I read here that they pour at night for slower curing as it's quite hot during the day. They had to remove one of the slabs they poured last year because it had set up to quickly in the heat and wind. https://www.chicoer.com/2018/07/14/oroville-dam-a-tour-of-two-spillways-phase-two/

Typical asshole driver behavior: always driving on the passing (left) lane for no good reason (not turning left, not passing slower vehicles) and not paying any attention with situational awareness. These drivers suck and causes road rage.

But can you blame 'all' of the problem on Bush/Obama?

I can recall many changes in the 80's from Reagan, huge cuts to school lunch programs, and many attempts to either reduce or totally eliminate the Department of Education.

In 89, Bush Sr. and the Governors of 'every' state held a summit, where they developed some of the first goals for future changes to education. These included some of the first recommended changes to standards-based education.

During both of Clinton's terms they steamed ahead at full speed on these goals, leading to massive changes forcing standards-based education. They implemented ESEA, which was succeeded by the two later programs you mentioned.

So we clearly can't pin it to just one group, as both led the charge at one point or another. This is what I meant by my statement. Neither Liberals nor Conservatives can point a finger and say, "Is this a dagger which I see before me, the handle toward my hand?" They both grasped it and wielded it.

So, now as you mention, we have a climate which puts incredible importance on standardized testing. Because of this, and how the schools are funded, students are basically learning how to pass a test based on minimum standards as set by the government. Students aren't taught what they 'can' learn, but what the government thinks they 'should' learn.

I graduated in 1992, so I missed the true first wave of standardized tests. But if I had not been, I know I would have been *incredibly* frustrated at being forced to learn at a slower pace because all students needed to pass. I can almost guarantee I would have acted out, become more of a clown and troublemaker than I actually was in school, because I would have been bored to tears.

As you mention also, we have a highly media based group of children today. I agree cell phones should be not be allowed.

As far as the publishers, perhaps it is less than noble to prey upon the environment that we have currently. I can't blame them, however, because it would be akin to blaming cell phone makers for making products that children want for connectivity to social media. Like any company, they are in it for a profit. It just happens to be that currently the profit is more in tests than innovative learning tools/textbooks. They are simply doing what they have to do, like any corporation. I'm sure a lot of that includes lobbying to keep standards based education in place.

We can blame a lot of different groups, even parents. But that isn't solving the issue. I have my ideas of how to begin fixing it, which may differ from yours because I am not in the 'business' nor do I have children. I would say the following would be some baseline changes I would implement or suggest:

1. School Uniforms - It makes it harder to differentiate between children and helps against the forming of cliques.

2. A complete 180 from standards based education.

3. We have to invest more money into hiring more teachers. Smaller classes means less stress, more personal interaction, and more time for the teacher to be aware of 'problems' before they blow up.

4. Students should only be allowed to access devices owned by the school, ones that are for education and not instagram. What they have available before and after school is on their parents, but they shouldn't have it in class.

5. I will probably take some flack, but I do believe that vouchers should be allowed versus forced public school attendance. Forcing people who cannot afford private schooling to send their children to public education means you remove choice of the quality of learning. Once public schools start to even out in quality due to the aforementioned changes, then we can remove vouchers.

The difficulty of each climb are vastly different. Lover's leap is easy difficulty, never any danger of falling for skilled climbers. The Nose is usually aided, or placing gear in cracks to hold body weight directly for the incredibly hard parts. This is much slower. Comparing feet per minute doesn't make any sense, even between two similar climbs.

Ok, then rimfire isn't assault weapon ammo. You're mixing up topics, adding confusion for nothing on topic....
....and the data massively contradicts your contention that any normal handgun is more powerful or faster than assault weapons, which are 7.62x39 and .223, both over 3 times the power of .357 magnums and beat .44 magnums handily.

To be honest, .50 AE pistols do actually appear to have slightly more power than .223 caliber rifles, I had to look them up separately as they weren't listed, but they are far slower, and a .50 cal bmg has around 7.5 times more power, and desert eagles in the AE .50 configuration aren't normal pistols.

Well I drive trucks and make this type of "button-hook" turn a lot. First of all if it were a car he would leave his trailer less than 4 feet from the curb in back so a car can't sneak by. They teach you this in truck school. He had his signal on and I drive through a college housing area all the time and make a turn like this with young people on my right a lot. She probably should have stopped and let him turn, him being in busy traffic he has to turn with the flow of traffic which might be slower than a bicycle. That said, of course he has to monitor the cyclist (I also ride bicycles in the big city) and stop immediately if she didn't yield or time his approach so she goes ahead of him. So ya, from truck driving school to my next work day (tomorrow) the driver is ALWAYS at fault if he hits anything on his right turning no matter who has the right a way. Sad case

No, you miss the point.
Distinctions are important.
It matters hugely, recognizing the difference between violent rape and an uninvited shoulder rub, just as it matters making the distinction between a spanking and attempted murder....not just legally but rationally.

I wholeheartedly disagree that making those distinctions about gradients of wrongness in any way denies the ability to see that both are wrong.....except for the brainless who can't do both.

Public shaming IS a sentence, one that harms your job, finances, family, and future. I have no problem with fair public shaming, but lumping a bad date in with real rapists is as fair as lumping you in with kidnappers and murderers because you slapped a disobedient child's behind.

He denies he did anything to intentionally make her uncomfortable or pressure her, which is what she accuses him of.

NO SIR. THAT IS YOUR POSITION, you said until overboard sentencing becomes a problem, there's no distinction needed between bad sex and forced sex.
Yes, it's not cool, but it's also not abuse unless it is.

