And 10 years after quitting soccer, he was found dead with his dick in the cartridge slot.

The 1541 disk drive must not have been as popular in the U.K. as it was in Canada, because no one I knew even had a tape drive -- it was disks or nothing. But even the 1541 was, as the ad for the Epyx Fastload cartridge put it, a lumbering hippo. It used to go out of alignment constantly and couldn't read disks until you paid someone knowledgeable (more knowledgeable than I was, anyway) to fix it. But we liked it anyway! Hooray for the C64!

>> ^NetRunner:

@jimnms I think the right lesson to take from the example of Brazil is "gun control laws need to be properly enforced to reduce homicide", not "gun control laws never reduce gun crime."
Also, you're wrong about gun shows, there's a pretty big loophole. From wikipedia:

U.S. federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or those who are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and perform background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm. Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).

In other words, you can always just say you're a private seller, and sell guns at gunshows without doing background checks or recording the sale.
There are videos, sifted right here on Videosift, of people going and buying guns at gunshows while literally saying to the seller "I don't need a background check, right? 'Cause I probably couldn't pass one" with the seller replying with some form of "no problem, here's your gun".
But more than anecdotal video evidence, there's also a been series of studies about drug cartels moving serious amounts of guns using straw purchases at gun shows.
Yet for some reason you're calling Moyers a liar for saying the same thing.
Also, the Assault Weapons Ban set the maximum legal size of a single clip at 10 rounds. IIRC, this latest shooting featured the shooter using a barrel mag with over 100. That used to be illegal. Also, the Tuscon shooting featured a shooter using 2 guns with 30-round clips -- and he was stopped when he had to reload.
Personally, I don't quite understand the anti-gun control side of the argument. Say banning assault weapons only reduces the number of people killed by gun violence by 1.6%. That's still what, a few thousand people's lives a year? Why is having assault weapons legal for civilians worth the deaths of a thousand people a year? Why would it be worth the death of even one person a year? You can still have a pistol, a hunting rife, a shotgun, etc., you just can't have a high-velocity, large-magazine firearm. What exactly is the harm in making that illegal?


That's not a loophole in gun shows, private sales and transfer of firearms are not regulated in some states. You can't set up a booth and sell guns at a gun show unless you are a licensed gun dealer. And you certainly aren't going to walk in and buy a fully automatic assault rifle without showing ID or getting a background check. If a person legally has a fully automatic weapon, they have to have a class 3 federal firearms license and register the weapon with the ATF. If they sell that weapon, the person they are selling it to must also have a class 3 firearms license and the transfer of the weapon must be reported to the ATF.

I've seen the videos you speak of and I read the report you linked. It's good that the ATF is doing their job and cracking down on those douchbags dealers. What you said about Brazil, "gun control laws need to be properly enforced to reduce homicide", not "gun control laws never reduce gun crime.", can be said about the U.S. also.

The assault weapon ban limited pistols magazines to 10 rounds and rifles to 30 rounds. This also only applied to weapons and magazines manufactured or imported before the 1994 law went into effect. He still could purchase the high capacity magazine if it was manufactured or imported before the law went into effect, or he could have purchased it illegally.

People are still confused about what an assault rifle is. The definition of an assault rifle is a gun that can fire full auto or in bursts, and generally uses a shorter, less powerful cartridge than a battle rifle. The guns the media so ignorantly call assault rifles are NOT assault rifles. They look like their military assault rifle counterpart, fire the same round, but the internals are different. They only fire in semi-automatic and can not be modified to fire full auto.

If "assault weapons" were the least used weapons in violent crimes, why go after them when according to the DOJ the effect on crime is "too small for reliable measurement, because assault weapons are rarely used in gun crimes." The guns most preferred by criminals are small caliber (.25, .38 an 9mm) easily concealed pistols with magazines of 7 or less. So what do they do? They ban "assault rifles" and big magazines. Does that make any sense? It's just politics to appease the mass stupids by banning big scary looking guns.

