rifles that shoot intermediate cartridges (eg. Ruger Mini14). The lethality is identical to an ar15, but because it doesn't look black and scary, no one complains.

In practice, what makes the ar15 scary is its appearance. The pistol grip, the adjustable stock, the muzzle device, the black color, all are visual identifiers, and those visuals have become politically more important than what it actually does.

You can see the lack of firearms awareness in the proposed laws - proposed bans focus on those visual features. No pistol grips, no adjustable stocks, etc. Basically a listing of ancillary features that evoke scary appearance, and nothing to do with the core capabilities of a firearm.

What has made the ar15 the most popular rifle in the country, is that it has very good ergonomics, and is very friendly to new shooters. The low recoil doesn't scare new shooters away, and the great customizability makes it like a gun version of a tuner-car.

I think its massive success, popularity, and widespread adoption, have made it the most likely candidate to be used in a shooting. It's cursed to be on-hand whenever events like Fla happen.

-scheherazade

The inherently chaotic event that exists in the otherwise predictable / trainable environment of driving a car is the unplanned / unmeasured disturbance. In control systems that are adaptive or self learning, the unplanned disturbance is the killer - a short duration, unpredictable event for which the system is unable to respond to within the control limits that have been defined through training, programming and/or adaptation. The response to an unplanned disturbance is often to default to an instruction that is very much human derived (ie. stop, exit gracefully, terminate instruction, wait until conditions return to controllable boundary conditions or freeze in place) which, depending on the disturbance, can be catastrophic. In our world, with humans behind the wheel, let's call the unplanned disturbance the "mistake". A tire blows, a load comes undone, an object falls out of or off of another vehicle (human, dog, watermelon, gas cylinder) etc.

The concern from my perspective (and I work directly with adaptive / learning control systems every day - fundamental models, adaptive neural type predictors, genetic algorithms etc. ) is the response to these short duration / short response time unplanned disturbances. The videos I've seen and the examples that I have reviewed don't deal with these very short timescale events and how to manage the response, which in many cases is an event dependent response. I would guess that the 1st dead person that results from the actions or inaction of self driving vehicles will put a major dent if not halt to the program. Humans may be fallible, but we are remarkably (infinitely?) more adaptive in combined conscious / subconscious responses than any computer is or will be in the near future in both appropriateness of response and the time scale of generating that response.

In the partially controlled environment (ie. there is no such thing as 100%) of a automated warehouse and distribution center, self driving works. In the partially controlled environment where ONLY self driving vehicles are present on the roadways, then again, this technology will likely succeed. The mixed environment with self driving co-mingled with humans (see "fallible" above) is not presently viable, and I don't think will be in the next decade or two, partially due to safety risk and partially due to management of these short timescale unplanned disturbances that can call for vastly different responses depending upon the specific situation at hand. In the flow of traffic we encounter the majority of the time, would agree that this may not be an issue to some (in 44 years of driving, I've been in 2 accidents, so I'll leave the risk assessment to the actuaries). But one death, and we'll see how high the knees jerk. And it will happen.

My 2 cents.
TB

The F-35 can fly both faster, and slower than the F-16, and longer at high angles of attack that would stall most planes. It although can't out accelerate the F-16 though since F-35 is heavier. But having the best acceleration isn't really a factor in modern air combat, where missiles are being thrown at each other from any between 20-100+km's range. As long as you can accelerate good enough, which being a fighter plane it can.

The F-35's afterburner-less supersonic speed is more important in a BVR(beyond visual range) engagement, since that's what allows you to put more distance between you and an enemy missile. The idea being that you fly perpendicular to a missile making it cover more ground and it runs out of fuel and speed so it falls out of the sky before it can reach you. Of course to lock onto a stealth plane you'd need to be quite close in the first place, by which time it would have shot you down, at least that's the theory.

If it comes to a close range scenario, say enemy AWACS manages to detect the F-35s, and direct a bunch of enemy fighters through a set of mountains to sneak up on the F-35s. And a visual range or even dog fight ensues. Then the F-35 would use a short range missile that can turn 90+ degrees and shoot behind itself . Which no other plane can do since all of the sensors are forward facing on all other planes.

But you're of course right, there is always eventually going to be a way of countering the stealth advantage, it's an arms race after all. Most likely it will be countered by some kind of cheap jamming drone swarming, which would make the F-35s sensors useless, and missiles too few, forcing the engagements to happen at shorter ranges.


------------------

What I mean by dog fighting is a one on one engagement where each plane is trying to furiously out maneuver the other. That is a rare occurrence. There is a WW2 era video that explains the tactics used that make the one on one style dog fighting obsolete. https://youtu.be/C_iW1T3yg80?t=530

The planes have a system where as soon as one plane is engage by an enemy, then your wingman, or a spare clean up squadron comes and mops it up, since the enemy makes it self an easy target when engaging a friendly.

You forgot "Made in China" not a label to inspire confidence. If it were made in Germany, I'm sure a lot more people would believe in the safety features, but honestly, I think the reason it's NOT made in Germany is that it's inherently impossible to design such a vehicle to actually be safe.

1 blade breaks (bird strike?) 1 motor fails, ANYTHING goes wrong with the software or hardware, structural failures, hell, even the passenger shifting rapidly in their seat could cause this thing to fall out of the air like a brick.

They seem to think if they repeat "absolute safety by design" often enough somebody will believe it, but the video does absolutely nothing to show what they've done to actually make the thing safe.

I have a new tag line for them:

"Absolutely safe, just like Chinese-made hoverboards!"

So you're telling me that modelling is a business?
and that people don't just fall out of bed looking REALLY, REALLY GOOD?

No fucking way!

Find it hard to have any sympathy for someone who's made a career out of posting vacuous crap to the internet, but good on her for getting out of it, I suppose.

when your teeth fall out, your brain starts slipping away and you need four times a day care, then you will get Fortisip shoved down your mouth to prolong your eventual demise. Why would you start now? I live to eat not eat to live.

Snowflakes are a lot like spiders. There are millions of them and they fall out of the sky and land on your face.

I don't understand the excitement.

The bus passed the biker. While passing the passenger happened to notice the keys fall out. The biker caught up to the bus. The passenger told the biker.

WOW! MYSTERIOUS!

nah, not so much

He made them fall out with black magic then felt guilty. Only rational explanation.

If this is real, it's a terrible concept.
For this to work, it needs a seriously powerful industrial robot arm, which cost tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. That means it's only feasible for amusement rides, if that. because it flips upside down and relies completely on seat belts to keep you in it, they'll never put it in a setting where they'll be liable if you fall out, so won't be in amusement parks. To me, that means they have no client that would purchase this device, if it even exists. Looks fun, but also looks unrealistic.