Your ideals, his politics, WTF? What you are saying is that you chose an extreme example (like this news organization did) as your offering, inserting through the filter of your experiences in your society as described, what? You obviously have no desire to see anyone with guns, or any society in which this could possibly happen, and you'd be interested in selling a wondrous adjustment or replacement based upon what? Your personal experiences and world view?? Your own country's model for how to get along?? It's sounds just as pontificous any passionate nut job, right left or center.

Now focus on some lobbies wanting to make money, describe their motivations using crude imagery to make what point ??(knowing fuck-all about the gun lobbies in the U.S. I'd hasten to guess you are pulling shit out of your own ass??)?

A point everyone seems to miss is lost in endless banter over this gun issue in a country whose real problems dwarf how many and what type of boomsticks people have.

The people who control policy, who have worked hard to bankrupt this country and rape her human resources, drug them, offer them more laws to create an illusion of safety and fairness? Fuck you.

Problem isn't guns, mine or yours, or the ones you poor fucks in countries who have decided for you that guns are bad for you. The problem is that the world is full of the most part, of ineffectual, programmable, inept automotons when it comes to exercising their rights under natural laws, AS evidenced for me, in the up-voting of grinter's little passionate episode here...

My country is full of broken people, desperate people, seasoned with an inordinate amount of total fuck-ups, and I have to watch the shit in slow-motion while it gets even more fun...with guns, with a political system totally fucking retarded holding her citizens an economic hostage to special interests dwarfing any gun lobby's.

Is YOUR country broken grinter, or have you decided that you are satisfied with elected officials. we don;t have elected officials anymore. We have criminals.

WORLDWIDE, we're headed for a radical democracy or some comfortable, tolerable, illusory freedoms under a Nuevo-Fascist Global Cuntfest at this point.
Fuuuuck! Get a clue!? all I have to do is watch how utterly retarded these hearings are(kangaroo-court-style) to gauge the breakdown of this motherfucker...

I don't think there is a single authority that would advocate someone speeding above 90mph in an emergency situation. In those situations it is my opinion that most experts would suggest waiting for the ambulance/police, not racing down the road like in the movies.

your 2.2. "point" is no different than people saying that gun owners would not give up their rights. It's not an argument its just a statement of something, it provides no support of anything other than "the world cant change that much" and I agree, in the case of gun ownership as well.

As for the difficulty in speed metering, look to many motorcycles and race cars for how to limit speed, it is already done today.

I use the example of cars because I'm not advocating stopping the use of cars, just the inability to travel above speeds that are reasonable. It's a change in safety that only affects enthusiasts or criminals in much the same way that gun laws would which is why I use it. Also because most of us know that although the majority of us own cars and operate them, we dont tend to exceed 90mph or drive under the influence ourselves and so it seems like a bit of an over-reaction.

My intention is not to compare driving and gun ownership directly. My intent was to compare the differing logic that people will apply to situations that have very analogous themes based on their personal bias or beliefs.

As much as many people see no reason for your average person to own a gun, I see no reason for the average person to be able to travel at high speeds. Just like affecting legal gun ownership will only lower violence some...so will limiting speeds only lower vehicle deaths some.

Just like removing all guns and the slow change in society resulting from it might one day minimize gun violence, so would removing all private ownership of cars require a painful period of mass transit expansion but eventually a world where rapid mass transit and only professional vehicle use would minimize vehicle deaths.

I would argue that the last two situations (all guns and all vehicles being gone with proper transit support) would be ideal for society. But they are also not going to happen any time soon. However how we can be so focused on guns and their use (particularly the use of legally obtained guns) in saving and protecting lives, while ignoring other places in society that cause more death is odd to me. Especially if those changes are just as obvious or palatable as extreme gun control measures when gauged across all demographics.

Yes, I am European, and you dont seem to have a clue about Europe.
Europe is nowhere near as extreme as the USA has become.
As I said, theres always only 2 sides in the US, and thats not even only in the media, its everywhere. How much did the 3rd strongest party get on your last vote? Not even 1%? That would be impossible in most European countries, even, or especially, Republics.
As I already said, forums are a pretty good gauge of that. Theres always only 2 opinions from 2 extreme sides. Other opinions are extremely rare and if they are mentioned, get flamed to the ground, so that an open discussion is impossible. Exactly that what you are doing to me right now.
Congratulations and thanks for proving my point.

