Two of the officers were fired https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/airplane-mode/two-officers-fired-after-doctor-dragged-united-airlines-flight-n811546

Notable that the screens don't change as they seem set to a certain mode. I'm going to guess this is an Easter Egg feature of them. However, after Googling AR-7778 it makes annoying sounds even before you put it in music mode.

"You said almost 3 times that speed, continuously for over 10 minutes....and not with a lightweight speed shorting pistol."

You are not making any sense. I see what I wrote but it is unclear what you are referring to. You are welcome to quote the part you are referring to.

As I wrote above, you can choose the length of time you are aiming your firearm for. I even gave a comparative set of aiming scenarios.

I love how you take the top end of my approximation as your "laughable" scenario and don't mention the rest of the range (i.e. 50 rounds per minute with mag changes). Could you shoot at one round per second aimed? I think with a little training you could.

Doing 0.2 second splits (i.e. you shoot twice at each target) and taking about a second on every target, using 30 round mags, you can do 90 round per minute without much trouble. Going a little slower, say 0.3 second splits, and taking 1.5 seconds per target you can do about 60 round per minute. I could go on. The point is, these are aimed shots with a higher chance to hit the target, and with just as much chance to accidentally hit another target on a miss. This has the result of more hits on target.

"you get more hits on target in full auto".

No, you don't. On target means a hit near the point you intended on a target. He was getting random hits - as is evidenced by the low fatality rate versus high injury rate. The only way you would be correct was if you argued that he intended non-fatal injuries as much as he intended fatalities (and you're welcome to make that argument - it has some merits depending on what this lunatic was trying to achieve).

"If it's as common as you say, that should be easy to provide with a comparison video instead of a suggestion to buy and read a certain book. The videos I found are all short range small target, not at all the same as what we're debating. Show me a comparison of a field layered deep with 10000 balloons getting shot at from distance, that would be informative, short course accuracy target shooting isn't."

The book is good because it shows military statistics with full-auto versus other fire modes. Books are often better than videos. It also outlines military teaching methodology, include marksmanship and how it evolved over time. Full auto is still used in military engagements but you'll find it is used very sparsely (here is a good thread of military and ex-mil talking about it's uses: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-militaries-use-assault-rifles-when-the-full-auto-feature-is-rarely-ever-used )

Short range targets are easier to hit. Are you trying to prove my point? Long range targets are harder to hit. Your rate of randomly hitting targets does not get better at longer ranges. But aiming does increase your chance of hitting a target at any range.

If you really wanted to do a comparison at that range then the targets would be a lot larger than balloons.

You're arguing against established marksmanship knowledge that is readily available over the internet or in firearms courses.

I think you owe it to yourself to prove yourself right or wrong by doing some rifle marksmanship courses. Approach it as a sport and you'll have a lot fun doing it!!!

I can't chat much longer - thanks for the good discussion!

Corrections :

Lack of mechanical parts is not the reason a bump stock was deemed legal.
(Furthermore, they highlighted 'no automatically functional parts', while they said lack of mechanical parts.)

External attachment also does not disqualify an item from being considered part of a weapon.
For example, it's illegal to attach a foregrip to a pistol (because there are piles of insane gun laws already, making esoteric combinations of parts worth federal prison and 100'000 dollar fines.)

A machinegun is a gun that fires automatically.
Automatically is a mode where more than one shot comes out with 1 trigger pull.
Rate of fire does not define a machine gun.

A bump stock required the operator to trigger the weapon for every shot, which is why it was deemed not an automatic.

-scheherazade

Here is a raw video which shows much more. It's phones not guns they say to put away. https://youtu.be/H1YGg8nYkv0

and the story https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/airplane-mode/southwest-airlines-apologizes-after-video-shows-woman-being-dragged-plane-n805111

Reminds me of Edna https://i.pinimg.com/236x/68/ac/44/68ac44432c671ae0cf91b28cde463792--edna-mode-the-incredibles.jpg

What a find!
She reminds me of Edna Mode.