If, like this woman, she #metoo'd that you were an octopus that ignored all her nonverbal signals to stop, your denial wouldn't mean much, and most people would just call you a rapist....just like his denial means nothing to you and you're more than willing to let him be lumped in with rapists and abusers.

You lumped them together in your post about how making distinctions is out of fashion. It's like you said stop eating broccoli, sugar, and bacon, then balked when I said broccoli is good for you, you only meant deep fried candied broccoli. Come on.

Don't expect me to read what you mean and ignore what you write...I absolutely hate that.
Don't be sexually aggressive...do be weird.

Yes, distinctions matter immensely.

No, grading offences is proper, otherwise you put rape and going Dutch on a date at the same level because they both upset the date.

If the person goes on a long date with you, accepts an invitation to your bed, undressed and engages in sex, asks you to slow down a bit (which means continue, slower, which you do), and continues, sleeps over, and only later complains, maybe relationships aren't for HER. Her date did absolutely nothing wrong. Verbal cues trump non verbal cues in the dark 99.9999999% of the time....pretty much any time there's no gun to your head.

It's what I dislike.
She calls him out publicly, a definite attempt to hurt him professionally, for not picking up on non verbal cues....allegedly given while his date was naked in his bed and engaging in sex in the dark but never verbalized, Sam has zero idea what those nonverbal cues were or if she even sent them.
Her private message to him was somewhat appropriate (but showed her lack of maturity to have gone through the bad date, slept with him, actually gone to sleep in bed with him, and only later decides it was unacceptable). Going public with a bad date and pretending it's a "me too" sex abuse story was outrageous imo, and only (severely) harms the anti sex abuse movement. He may have deserved blue balls, not to be blackballed.

I like Sam, but I think she's on the wrong side of this one. It's 100% up to the woman to communicate her discomfort clearly, not on men to pick up non verbal cues of discomfort given in the dark while they're also giving verbal cues to continue. She never said stop, she said slow down, which means continue, but slower. Verbal cues trump non verbal cues 99.999% of the time.

Clearly they needed to pick an older, slower person to feed to the koi.

Guess you don't know about IQ.


140 and over : If you have an IQ range of 140 and over, it means you are a genius or almost genius.

120 - 139 : With an IQ of 120 to 139, it means you have very superior intelligence and your intelligence is better than most. A superior intelligence means that your intelligence is better than most people but not as high as those with an IQ of 140.

110 - 119 : On the other hand, if you have an IQ of 110-119, it means you have a superior intelligence and that means that your intelligence is on middle ground- which means that it is high but not higher than most.

90 - 109 : When you have an intelligence of 90-109, it means that you have an intelligence of normal or average people. Normal thinking means that you are less intelligent and generally have a slower thinking. So people who cannot get to the solution or are slower in thinking will mean that they have normal intelligence.

80 - 89 : On the other hand, if you have an intelligence of 80-89, that means you are a dull person. A dull person or boring person means that they generally tend to indulge in things that are too enjoyable. Dull people tend not to indulge in things that are too demanding.

Below 80 : Give it another try maybe you will see the logic behind some questions after several tries. Also make sure you didn't leave some questions unanswered, leaving a question unanswered will give you a 0 point for that question.

"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!

Just about any competition shooter can keep up 0.3 splits for 10 minutes. Go to a three-gun competition near you and ask someone to show you.

Aiming is relative to what you want to achieve. From "spray and pray" to taking many minutes per shot in Palma and F-class. You might take 10-12 shots per minute with a semi-auto at this distance. Others will aim and shoot at 5 to 10 times that rate.

"Shooting with your finger at maximum speed is always far less accurate and slower than full auto with the same gun. You have to prove it to me that I'm wrong, because that's simple logic."

No. That's not how it works. I don't have to prove anything to you (as much as you have to prove anything to me). How about this though - first go read "On Killing" by Dave Grossman, which covers this topic, then go search on Youtube for the many videos (I checked just now and there are plenty) showing how full auto hits much less, (and the shots where you do hit are mainly sub-optimal) compared to aimed fast shots in semi-auto, then go join a gun club and try some competitive shooting. I'd be surprised if at the end of that you still imagine full-auto is what you think it is.

Also fun to watch are videos of guys like Jerry Miculek who can fire in semi-auto at insane rates of fire.

Now, lets be clear, I'm not saying full-auto doesn't have its uses, because it does. I'm taking umbrage with your claim that you have more control in full-auto (you do not) and that you get more hits on target with full auto across a series of targets (you do not).

I don't believe for one second that you could keep up that rate for a full minute, much less over 10. If you take the time it takes to aim a 300 yard shot accurately, you're talking 10-12 shots per minute.
Shooting with your finger at maximum speed is always far less accurate and slower than full auto with the same gun. You have to prove it to me that I'm wrong, because that's simple logic. Full auto is a more stable rate, so easier to adapt to, and doesn't require you to vibrate one hand, shaking the gun, dividing your attention, and tiring you out.
It's silly to imply the full auto functionality didn't exponentially raise the number both wounded and killed. Without the crowd, it might have made less difference. With the crowd, absolutely not imo.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's an asymptote line of progress. It'll get slower and slower but eventually we'll wake up and find that we've reached it. Movies will be first with revived dead actors or rejuvenated old ones - then games.

It's such a simple problem there is no "best" answer. But it would be very effective at weeding out people who know nothing about coding.

It's really not a question about optimization as writing things out to the console will probably be your biggest bottleneck (literally 10,000 times slower than the rest of the loop).