Oh and yeah, I agree somewhat, that a lot of European politicians (incl. the elite) are retarded, but they dont tow the line, they lick American heel. As does most of the rest of the world, since the USA is a super power that has been messing and still messes around in most countries affairs in unbelievable ways. Thankfully around 80% of the European people have realized that. That was also the percentage that was AGAINST the Iraq war in Europe. What was the percentage in the US? Yeah...

North Carolina IS more beautiful than Texas...and the sand on the beaches is much better...and their accents are way more hickier...and sexy.

Texas politics be-damned, I gauge a state's appeal on much more fundamental aspects of humanity, not the robotic responses to world events prompted by indoctrination through higher education. That was sarcasm KnifeWielder and Texas be just as fucked as NC with regards to informed decision and perception of how the world REALLY works.

Have to replace the gauge on the cute meter :0

@radx No problem on the short comment, I do the exact same thing

I find your question hard to address directly because it is a series of things I find kind of complexly contradictory. IE, market forces causing undesirable things, and the lack of market forces because of centralization causing undesirable things. Not to say you are believing in contradictions, but rather it is a complex set of issues that have to be addressed, In that, I was thinking all day how to address these, and decided on an a round about way, talking about neither, but rather the history and evolution as to why it is viewed the way you see it, and if those things are necessarily bad. This might be a bit long in the tooth, and I apologize up front for that.

Firstly, reactors are the second invention of nuclear. While a reactor type creation were the first demonstration of fission by humans (turns out there are natural fission reactors: Oklo in Gabon, Africa ), the first objective was, of course, weapons. Most of the early tech that was researched was aimed at "how to make a bomb, and fast". As a result, after the war was all said and done, those pieces of technology could most quickly be transitioned to reactor tech, even if more qualified pieces of technology were better suited. As a result, nearly all of Americas 104 (or so) reactors are based on light water pressure vessels, the result of mostly Admiral Rickover's decision to use them in the nuclear navy. This technological lock in made the big players bigger in the nuclear field, as they didn't have to do any heavy lifting on R&D, just sell lucrative fuel contracts.

This had some very toxic effects on the overall development of reactor technology. As a result of this lock-in, the NRC is predisposed to only approving technology the resembles 50 year old reactor technology. Most of the fleet is very old, and all might as well be called Rickover Reactors. Reactors which use solid fuel rods, control rods, water under pressure, ect, are approved; even though there are some other very good candidates for reactor R&D and deployment, it simply is beyond the NRCs desire to make those kinds of changes. These barriers to entry can't be understated, only the very rich could ever afford to attempt to approve a new reactor technology, like mutli-billionaire, and still might not get approved it it smells funny (thorium, what the hell is thorium!)! The result is current reactors use mostly the same innards but have larger requirements. Those requirements also change without notice and they are required to comply with more hast than any industry. So if you built a reactor to code, and the wire mesh standards changed mid construction, you have to comply, so tear down the wall and start over unless you can figure out some way to comply. This has had a multiplication effect on costs and construction times. So many times, complications can arise not because it was "over engineered", but that they have had to go super ad-hawk to make it all work due to changes mid construction. Frankly, it is pretty amazing what they have done with reactor technology to stretch it out this long. Even with the setbacks you mention, these rube goldbergian devices still manage to compete with coal in terms of its cost per Kwh, and blow away things like solar and wind on the carbon free front.

As to reactor size LWRs had to be big in the day because of various reasons, mostly licencing. Currently, there are no real ways to do small reactors because all licencing and regulatory framework assumes it is a 1GW power station. All the huge fees and regulatory framework established by these well engineered at the time, but now ancient marvels. So you need an evacuation plan that is X miles wide ( I think it is 10), even if your reactor is fractionally as large. In other words, there is nothing technically keeping reactors large. I actually would like to see them go more modular, self regulating, and at the point of need. This would simplify transmission greatly and build in a redundancy into the system. It would also potentially open up a huge market to a variety of different small, modular reactors. Currently, though, this is a pipe dream...but a dream well worth having and pushing for.