Lets apply the same logic used by legalize drug crowd (which I'm all for). Pot and other drugs are illegal. There are laws against the sale and possession of these drugs, yet people still get them. Ban all guns, and people will still get them, only it will just criminals with guns. Both England and Australia have banned private ownership of guns, and their crime rates went up because the only people left with guns were criminals [1][2][3][4]. Why don't we give that a try here, because it worked so well for them.

That's very true. The simple fact that because the pressure of the tire off the rim is going to be normalized with the atmospheric pressure, even if you seated the tire back on manually, you'd have a zero pressure delta between outside the tire and inside. For a tire to run properly, usually you have to have a difference of approximately 30 psi. So yea, case closed. THANKS!>> ^messenger:

That might work better, but to pressurize a tire, you need significantly more gas than just the little bit that comes out of the spray can, and it must be at ambient temperature too to count. Clearly, the only reason this inflates the tire at all is the heat. Here's a thought experiment that disproves the "stays inflated" myth:
Consider that you need to have much more gas inside the tire than outside for it to stay inflated at ambient temperature. Before lighting the gas, there's the same pressure inside and outside the tire because the two areas are contiguous. When she lights the fire, the gas inside expands rapidly, and lots of it escapes, so now, while there's a greater volume of gas inside the tire than before, this is due to a greatly reduced density, so there's actually less gas inside than before, which is why there was a vacuum. Using heat, there will always be less gas inside than before. It's not even worth experimenting. The only way something like this could work is with compressed gas, which you certainly wouldn't want to do because that would blow the tire up if it were lit on fire.
I think there are self-inflating tires already on the market that have compressed gas cartridges built in, triggered by a sensor that fixes flats by spraying a sealant inside, then lots of pressurized gas, probably CO2. They don't use fire.>> ^rottenseed:
So the limiting reactant would be the starter fluid and the air in the tire. Oxygen to be more exact. Because you want enough forces to seat the tire, but not so much it removes all of the gases from the tire, maybe they should have tried less starter fluid. If that's depleted in the reaction quickly leaving enough energy to seat the tire, but also enough oxygen left over from the reaction, you might end up with a working tire.
Somebody please double check my thought process, but I think it's definitely worth more experimentation.

That might work better, but to pressurize a tire, you need significantly more gas than just the little bit that comes out of the spray can, and it must be at ambient temperature too to count. Clearly, the only reason this inflates the tire at all is the heat. Here's a thought experiment that disproves the "stays inflated" myth:

Consider that you need to have much more gas inside the tire than outside for it to stay inflated at ambient temperature. Before lighting the gas, there's the same pressure inside and outside the tire because the two areas are contiguous. When she lights the fire, the gas inside expands rapidly, and lots of it escapes, so now, while there's a greater volume of gas inside the tire than before, this is due to a greatly reduced density, so there's actually less gas inside than before, which is why there was a vacuum. Using heat, there will always be less gas inside than before. It's not even worth experimenting. The only way something like this could work is with compressed gas, which you certainly wouldn't want to do because that would blow the tire up if it were lit on fire.

I think there are self-inflating tires already on the market that have compressed gas cartridges built in, triggered by a sensor that fixes flats by spraying a sealant inside, then lots of pressurized gas, probably CO2. They don't use fire.>> ^rottenseed:

So the limiting reactant would be the starter fluid and the air in the tire. Oxygen to be more exact. Because you want enough forces to seat the tire, but not so much it removes all of the gases from the tire, maybe they should have tried less starter fluid. If that's depleted in the reaction quickly leaving enough energy to seat the tire, but also enough oxygen left over from the reaction, you might end up with a working tire.
Somebody please double check my thought process, but I think it's definitely worth more experimentation.

