@noims -- My grandfather had about 10 war stories that he rotated through telling, pretty much exclusively after one of my uncles "broke the dam" by asking him to recall things as they were at the Oshkosh air show standing next to a P-47 airplane like he had worked on.

By the time that happened, my grandfather was in his 80's and in very good physical and mental shape (cattle rancher that did daily work manhandling heavy feed bags around, etc.) but had a quirky personality because he was 90%+ deaf. I don't think that was a result of the war, hearing problems seem to run in the family.

Anyway, he frequently used those hearing problems as an excuse for not having to interact with people. He had hearing aids, but he'd turn them off most of the time and just ignore people. I think some of that was being an introvert, and some was probably lingering "shell shock" / PTSD effects. But overall he really adjusted back to civilian life just fine. Got a degree in education on the GI Bill and taught and coached basketball to High School students, then worked as a small-town Postmaster, and eventually retired to work the ranch. I don't think any of us in his family, including his wife and children, thought of him as being "impaired" by the mental effects of the war. But it was clear that some of what he experienced had a very deep, lifelong effect on his outlook.


I wrote out the 3 stories of his above because they seemed to be the ones that had the most emotional impact on him. To me, it was interesting that a lot of stuff outside of combat hit him the hardest. He also had more traditional "war stories" stuff about victories and bravery, like when his unit captured / accepted the surrender of a young German pilot in a Bf-109 who deserted to avoid near certain death from flying too many missions after the handwriting was on the wall that the allies were going to win. But by far, he got more choked up about the other stuff like having to knock that French girl off her bike and seeing starving civilians and being unable to help them much.

Like you said, more banal stuff side-by-side with or against a backdrop of horror. I think it's pretty much impossible to imagine what those sorts of experiences in war are really like and what being in those situations would do to us mentally. And then WW2 in particular just had a massive impact on the entire generation. Basically everybody back home knew multiple people that went away and never came back. Then when some did come back, they were clearly different and yet reluctant to talk about what happened. Pretty messed up time to live through, I guess.

But... they mostly do that with helicopters.

When they use boats they drop a line and winch the crew up/down because the oil rigs are generally way too tall to go from deck to deck.

Also, I'm not entirely sure this technology is safer in rough seas than a traditional hull, especially when you factor in the added risk of mechanical failure.

Please excuse my English, how? Is it just the apostrophe? Apostrophes on a Czech keyboard are a pain. Also, I humbly admit, I have no idea how to edit that text now :-(

And she definitely let the other girl go, also I am not aware of any tradition of this happening regularly in biathlon or cross-country skiing when sticks break or are lost due to contact.

American Christianity is extreme because it's a business. Is it any surprise that the US excels at selling the "Christianity" product? Lifestyle marketing is our specialty and religion provides the ultimate product for building Brand Identity.

Apple
Anthropologie
Urban Outfitters
Focus on the Family
Saddleback Church

Christianity in the US sells an identity to its followers. When done right, it's a carefully tuned brand that collects profits in both money and power.

In the finest tradition of religion.

...AND traditional painters all cringe in unison.

So wait...he talks about how important the weight is because it determines the load that can be carried. He does the weight calculations and then immediately starts talking about the cost of the truck and never finishes his weight analysis.

According to his estimation, the weight of the unloaded truck with trailer is 7 tons. If the batteries on a 500 mile truck weigh 8 tons then the total 15 ton vehicle is lighter than the ~17 ton average for a standard semi with trailer. I'd round up for the weight of the motors and since his empty weight calculation seems a tad low. So you can assume the weights of a Tesla truck and stardard truck are at least within spitting distance of each other.

Range is less of an issue since a driver is only allowed to drive a maximum of 11 hours in a 14 hour period. So assuming they drove a solid 11 hours at 60 miles per hour (since that's what the 500 mile range is based on), the standard truck can drive 160 miles further. But if you're driving 11 hours without a break, you're an idiot. And Tesla indicates that a battery can fully charge in under 30 minutes.

Last point, he estimates the battery cost alone will be $108K and $180K but Tesla has set the expected price of the actual trucks as $150K and $180K. Considering a traditional truck runs $80K - $150K, it seems the return on investment for a Tesla truck might be shorter than a traditional truck, given the economy of electric compared fossil fuel.

Great video though. Love all the math.

I can give you a description of the bit and my opinion.

A Tom Thumb bit is jointed in the middle and has shanks for leverage. So it has a dual action. When light pressure is used it works on the gums and corners of the mouth. When the reigns are pulled harder the jaw is squeezed while the shanks multiply the force and the center joint folds upward to apply pressure to the roof of the mouth. It's kind of like the volume going from 1 to 11.