Also, reactors in the west are pretty safe, if you look at deaths per KWH, even figuring in the worst estimates of Chernobyl, nuclear is one of the best (Chernobyl isn't a western reactor). Even so, safety ratcheting in nuclear safety happens all the time, driving costs and complexity on very old systems up and up with only nominal gains. For instance, there are no computer control systems in a reactor. Each and every gauge is a specific type that is mandated by NRC edict or similar ones abroad (usually very archaic) . This creates a potential for counterfeiter parts and other actions considered foul by many. These edicts do little for safety, most safety comes from proper reactor design, and skillful operation of the plant managers. With plants so expensive, and general costs of power still very competitive, Managers would never want to damage the money output of nuclear reactors. They would very much like to make plant operations a combination of safe, smooth, and affordable. When one of those edges out the other, it tends to find abuses in the real world. If something gets to needlessly costly, managers start looking around for alternatives. Like the DHS, much of nuclear safety is nuclear safety theater...so to a certain extent, some of the abuses don't account for any real significant increase in risk. This isn't always the case, but it has to be evaluated case by case, and for the layperson, this isn't usually something that will be done.

This combination of unwillingness to invest in new reactor technology, higher demands from reactors in general, and a single minded focus on safety, (several NRC chairmen have been decidedly anti-nuclear, that is like having the internet czar hate broadband) have stilted true growth in nuclear technology. For instance, cars are not 100% safe. It is likely you will know someone that will die in a car wreak in the course of your life. This, however, doesn't cause cars to escalate that drastically in safety features or costs to implement features to drop the death rate to 0. Even though in the US, 10s of thousands die each year in cars, you will not see well meaning people call for arresting foam injection or titanium platted unobtanium body frames, mainly because safety isn't the only point of a car. A car, or a plane, or anything really, has a complicated set of benefits and defects that we have to make hard choices on...choices that don't necessarily have a correct answer. There is a benefit curve where excessive costs don't actually improve safety that much more. If everyone in the USA had to spend 10K more on a car for form injection systems that saved 100 lives in the course of a year, is that worth it? I don't have an answer there as a matter of fact, only opinion. And as the same matter of opinion on reactors, most of their cost, complication, and centralization have to do with the special way in which we treat reactors, not the technology itself. If there was a better regulatory framework, you would see (as we kind of are slowly in the industry despite these things) cheaper, easier to fabricate reactors which are safer by default. Designs that start on a fresh sheet of paper, with the latest and greatest in computer modeling (most current reactors were designed before computer simulations on the internals or externals was even a thing) and materials science. I am routing for the molten salt, thorium reactors, but there are a bunch of other generation4 reactors that are just begging to be built.

Right now, getting the NRC to approve a new reactor design takes millions of dollars, ensuring the big boy will stay around for awhile longer yet. And the regularly framework also ensures whatever reactor gets built, it is big, and that it will use solid fuel, and water coolant, and specific dials and gauges...ect. It would be like the FCC saying the exact innards of what a cellphone should be, it would be kind of maddening to cellphone manufacturers..and you most likely wouldn't have an iPhone in the way we have it today. NRC needs to change for any of the problems you mentioned to be resolved. That is a big obstacle, I am not going to lie, it is unlikely to change anytime soon. But I think the promise of carbon free energy with reliable base-load abilities can't be ignored in this green minded future we want to create.

Any rate, thanks for your feedback, hopefully, that wasn't overkill

>> ^doogle:

1. Rename this to "The Vocal Powerhouse That WAS Meat Loaf"
2. After watching this and the AFL Grand Final 2011, my expert amateur opinion is that he's losing his hearing.
He definitely has the range and the voice, but it's hitting the wrong notes, and he's not gauging it right. It's not like he's Axl Rose who's lost his raspiness, Axl is hitting the right notes (albeit like a schoolboy falsetto).
Not entirely unlikely for Meat Loaf; his age makes him likely to lose his hearing. Add to that being a musician surrounded by loud music: very likely. He's putting in the energy, but doesn't have that feedback loop that those belted out vocals are missing the mark. He may as well be covering his ears and screaming. Which is kind of what it sounds like.
My two cents.