Thanks for that man. I have a well-groomed beard but I like to keep my neck clean-shaven and my neck-line tight. Unfortunately, neck skin tends to be the most delicate. I end up having to go through those expensive-ass cartridges like once every 4 or 5 shaves. Once that blade-jizzm dries out, it tends to wreck havoc on my skin. I'm wish-listing all of your recommendations for purchase when the last of my cartridges runs out (or shortly before) >> ^Fletch:

>> ^jqpublick:
I didn't know about the after-shave, I'll check it out. Thanks.
>> ^therealblankman:
@gwiz665 I knew the part about the ladies would convince you.
For my fellow Canucks you can buy the Proraso line at Shoppers Drugs across the country. They also carry the "Real Shaving" products from England- I really like their after-shave balm, use it every day.


I switched to DE shaving about a year ago after reading some enthusiastic comments for it somewhere. I used to abhor shaving. Now, it has become a pleasurable, zen-like ritual instead of a monotonous chore. I will never go back to cartridges.
For those thinking of giving it a go, I'd just recommend getting one of the many blade sample packs you can find on Amazon and on just about any site that sells DE razors. There are many different skin and beard types, and not all blades will feel and perform the same for everybody. I ended up choosing Astra Superior Premium Platinums. Buy them in a hundred pack and they are about 11.5 cents apiece. I get about 5 or 6 shaves per blade. Some people will get less. Some will get more. Even if you shave every day (I don't), it's cheaper than the Dollar Shave Club (initial costs aside).
If the initial cost is off-putting to you, take trip to the local grocery store and stare at the ridiculous price of replacement cartidges for the razor you are using now. DE razors and accessories are like cars, computers and kitchen knives. You can spend as much as you desire on one. There are many excellent razors under fifty bucks available. I use a Merkur Heavy Classic 43c and I love it. Unlike cartridge razors, it wil last a lifetime.
But cost savings isn't the reason I would recommend DE shaving. The benefits listed above by @therealblankman are the reasons why it's superior to catridge shaving. DE shaving takes a little longer than cartridge shaving (if you want baby smooth cheeks), but the results are more than worth it.
Proraso seems to have a following by the looks of some of the above comments, and for good reason. I also use the Proraso Ultra-Sensitive soap, the Proraso aftershave balm, and Proraso Anti-Irritation pre-shaving cream. I complete the kit with a nice badger hair shaving brush.

>> ^jqpublick:

I didn't know about the after-shave, I'll check it out. Thanks.
>> ^therealblankman:
@gwiz665 I knew the part about the ladies would convince you.
For my fellow Canucks you can buy the Proraso line at Shoppers Drugs across the country. They also carry the "Real Shaving" products from England- I really like their after-shave balm, use it every day.



I switched to DE shaving about a year ago after reading some enthusiastic comments for it somewhere. I used to abhor shaving. Now, it has become a pleasurable, zen-like ritual instead of a monotonous chore. I will never go back to cartridges.

For those thinking of giving it a go, I'd just recommend getting one of the many blade sample packs you can find on Amazon and on just about any site that sells DE razors. There are many different skin and beard types, and not all blades will feel and perform the same for everybody. I ended up choosing Astra Superior Premium Platinums. Buy them in a hundred pack and they are about 11.5 cents apiece. I get about 5 or 6 shaves per blade. Some people will get less. Some will get more. Even if you shave every day (I don't), it's cheaper than the Dollar Shave Club (initial costs aside).

If the initial cost is off-putting to you, take trip to the local grocery store and stare at the ridiculous price of replacement cartidges for the razor you are using now. DE razors and accessories are like cars, computers and kitchen knives. You can spend as much as you desire on one. There are many excellent razors under fifty bucks available. I use a Merkur Heavy Classic 43c and I love it. Unlike cartridge razors, it wil last a lifetime.

But cost savings isn't the reason I would recommend DE shaving. The benefits listed above by @therealblankman are the reasons why it's superior to catridge shaving. DE shaving takes a little longer than cartridge shaving (if you want baby smooth cheeks), but the results are more than worth it.

Proraso seems to have a following by the looks of some of the above comments, and for good reason. I also use the Proraso Ultra-Sensitive soap, the Proraso aftershave balm, and Proraso Anti-Irritation pre-shaving cream. I complete the kit with a nice badger hair shaving brush.