Uses:
In theory it should act like a traditional Western bit with the added advantage of rotating the shanks independently...so you can make pressure changes on each side of the mouth independently. In actual practice, it pinches the horses lip in this situation and horses tend to react by tossing their head up or holding their head in an unnaturally high position. With a strong pull it becomes extremely severe. Using it requires a very light hand.

I have used a Tom Thumb successfully with a well trained horse that required no head control but had developed a bad habit of testing his rider by picking up his gate and then bolting. The bit allowed me to ride with no hand but when the horse stretched his neck to take control he ran into the bit. When he relaxed back to the correct position, the pressure was gone. Eventually he didn't want to cause his own discomfort and once he'd broken his bad habits the bit wasn't necessary.

In my opinion, the Tom Thumb appears to check a lot of boxes but in reality it does few of them well. It can work for the right horse, with the right rider, in the right circumstances.

Roy is clearly an inexperienced rider and his personality demands that he assert control, even when he's out of his depth. He's riding a gaited horse (I think it's a Tennessee Walker but my daughter disagrees) and he seems to be trying to make it move like a Quarter Horse. My guess is he's trying to ride in like a cowboy but the horse naturally moves like pretty princess horse. Chaos ensues.

I hope that makes sense. I tried to avoid horse-people terms. If something's unclear or if anyone feels I'm wrong, then I welcome comments.

I wonder how these cell phone based VR setups compare to more traditional ones like Oculus Rift or the HTC Vive. Are they as immersive, or are they more like a poor mans VR solution.

Never feed a volcano god water... I'd probably react the same way. I believe a strong cocktail in a fancy mug is traditional.

I recently re-read this as well as Robinson Crusoe. I find both to be very interesting in that you get an understanding of dominant philosophies of the time, the traditions of life, language and more subtly writing; how all of those developed together and reflected upon each other.

But they are also both incredibly dull. I sort of wish I could read it as someone from that era read it, because I imagine it might be a little like seeing a film with revolutionary use of new film tech like sound or colour for the first time. It might be another old western, but it's engaging with parts of your brain you're not used to using in that particular medium. Whereas we're used to advanced and refined versions of the same thing, because it influenced so many.

$40-$60 million more in undisclosed payments to Manafort surfaced last week....but Trump has nothing to do with the Trump for president campaign, does he?....and did I say collusion, or even Trump? Nope, but a guilty conscience hears accusations that never happened.
The Russians today are doing exactly what you do, pretending to be right wing nutjobs on left leaning sites, and lefty snowflakes on right leaning sites, pushing the narrative to all that the other guy is a total nut by making ridiculous, ignorant claims like you do. If you aren't being paid by Putin, you're working for him for free.

Jesus fucking Christ, Bob. Can you be more deluded and ignorant? Once again, your Russian text book of American history is 100% ass backwards.

Southern strategy: In American politics, the southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3] As the Civil Rights Movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South to the Republican Party that had traditionally supported the Democratic Party.[4] It also helped push the Republican Party much more to the right.[4]
Not Nixon courting the black vote.

Troll: Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement.
Definitely you, Dimitri. It's almost time to have lucky investigate your ip address to see if you're in Kiev or Moscow.

I think a 10% reduction is pessimistic, 90% like newtboy mentioned is likely optimistic.

One person being killed would have been tragic. A quick search says most recent count is 58 dead, 515 injured. Tragic has been surpassed by some orders of magnitude, and I while see what you're saying, I think it would have been meaningfully "less tragic" if he had only had access to traditional semi-automatic.

He had a bunch of weapons and a bunch of ammo. Reload time was partially mitigated by the number of guns. But finger fatigue like newtboy mentioned would have made it hard to keep firing over a prolonged time (~10 minutes of active shooting time?), and the increased time between shots plus potential for fatigue would have let people make a break for cover or to get out of line of sight.

It may well have still been the deadliest mass shooting even if he only had semi-auto. Banning bump stocks (and other full-auto conversions) won't prevent the next one, but any mitigation at all is better than nothing. And I think it would have been rather more significant than that.


Is access to full-auto or generally equivalent to full-auto the main problem? No. I fully understand your reluctance here, because I agree that GOP legislators and the NRA are likely to hold up opposition to bump stocks as a more significant badge than it deserves to be. "SEE?! I did something about it! Pat me on the back!"

