From the looks of it they're still in early prototyping/proof of concept phase.

I'm especially amused when it highlights the handbags/backpacks....I just assume this is the prototype for Bender's stealing algorithm...

key terms:

Defense in depth: multiple layers of anti-tank guns interwoven with mines, trenches, infantry, and artillery already registered and aimed at killing zones in front of the obstacles. No single hard crust; rather, more like the layers of an armored onion; as you peel one layer, the next one pops up.

"Pak belt": the reference term for anti-tank guns.

Commissar: the political officer who will shoot any man who retreats from their defense of the motherland.

"Shoulders": the sides of the place in the line pierced by the first plunge of the blitzkrieg that have to held by the defense in order to slow it and give the counterattack a wide open flank to punch into.

Reliability: new German tank models were rushed into battle at Kursk at Hitler's direct insistence before they had been debugged. The battle started 6 days after the last just-barely-not-a-prototype Panther had been delivered to the front. The battle began with 184 Panthers on the rolls; by day two, there were 40 operational; by day 5, there were 10 total...

https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/02/08/from-the-editor-panther-reliability/

Ironically, the decision to delay the battle by two months, giving the Soviets time to build up all of their defenses (digging trenches and anti-tank obstacles takes time)--was made to make it possible for the Panther to get to the front..

Another thing to consider about solar and wind being cheaper (per kWh) is that both have quite a bit of economy of scale working for them. They will continue to get cheaper as we build and use more of them, but not a whole hell of a lot.

Modern nuclear, on the other hand, has pretty much zero economy of scale going for it at this point. If we bought in, not only could we completely eliminate coal (still gotta have something in times / areas that don't get a lot of sun or wind), but the costs would go down a LOT between 1st prototype components and stuff that settles out as standard before the thousandth one built.

Looks like the prototype was flying a few years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXJE2gKVK4

Well at least a few laps of the airfield anyway

So if this next generation helicopter is so great, why are we only seeing a CG representation? surely they've built some sort of prototype if they can make all these claims. Or are all these fantastic benefits only available in-engine with Unreal or something?

You haven't thought this through.

If the whole point of your carrying a weapon around is that you don't want to use it, then why are you hiding it in the first place?

Who do you think the prototypical bad guy is gonna go after: some guy strapping 5 pounds of metal death to his hip or some guy who doesn't look like he's armed in the first place?

Guns are like nukes: if you never want to use them, make sure everyone knows you have them.

Not sure if real lambo.

Its rego is an L145 - thats a prototype murcielago from the early 2000's...never made any in production.

I call kit-car on this.

Here's a breakdown that shows my train of thought :



The 2nd amendment limits the authority of 'specifically the government'.

It is not an affirmative right to individuals, it is a denial of rights to the government.
It in theory prevents the government from taking any actions that would infringe on bearing arms.




So, let's look at scope.


If bearing arms is for government regulated militias :

Let's assume that 'well regulated' means 'well government regulated'. (i.e. Merely government regulated in practice.)

- A militia that uses arms as per the government's regulation, would be operating as the government wishes - it would *be* an extension of the government, and the government would not need to seize its arms. The 2nd amendment is moot.

- A militia that doesn't use arms as per the government's regulation, is not government regulated, and has no protection from government arms seizure. The government is free to deny this militia arms at the government's discretion. The 2nd amendment is moot.


In order for the 2nd amendment to not be moot, you would need to protect an entity that the government would *not* wish to be armed.

Since we're still talking militias, that leaves only "non-government-regulated militias" as a protected class of entities.
Hence, this would preclude "government regulated" as a possible definition of "well regulated", in regards to "well regulated militia".

So, we've established that for the 2nd to not be moot, only "non-government-regulated militias" can be in the set of 'well regulated militia'.




So, following on the idea of the 2nd amendment scope being for "well [non-government] regulated militias".

The government can then circumvent 2nd amendment protection by making illegal any 'non-government-regulated militias'. This would eliminate the entire category of arms protected entities. The 2nd amendment is moot.

Hence, for the 2nd amendment to not be moot via this path, that means that "well [non-government] regulated militias" must also be protected under the 2nd amendment.




