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.

There are 100 million people with day to day access to arms in the U.S. (granted, of all ages, not all of fighting age).

There are 1.4 million military members.

Bombs destroy the very assets you wish to control. Nukes would be useless.

Tanks run out of fuel, as do jets, without a civil population to resupply them.





I already mentioned the Arab Spring. Governments with tanks and Jets fell to people with rifles.

Soldiers have families. When their families participate in revolt (and become targets of the government), soldiers change sides. Good example would be the Russian revolution against the Tsar, where the army stood down and abandoned the monarchy.

But yes, the military can do its own thing.
Afghan military in the 70's siding with Russia against its government.
Turkey's military ejecting their government whenever it goes bad (*minus this last attempt)

Or even the people can coup vs the people.
The 2014 Ukrainian coup, ethnic Ukrainians ejecting their government to make a new one that deprives ethnic Russians of representation.

-scheherazade

If I believed in Karma, then I'd say it's for the hundreds of fish this guy has impaled in the mouth with his fishing hook, and then left to suffocate on the boat. Either way, it's so much needless suffering.

Richard Dawkins seems to think that the lower intelligence a creature the more pain it feels (to keep it safe, since it's unable to reason as effectively). There's no real way to tell how much pain a fish feels, but watching it try to escape as it's being pulled by the mouth is a pretty good indicator. For comparison if someone stuck a hook in a dogs mouth, and then pulled the dog along as it squirmed and writhed in pain, people would lose their minds. A fish is doing the same thing, only minus the yelping.

Minus the cobra being bottle fed that was sifted not long ago?

Although you can't actually see the mechanics of it in that video like you can here.

I'd tag related, but I don't think I can.

I am a fan of Alien Rez, not because of Joss Whedon's patchwork script, but because at least it had the familiar comedic elements of Jean-Pierre Jeunet and his usual returning ensemble cast (Ron Pearlamn, Dominique Pinon), as well as Sigorney Weaver being a badass mother.

Just my opinion. I love all of Jeunet's films; as wild and varied as the genres, his film style and character driven stories transcend the genre. City of Lost Child, Amelie, Delcatessen, Micmacs -- really excellent track record. Cool bit of science fiction in all of his films, even if just sort of a chaotic sense of fate and surrealism.

Ridley Scott is hit or miss -- but then again, Ridley Scott has far more a prolific film career so it's like arguing the planetary distances versus the intergalactic distances, we can't fully comprehend the multitude of influences involved in making a film and the secret to making it a good film, so what does it matter if it's 1 astronomical unit, 2 light years, or 26 billion light years, it's all beautiful art.

My kindness aside, his last 5 films: Robin Hood, Prometheus, The Counselor, Exodus, The Martian -- typical and BORING blockbustery movies. 1492 and everything after have been epic suck fests. Even Hannibal was a let down. They're all movies you're sort of excited about, if it weren't for the fact that he drags them out and adds little element of noticeable flair. Like Spielberg, hidden in realism. I want the stylistic elements of Alien and Blade Runner and Legend that PULLED YOU OUT of the movie experience to say loudly: This is art.

The soundtracks especially -- Ridley Scott replaced the original scoring of his movie Legend, which was a dazzling score by Tangerine Dream -- he replaced it with Jerry Goldsmith in rerelease... which sort of makes it all come full circle when you listen to the awful, typically EPIC score of Prometheus, minus all the atmosphere that the original soundtrack provided.

It's always funny when something with a long comic history comes into the mainstream and everyone debates it like it's something new that only exists because of other shows that exist in recent pop culture.

The real question is: Why are the Defenders -- who are basically Dr. Strange's "Avengers" -- comprised of the 2000s Marvel Knights minus Moonknight?

Why not Moonknight instead of Iron Fist?

It's not as simple as "punch-em-up" versus the graphic novel, artsy Alias side of Marvel. The Netflix version of The Defenders is weird and I'm just hoping they tie in Cumberbatch (Dr. Strange) and the "Matrixesque" side of Marvel with what is the "Lovecraftian" side of Marvel. The Defenders are more this dark horror magick side who fought against the Nameless One and his legions.

Now give me all of that, minus everything that's not interactive.

Wait ... what? I'm just pointing out a CNN reporter said $50 minus $42 is $7 on live television as a matter of fact. Sure, she might be leaving out the change, but then you round up to not look like you can't add?

EDIT - Oh wait, misinterpreted your comment, my bad.

No, you make one fatal error. You are comparing Clinton supporters with Bernie supporters. That is incredibly incorrect and it makes me shudder. You should compare Clinton to Trump supporters---ie., the entire republican party has sided with him, minus a few who will vote third party. Clinton supporters are exactly like that. Bandwagon, that's me! Not to degrade them but put a D in their mouths and they are happy.

On the other hand, Bernie supporters have more integrity and are tired of the funnel-effect of the lesser of two evils bullshit whereby more evil comes to our voting booths.

So yeah, maybe 1% of Clinton supporters will be mad and vote elsewhere (Like Jill) but what, 25% of Sanders will? Yeah...not quite the same.

Ummm ... WHERE do I procure this delectable nectar? [minus the bees ... allergic to the stings]

My favorite find so far has been the 420 Bars [180 mg bar = 3 perfect doses for me] in Dark Chocolate and Sea Salt. Due to the tweaking of the marijuana laws here, my medical store is longer able to provide them. I've been unable to determine where to purchase them and have not found an appropriate substitute. Gotta keep searchin' ... searchin'

Here in Germany its easy to have a direct comparison. Winter tires are pretty much mandatory in the Winter. The difference is huge. You cant use summer tires or allseason ones on lots of snow. You will get stuck. With Winter tires you will have no problems except in the harshest conditions here only spikes or chains will help. But even there you will have it much easier with Winter tires than with summer ones.

Also, due to my high powered car, I easily notice when temperatures get too low for summer tires. They will start spinning much easier even on dry pavement. That starts at around 8C. Winter tires wont spin easily even at minus temperatures.

And yes, some people have season cars. One for Winter and one for warmer seasons. But thats mostly because they dont want to ruin the good season one, because its more valuable to them (mostly old timers, young timers, convertibles, sports cars).

Well, there's the reasons he mentioned, speed and energy to pump water, and the third reason, the water itself. Old school locks use lots of water. Since the canals don't seem to have much, if any, flow, and pumping a set of locks full of water uses a lot of it as each basin must be filled to the top just to get to the next level, it could be a serious problem to keep the canals at the proper levels with the 'regular' method. This method raises the same amount of water as it lowers (minus the boat tonnage), so there's very little taking from one channel and adding to the other.

What?
So, are you, like, suggesting Sarkeesian asked for it? What? Was her skirt too short and her top too slutty?
The woman did her job, analyzing entertainment products and their relationship to women, and got death- and rapethreats. That's exactly what Lewinsky talks about minus the shaming aspect. Yes, her talk is about shaming but that's only the spread on the shit-sandwich she got and is reviewing now.
It's about shitty people being themselves online, about modern mob behaviour. Both women suffered from that and both got their share of misogyny and abuse. What they did to get it isn't the issue, it's what's done to them. They may not sit in the same boat but Sarkeesian is certainly sitting in the 15 years more advanced version of it.

I have one of those, minus camera. The slightest breeze will eliminate your little espionage action, guaranteed.

Look at you sharing a birthday with the anniversary of the eruption of Mt. St. Helens aaronfr! Hope you have a blast ... minus the ash