...But, on the other hand, it really is a step in the right direction. And there are no real downsides, aside from that concern about giving those parties a sort of political card to play. The public will just have to make it clear that this, while good, isn't enough by itself.

Hmm. I disagree with your description text, @ChaosEngine.

I've never shot something fully-automatic. I have shot an AR-15 semi-automatic, and I know where you're coming from when you say that hitting a target on full auto would be difficult, especially for a relatively untrained person (recoil control).

However, I think Vox and others are basically correct when they say that this modification (bump stock) contributed to the Las Vegas shooting being so deadly. Specifically in that sort of scenario.

The dude wasn't picking targets and sniping, going for accuracy. He picked an ideal shooting location (elevation with clear LOS) and sprayed into a crowd. He'd have been more accurate by keeping the weapon on semi-auto and actually aiming carefully, and certainly would have gotten more hits per bullet fired, but on the other hand the rate of fire difference would have so different that people would have had more time between shots to scramble for cover, etc.

He had position, an abundance of bullets, and lots and lots of time. Given those givens, having a rate of fire approximately equal to fully-automatic means a much higher body count than if he'd have been limited to traditional semi-auto.


The NRA is being more cunning than I figured they would, and has come out in favor of banning bump stocks. I agree with you that they see that mostly as a pointless concession, and a distraction from additional / better stuff that needs to happen.

But it isn't a pointless concession. If banning fully-automatic firearms in 1986 (minus the ones grandfathered in) was the right thing to do, extending that to include bump stocks is also the right thing to do. For the same reasons.

@newtboy is correct to note that technically, a rifle with a bump stock isn't a fully-automatic "machine gun". The user's finger still pulls the trigger once for every bullet that comes out -- semi-automatic.

However, I think that the "spirit" of the distinction is that with semi-automatic firing you have to think and consciously decide to pull the trigger each time you want to shoot a bullet, whereas with fully-automatic you consciously decide when you want to start and stop shooting. By the letter of the law, weapons with bump stocks are semi-automatic. But by that definition of the "spirit" of the law, they are fully-automatic. Pull the grip/barrel forward to start shooting, pull it back to stop.

It's a pretty frequent occurrence for technology to outpace the law. The definitions of semi vs fully automatic include the word "trigger" because they didn't anticipate this kind of conversion that makes the trigger sort of one step removed from the conscious decision to fire. The law would have similar hiccups if a weapon was developed that used a button or switch to fire, rather than a traditional trigger.

When those hiccups happen, the solution is to clarify the intent of the law and expand or clarify definitions as necessary. I'm pleasantly surprised that many legislators seem willing to do that with bump stocks, and that the NRA seems like it won't stand in the way. Mission accomplished, situation resolved? No. But a step in the right direction.

So cards on the table: I am a 4th Dan student of Aikido.

I had initially written a long response explaining why I disagree with you, but I realised I don't really care and you're unlikely to change your opinion.

Each martial art (traditional, modern, boxing, HEMA, whatever) offers something different to its practitioners. If you enjoy it, keep doing it.

I'd probably get destroyed by a competent MMA fighter, but I don't do Aikido to win MMA matches.

Can I defend myself on the street? Dunno... haven't been in a fight in decades, and don't intend to either.

Do I still enjoy Aikido? Fuck yeah.

So..which is it? The company dictates the rules (in which case stop your bullshit whining because the owners all stand with the protest) or some new draconian theory where freedom of speech only exists at home in your own yard (unless the president likes your message, then violent protest is patriotic anywhere)?

Trump is only pointing out how uppity these negros got under the darky president, and he's going to make America great again by fixing that.

You really...REALLY need a civics class, Bob. It's obvious that, if you've ever taken one, the information didn't stick.
Are you even aware that the "tradition" of teams standing at attention is 8 years old and a paid for marketing ploy for the military's recruitment where players are encouraged, but not required, to stand facing the flag at attention.
http://people.com/politics/nfl-players-national-anthem-2009-government-payments/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/sep/25/short-history-national-anthem-and-sports/

Trump's claim that this is about lack of gratitude is just one more in an endless string of lies and misdirection. I would think you would be sick of being jerked around like that, but clearly not yet. That's just as true as his claim shortly afterwards that the repeal and replace bill had passed....(it didn't even get a vote), or his claim that his new tax plan won't benefit him (but using his last available taxes as a true representation of his finances, it would save him around $1 BILLION and raise the rates on the poorest by at least 20%).
The peaceful protest is about racial inequality...which Trump highlights quite well, even as he denies it's existence.

NFL product and ticket sales, and total viewers are reportedly up. ESPN is only one network of dozens.