I suppose it could be...but it hurts to see one of the best voices of our (my, anyway) lifetimes lose it. How long ago was Bat Out of Hell 3 recorded...because he was nothing short of perfect for that one. That's a lot of damage to show up in 6 short years.

1. Rename this to "The Vocal Powerhouse That WAS Meat Loaf"
2. After watching this and the AFL Grand Final 2011, my expert amateur opinion is that he's losing his hearing.

He definitely has the range and the voice, but it's hitting the wrong notes, and he's not gauging it right. It's not like he's Axl Rose who's lost his raspiness, Axl is hitting the right notes (albeit like a schoolboy falsetto).

Not entirely unlikely for Meat Loaf; his age makes him likely to lose his hearing. Add to that being a musician surrounded by loud music: very likely. He's putting in the energy, but doesn't have that feedback loop that those belted out vocals are missing the mark. He may as well be covering his ears and screaming. Which is kind of what it sounds like.

My two cents.

I am sure this happens on both sides... a lot of people actually believe in the two party system enough to get their hands dirty.

But, I would be more suspicious of billionaires who can easily buy support, fraud and media influence to continue gauging the american citizenry. Not many progressive or left wing billionaires out there, not to say that democrats are left wing or progressive.... And if your company is making a billion in profit... chances are you/they are doing something undemocratic, unamerican and unethical like outsourcing labor or polluting/damaging ecosystems.

>> ^dag:

Pretty cool technology, but like it or not - paper books are on their way out. Sometimes, you think that an industry is in its twilight - and it's really not. A good example would be movie theatres.
Something about sitting in a big dark room with lots of strangers while munching over-priced popcorn - it's an experience we don't want to lose. Prognosticators have been trumpeting the doom of cinemas since the VCR - but it turns out, it's not going to happen.
Similarly, those same sages are now telling us that the end is nigh for bookstores. In this case, I'd agree. Bookstores and paper books don't offer enough of a distinction or an improvement over buying a Kindle copy. You're buying something to read at home anyway - not to consume in a bookstore, so so much better to just download it with a single click. Verily, I say - bookstore, the bell tones for thee.


Well put but I disagree. Most avid readers I've spoken to still prefer the tactile feel of a paper book to the electronic versions and until there is digital format standardization across marketing platforms, adoption will be slower. Also there is the question of longevity that people quickly ignore with digital formats.

If I buy a book its possible for generations of my family to read it or own it. Like all other digital based technologies, there is no certainty of being able to keep a kindle book or ibook forever. If the format changes, the technology evolves, or formats are just not supported it will be more noticeable with books than it has been with movies and music.

With movies and music new media and formats have meant improved quality and functionality, so people are willing to repurchase for improved experiences. It is unlikely that books will have this added benefit as things progress and so convincing people to repurchase would be hard. This is where format standardization becomes key because you cant have an open standard or solution to longevity in a fractured market.

E-books are where music was when almost all digital music was in Real player format (or smaller competitors), it didn't fully explode until the open ended formats (mp3) became the standard. Once one of the more open e-book formats takes hold and e-readers become accessible to the vast majority of demographics...then maybe you can start to gauge if books will survive.

PS I'm curious if this machine or things like it would be embraced by higher education, for the purpose of printed materials they use now and perhaps to replace the scam that is college text book purchasing.

i wish somebody would provide an altimeter on the decent, would help gauge the distance better.

Even if it is the Higg's, from my limited understanding, you have to use a linear accelerator to gauge the spin state of a particle (of which it needs 0 spin to be the "Higgs" and a whole number to be a boson).

This is really just a silly Hyundai Elantra commercial where they also talk to one of the Walking Dead creators about his work. There are roughly 3 different versions of the car depicted, and none of them are feasible.



Of course no one would pick a compact coupe as the foundation for an armored car if they had any kind of choice in the matter (and if they don't, there's no reason to talk about what a great choice their only option is). There are a couple key areas in which this car really shows the limitations of the basic platform (a compact coupe): Height, Carry Capacity.