>> ^Payback:

>> ^raverman:
Many printers now have the obsolescence blatantly built in to the ink cartridges.
To stop recycling and reuse, the cartridge is programmed to short circuit and fuse it's control chip if it passes a level approaching empty.
Other manufacturers do it at the driver level, when the cartridge is empty it sets a value to lock the printer unless a new branded cartridge is used.
DRM for digital media has a logical argument at least. But why is there not a class action law suit against this deliberate sabotage of a product after purchase?

With even colour laser printers (decent ones too) in the range of sub-$200 why would ANYONE buy an ink printer anyway? Laser toner doesn't dry out. As a matter of fact, the drier it is, the better.


Because they want to print photos. And because doing so with a laser printer requires specialist laser photo paper rather than the easily available inkjet photo paper.

I'm not trying to defend the ridiculous $30 for a printer, $90 for the ink crap that the inkjet printers have going, just saying why people would. I hate blanket statements like yours.

And Laser toner Cartridges are also easily refillable several times with sometimes just minor parts some times needing cleaning or replacing. In yet most people send perfectly good cartridges to the dump... because the company who wants to sell you the next one tells you to?>> ^Payback:

>> ^raverman:
Many printers now have the obsolescence blatantly built in to the ink cartridges.
To stop recycling and reuse, the cartridge is programmed to short circuit and fuse it's control chip if it passes a level approaching empty.
Other manufacturers do it at the driver level, when the cartridge is empty it sets a value to lock the printer unless a new branded cartridge is used.
DRM for digital media has a logical argument at least. But why is there not a class action law suit against this deliberate sabotage of a product after purchase?

With even colour laser printers (decent ones too) in the range of sub-$200 why would ANYONE buy an ink printer anyway? Laser toner doesn't dry out. As a matter of fact, the drier it is, the better.

>> ^raverman:

Many printers now have the obsolescence blatantly built in to the ink cartridges.
To stop recycling and reuse, the cartridge is programmed to short circuit and fuse it's control chip if it passes a level approaching empty.
Other manufacturers do it at the driver level, when the cartridge is empty it sets a value to lock the printer unless a new branded cartridge is used.
DRM for digital media has a logical argument at least. But why is there not a class action law suit against this deliberate sabotage of a product after purchase?


With even colour laser printers (decent ones too) in the range of sub-$200 why would ANYONE buy an ink printer anyway? Laser toner doesn't dry out. As a matter of fact, the drier it is, the better.

Many printers now have the obsolescence blatantly built in to the ink cartridges.

To stop recycling and reuse, the cartridge is programmed to short circuit and fuse it's control chip if it passes a level approaching empty.

Other manufacturers do it at the driver level, when the cartridge is empty it sets a value to lock the printer unless a new branded cartridge is used.

DRM for digital media has a logical argument at least. But why is there not a class action law suit against this deliberate sabotage of a product after purchase?

>> ^marinara:

quality i have no idea how the cartridge seconds after the firing pin, but it sure as hell happened


Although this does look fake, a Hang Fire is real.

Is this for gun safety ?

I would hope so.

Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

I had a Round in my .308 not go off while I was on a mountain shooting at targets, I pulled the trigger and nothing happened, shock and fear went into me as I stayed on my target for a minute as instructed by the course, after that I ejected the cartridge only to find out I did not load it.
hhahahahahahha.. well its funny to me.

*quality i have no idea how the cartridge seconds after the firing pin, but it sure as hell happened

Bell curve aside, there seems to be a whole generation of idiots with zero respect for lawful authority and an inbred incapability to obey simple instructions, as if these traffic stops are the first time in their entire lives they've been told 'NO' or someone has asked them more than once to comply. Help! My self-esteem has been violated!

Another theory is these a-holes are looking for a payout from the city. They know that--right-or-wrong--they'll get one if they look like big enough victims.

In this scenario, you have an ignoramus wearing a giant pullover which could conceal any number of weapons, and a hatchback where anyone could be hiding with a firearm just under the back window.

Iggy should be billed by the city for the electricity and Taser cartridges for the exact amount of shyster "damages".