Okay, my upvote was earned at the ease up on the QTEs, and I agree that holding a single button down as it fills can be dramatic too (or at least at the easier modes make an option to ease up on them), but it really earned my vote at the GIVE THE OPTIONS SCREEN BEFORE THE OPENING CINEMATIC AND TUTORIAL. Christ, I hate it when a game makes me watch the cinematic, and often play the first part of a tutorial before it allows me to get to the options screen to set some options... some games detect the wrong resolution, and then you are forced to play at this odd size until you've been in the game for 5-15 minutes.

Survival of the fittest. I say, put a spike pit at the bottom. Hard mode engaged.

buildings are designed and built to support the vertical loadn, with plenty of safety margin. I think any failure mode in an earthquake is going to come from horizontal movements.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Batman-s-Bomb-Run-Benny-Hill-Mode

Batman´s Bomb Run [Benny Hill Mode] has been added as a related post - related requested by ant.

Was gone for the weekend and it turned into word fights (almost)...

It is so hard to carry on a discussion... the heat too easily turned up. Sorry if I contributed in the heat.

Thing is, I don't think any of us need to argue for God's omnipotent or his non-existence. God can select to do or not do anything he wants. He can choose to reveal Himself to a believer or a non-believer, or NOT to. What's the point. It has been argued for millennia and I doubt we are "The Chosen One(s)" to end this. And I think, most of us in our Western society, whether you're Christian or not, we know quite a bit about the Bible CONTENT. But the 99.99% of us non-Bible-scholars probably don't know the exact CONTEXT of the tough stuff. The churches avoid them too for obvious reasons.

For me the important things is, there are really horrible things done in history (and present) in the name of religion. Allow me to be a bit self-serving and consider these terrible, inhumane events as evil beings hijacking their religions so they can get away Scot-free. We can't allow that in this day & age. Hold the evil doers & hypocrites accountable, not the religion.

When I read the Bible, I see all the crap that makes no sense too, but I see the discrepancy as humanity making progress. There are so many years between us & the Bible's original writings (or oral pass-me-downs), words & meaning invariably changed (and not always for the better). Could it be the clear-as-day word "gossip" (its Hebrew equivalent) was not part of its language yet? Therefore Paul said those sexist things (in our modern eye)? Or just people speak funny in those days? I can't be sure.

So, I *try* to figure out the meaning of those difficult Bible verses by keeping the context of Jesus' teachings in mind. I mean, come on, all he want is us all having compassion towards each other, be respectful of God and oh, there's the promise of heaven. Like, THAT'S IT, that's the gist of it. Anything else is pretty secondary & incidental to me. The part that concerns between human-human interact? Yes, it's hard to put in practice. But it's not hard to understand what's needed to be done. E.g. If someone offends my religion, should I go on the defensive and then all Super-Saiyan retaliation mode? Or should put my focus into finding out why he offended me and try to understand the reasoning behind it, and if possible, do something positive about it? I believe Jesus asks of us the latter.

Thing is, as a Christian (granted, some Christian might not consider me one that much, maybe?), I'm OK to leave a lot of things in the Bible in the "gray zone"... because it is *I* that haven't the smarts to comprehend what's written fully. But I do think I understand its purpose enough to know what I need to do to be better. The world is full of hurt, we can't just standby and focus on sometimes pointless fights (ironically I'm typing this post, lol, mea culpa, but hope it's worth it), better put more energy on making things better -- like Jesus, arguably the most progressive thinker/doer of its time, wanted to make the world a better place. Jesus didn't spend his time setting up a religion, he was there for a peace & compassion revolution.

Seriously sad that when the topic touches on religion, there're way too much stereotypes & presumptions on every sides. I see the reality as far more nuanced. I can understand, and in fact conditionally support, a lot of the abolition of "Religion" with its ritualistic practices in today's society. I really don't trust anyone loudly proclaiming themselves "devout" but support sexist/racist/unjust policies. The smell of hypocrisy, ulterior motives & power corruption are too great. Don't sheepishly give them the political & God forbid... military power to do great harm to humanity. History has proven that time & again.

[Nerd-mode]The animation at 5:34 pits the Somua against a P4 with a KwK 40 L/43, which was first introduced with the F2 in early '42, almost two years after the campaign in France.[/Nerd-mode]

@ChaosEngine
that article was utter shit.