Basics:
An Elantra weighs about 2,800lbs unmodified (and roughly 3,500 - 4,000 as imagined), has about 150HP (not impressive numbers from a 1.8L engine), and has a sunroof roughly 4'8" feet off the ground.

Height:
The idea of a turret on top of the car for offense is great, except for the part where he's talking about a car with a height of less than 5 feet. The average person is about 5'6" with an arm's reach of at least an extra foot. So, the person in the protected turret is still likely in range (the hypotenuse of an arm reaching to this height would be slightly longer than the ~4'8" car height plus the roughly foot and a half of turret). Have you ever stood out of a compact coupe's sunroof while the car was in motion? There's not a lot of room in that car period, there's certainly no room for a person to stand in the center of it while it's in motion in a high stress situation.

Carry Capacity:
The Elantra has a roughly 900lbs carry capacity (this weight includes driver and passengers, plus armor and such). I'm going to assume the weight of the cow catcher is about equal to an average small truck snow plow (250lbs), and that it's for hitting zombies not clearing the road of vehicles, and I'm going to place a fair shot in the dark of roughly 172.5lbs for the rest of the armor (assuming 7 gauge sheet metal is ideal, and assuming 23 square feet will cover enough glass). So far we've got 477.5lbs of carry capacity for driver, gunner, passengers, and gear. Each person likely weighs roughly 200lbs which means the car has enough capacity to deal with a driver, a single gunner, and two moderately well stocked bags of supplies. Any more than this and the car will start to run into issues, a lot more than this (say, loading it up with passengers and gear) and you risk significant damage to the car's ability to continue driving. All of this assumes they don't want to beef up the rear of the car to allow the vehicle to be able to "safely" ram other obstructions in the road (in a demolition derby drivers drive, and crash into each other, backwards to protect all of the sensitive components in the engine bay).

Other:
The roman chariot style blades on the wheels of a car was tried in an episode of the tv show Top Gear and it threw off the wheel balance to the point of making the car entirely undrivable for any more than a mile or two. Also, just about the last thing you want to do when dealing with zombies is damage their legs because it's much easier to see a zombie walking than a zombie crawling (our soldiers crawl when they want to be harder to see in modern combat for a reason). The general purpose of a compact car is to be accessible (read: inexpensive), and often they utilize a small fuel efficient engine. Increasing the weight of this car by about 40% is not doing any favors to the already under powered car, and the fuel economy is going to suffer. Realistically, speed and acceleration are meaningless (of course the car will exceed the 3 mile per hour average human walking speed).

Improvements:
*Start with a different type of vehicle. Perhaps something that was designed to be large.
*Ignore the mad max spikes.


research tools:
http://www.hyundaiusa.com/elantra/specifications.aspx
http://www.hyundai-forums.com/197-i30-elantra-touring-forum/140546-load-capacity-2012-touring.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humvee
http://www.fisherplows.com/fe/showroom/homesteader
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gauge-sheet-d_915.html
http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/scales/sheetmetal.html

>> ^Esoog:

>> ^artician:
I am pretty sick of the television-directorial trend of frequently cutting away from the point of interest so they can show you the reaction of these vapid, know-nothing observers. I don't know if it's for audience emotional-cue or host ego-stroking, but it makes whatever interesting elements there to begin with completely unwatchable for me.
I don't watch TV, I get almost all my exposure through the net, but if I were to gauge it by the sampling I get I'd almost guess that was 90% of the programming. Watch people watching other people. WTF.

Completely agree. It drives me crazy! I hate the cutaways to the judges and crowd.


On the other hand the viewing audience will get bored of the image if they showed a 3 minute non-interrupted shot of the act. Little variety is needed to save people from getting bored. But I hear you guys on that they're doing it way too excessively.

>> ^artician:

I am pretty sick of the television-directorial trend of frequently cutting away from the point of interest so they can show you the reaction of these vapid, know-nothing observers. I don't know if it's for audience emotional-cue or host ego-stroking, but it makes whatever interesting elements there to begin with completely unwatchable for me.
I don't watch TV, I get almost all my exposure through the net, but if I were to gauge it by the sampling I get I'd almost guess that was 90% of the programming. Watch people watching other people. WTF.


Completely agree. It drives me crazy! I hate the cutaways to the judges and crowd.