So, without government regulation, a well regulated militia is subject to the regulation of its members.

As there is no government regulation on militia, there is also no government regulation regarding the quantity of militia members. You are then left with the ability of a single individual to incorporate a militia, and decide on his own regulations.

Which decomposes into de-facto individual rights





This is why the only consequential meaning of the 2nd amendment is one which includes these aspects :
A) Does not define 'well regulated" as "government regulated".
B) Does not restrict the individual.
C) Protects militias.

Any other meaning for the 2nd amendment would result in an emergent status quo that would produce the same circumstances as if there was no 2nd amendment in the first place. This would erase any purpose in having a 2nd amendment.





But sure, maybe the 2nd amendment is moot.
Maybe it was written out of sheer boredom, just to have something inconsequential to do with one's time.
Maybe it was a farce designed to fool people into thinking that it means something, while it is actually pointless and ineffectual - like saying the sky is up.




In any case, I think we can agree that, if the 2nd means anything, it is intended for facilitating the defense of the state against invading armies.

The fallout of that is that if the 2nd particularly protects any given category of arms, it protects specifically those that are meant for use in military combat. Not hunting, not self defense, etc.

A pistol ban would be of little military detriment for open combat, but would be the greatest harm to people's capacity for insurgency (because pistols can be hidden on a person).

A hunting rifle ban would also be of modest military detriment for open combat (can serve DMR role), but probably the least meaningful.

Arms with particular military applicability would be large capacity+select fire (prototypical infantry arms), or accurized of any capacity (dmr/sniper).
Basically, the arms of greatest consequence to the 2nd amendment are precisely the ones most targeted for regulation.

-scheherazade

NRA isn't quiet about it. It's a matter of which media you look at. In some media, it's ubiquitous. In other media, crickets.
Reading all sorts of media, you get to see the insularity of segments of society... each with its own concerns, and each largely ignorant of the other.

Improper securing is probably the big one. The thing I hear the most of is people handling/cleaning an 'unloaded' gun and not realizing they have a chambered round. This is why many public ranges or shooting events require a chamber flag. Usually, the owner will handle a firearm a good amount after shooting - and odds are they're the one that gets burned.

My impression is that kids get hurt messing with the prototypical 'night stand gun' or 'closet gun' - stuff parents buy for home protection, shove in a drawer, and forget about. Something that would be easily fixed with one of these : http://www.cabelas.com/product/SENTRY-DIGITAL-PISTOL-SAFE/1955170.uts?productVariantId=4096762&WT.tsrc=PPC

-scheherazade

https://superhotgame.com/play-prototype/

It's not exactly like the full game, but it's close enough.

Personally, I really enjoyed it.

You can play the prototype here.

I backed this on KS and just started playing today. It's really neat. Not sure how long it will hold my attention though.

jesus christ you two!
it is a prototype for fuck sakes!

i am not saying you both are not bringing up valid points,but can you at least put your cynicism aside for at least one second and just marvel at the mere prospect of flying cars,using this technology,in the somewhat near future?

ah well...
i thought this was pretty neat.
then again i am easily impressed.

I agree about the over-reaction to the "white slavers" comment, which I think just got hyper-PC types riled up.

And he does seem pretty humble and wise, although if he was really going to practice what he's preaching he would just butt out and not say anything. To be fair, he probably got invited on the show and is just responding honestly to the questions -- which is a fair bit different than if he sought out a soapbox to complain from.

I think Lucas had a fantastic combination of Tolkien-esque level creativity AND knew how to adapt his specific creations to the broadly appealing "Hero of 1000 faces" fantasy prototype AND got lucky in many ways. He deserves a LOT of praise for all of that. ...BUT, for the original movies he knew how to delegate things that he doesn't do well -- dialog, directing, etc. He was reined in by internal and external constraints. When those largely went away, we got the prequels.

I love Star Wars and am very grateful to George Lucas for creating that universe. And I'm pretty much equally grateful that he isn't at the helm anymore.

As someone who is in the industry, yes, you do put serial numbers on prototypes. This is clearly a prototype.