"friend zone" is a term used to shame women?
how can that possibly be considered an even remotely true statement?

she makes a valid point in that women are not binary creatures,and are mutli-faceted,nuanced and complex.well of COURSE they are,but the "friend zone" is from the guys perspective,not a woman's!

do you know why the majority of some men end up in the "friend zone"? or should we just change that term to be more accurate "i am not interested in you because you put all your cards on the table in the first five seconds,so while i think that is sweet,i no longer am curious about you,because i already got you".

you know..the "friend zone",or as chris rock put it "emergency dick,just break glass".

the problem here is that while relationships are a long slog of compromise,negotiation and mutual respect to work towards a common goal.romantic courtships are akin to a game,a playful dance fueled by curiosity,intrigue and of course:lust.

the men who who get relegated to the "friend zone" do not understand this very basic tenant of courtship.they reveal all their cards up front,and while that may be the most honest approach,and one that women have been openly asking for,it ignores that underneath it all,a woman wants romance,mystery and a sense of discovery that will continually peak their interests.

they want to be woo'd,they want courtship and romance.
when a man shows all his cards he takes that way from the woman,and now that she knows she can "have" him.he no longer interests her.

and what the author of this article so callously ignores is that the "friend zone" is not really a friend at all,but a surrogate for a boyfriend.having a bad day?she calls her "friend".feeling bloated and unattractive? has her "friend" come over to make her feel better about herself.needs a date for her company christmas party and doesn't want to go alone? get her "friend" to come along.

so it should not be a surprise that some men find this hurtful and degrading.

but she has a point,the woman owes them nothing.the woman was honest and forthright and it is the man who has put himself in this position.

and let me be clear before i am accused of being a misogynist pig.

some men do the exact same thing,and i am guilty of it myself.

i grew up with three sisters,so i tend to be more aware and sensitive to women's choices,and i respect their space.i have never been one to push myself on any woman.i was never the one to pursue or as this article describes "persistent",because i saw that as a bit "stalky".

so if i was interested in a woman,and that interest was not reciprocated,i shifted to "friend" mode with no issue.to me it was a win-win.ok,so she was not interested in me in that way,but she is super cool,and interesting and now i have a really interesting and intriguing friend.

now here is an interesting thing that happened maybe half of the time.my new friend and i would hang out,go to pubs,clubs,movies and sometimes just make dinner and watch movies.friends right? she was upfront and honest with me that she was not interested in me in that way,and i can respect that.

and then one day she would have her college friend over for dinner (this is a true story btw,one of many).her friend was cute,smart,witty and had a sick sense of humor.yep,i was digging on my friends college friend,and we were flirting up a storm.we were vibing hard,clicking like we knew each other for years.

now what do you think happened?
i bet you can guess.
and you would be right.
my friend,who was honest with me about not being interested,started to get real shitty with me.like offensive shitty and i really did not understand why.it came out of nowhere,and now she was acting like some jealous girlfriend.

so i pull her aside and i am like..what the fuck is wrong with you? you are being an asshole!

you know what she said to me? and i can remember this clear as day "watching my friend flirt with you,and seeing how much she is into you.i began to see you in a different light.i can see how she sees you,and that you are amazing but you are MY steve! not hers!".

and then she tried to kiss me,which was just awkward,because to me? she was in the "friend zone",and had been for over 6 months.i didn't want her that way.the irony here is that she could not handle that,and our friendship dissolved.which just fucking sucks.

this scenario has played out in my life quite a few times.so while anecdotal,i suspect women have had similar experiences.

so the "friend zone' may be considered a woman's thing directed at men,but in reality it is non-gender specific.most likely because woman are pursued more than men,but both men and women can be put in the "friend zone".

so what can we learn from this?
don't be a sap.
have some self respect and do not allow another person to use you for their own well being and sense of self.
if they are not interested? move on.
if they just want to be a friend? then be a friend,but do not expect anything more.if you cannot handle that,then move on.

pining away from a distance in the slim hopes that the focus of your affections will one day change their mind,is just pathetic.

and for fuck sakes,stop blaming that person for your heartache.
you put yourself in that position,and you can pull yourself out.

and the term "friend zone" is not used to shame women,that is just fucking stupid.the "friend zone" is a place that you put yourself in,because of flawed sense of romance,and you allowed yourself to be used for the betterment of another human being.so while you may be hurt and angry,you only have yourself to blame.

respect yourself yo.
/end rant