I'll second that.
I built a nearly identical plane 25 years ago, it cost about $125, and another $200 for the controller setup. It's wings were made of fiberglass/graphite spars inside dense foam cores...easy to build, easy to repair, and didn't hurt if it hit a person. (it did only have about a 15 min flight time without thermals, but batteries and motors are better now) Why are they going with carbon fiber for a non-combat fixed wing drone over fiberglass and/or foam (or are they testing combat drones)? Is it just to make it cost more? Why not just CNC mill them out of titanium billets? ;-)

$50K? Something smells here. Should be under $1K unless there's a lot we aren't seeing. Maybe it's all in the electronics and optics (it would need a bit more than a cell phone camera), but it still seems exorbitant. I think it could be more efficient to make them cheap and disposable/recyclable rather than 'hardened'.

@billpayer
i do not think it is fair to judge so harshly based on so little.@RedSky and @gwiz665 are far from dumb,quite the opposite.they are just expressing their opinions,which you are free to disagree but to dismiss them so readily removes the opportunity to discuss WHY you may disagree.(ok,you did but the tone was a tad..harsh)

i quite enjoy sparring with both of them.they bring perspective and a sharp insight to many discussions and im glad your post brought qwiz out of retirement.

i think @RedSky made an excellent point that the argument by harris lacked the inclusion of socio-economic factors (i would add historical context as well).while your disagreement with @gwiz665 is that he made the argument that jews do not proselytize,which while true,is a highly reductionist way to condense a religion.there are soo many factors which contribute to a religion,sacred texts being only one,single factor.

the real fight is absolutist thinking,a rigid adherence to doctrine and dogma that is the true enemy of humanity.be it for a religion or nationalism,both should be questioned and criticized.

which is exactly what we are doing here yes?

and just a side note,because i think you may not be aware:i am not an atheist

that and the trying to throw punches from his hips, but that could have just been panic after getting hit with BOMBS from the old man. I still wanna know, whats the background of this, because you don't go into a friendly sparring match trying to land a knockout, and judging from Old Man's obvious experience he too should know this.

Hey is this serious(black belts sparring)? It sure does look like a huge goof. http://youtu.be/NMiNFh1Rk4s

I did this exact same thing - that is, build a hand made dining room table for my wife. I didn't care about using reclaimed lumber, but I did want to avoid using glues. I used lag bolts and screws - I figured it would last longer than glue. Also, I used about 1/10th the number of tools he used. But I did use a sawsall and a drill.

I used all pine, but did a faux aging process with vinegar and steel wool, and black tea. It turned out awesome (after 12+ coats of spar varnish on the top... ug). I have two matching benches. It's all very rustic, durable, and functional.

Very cool video!

Yup, I should of known it was going to go this way.

This post wasn't to say Systema = superior MA.
Evidently if you're counting on competing in the octagon you're going to go with grappling/BJJ + Kick-boxing/MuayThai etc. but the UFC & Co are a very small part of life.

That being said, having practiced a similar art to Systema, I can guarantee that when you train with an experienced and balanced partner there's no compliance if you're serious about your training. It's actually a team work where you point out your opponent's openings and mistakes and gradually go faster and harder. And then there's a limit to what you can spar without risking serious injury : that's when you slow it down.

In the end, again, it's about what works for you and what you need as a person in your private and/or professional life.

I agree that it's not as straightforward as a boxing ring or a Kyokushin Kumite but these sparring sessions aim to get as close to "reality" without injuring your partner. Then I guess it all comes down to what works for you :-)

Being Sensei's sparring partner sucked 100 years ago too.

@hpqp

I'm at work, so I can't write a very long reply and besides which many others (especially @aaronfr) have already expressed ideas similar to what I would have said, so I'm not sure it's even necessary. I will say that I think you've done a great job of responding to comments made in this thread and that the tone of your posts has improved dramatically (I see you've even gone back and toned down a post using the edit function) from when we used to spar on the forums. I know that was something you said you'd be working on, so kudos for that.

Just one thing I would like to point out: Islamophobia can be demonstrably shown to exist. You can see ample evidence of it in the NYPD's illegal surveillance of the entire Muslim community in the NY/NJ metropolitan area and the hysteric outcry that accompanies the building of new mosques in many U.S. states. I understand why you yourself would not want to be labeled an Islamophobe as you've taken great pains to explain your problem is with the religious texts and teachings and not people who happen to be Muslim. But certainly, I think you've recognized that, for example, Sam Harris advocating racial profiling is irrational and not a logical extension of his arguments against Islam's teachings.

Can we not agree then that Islamophobia--defined as an irrational fear of or hatred of Muslims simply because they subscribe to Islam--does in fact exist? I think it's difficult to maintain the position that it doesn't exist in the face of the discrimination many Muslims face in some Western countries.

"Whether practice for the real world, focused sparring, or simply horny as fuck, we can't tell Dan just what's on these cat's mind's today this afternoon, here at the Kitteh Dojo, here in beautiful Worstchtcher, Massachusetts."....

@ReverendTed
You have been a courteous sparring partner so I will try to answer in kind, but I must admit being very exasperated by your last response. Moreover, I do not think I want to pursue a debate with someone who cannot see how adoption-in-place-of-abortion is neither feasible nor even remotely ethical (vis-à-vis the woman, the would-be child and human society in general). So this will probably be my last wall of self-indulgent dross.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: we both agree that we need more education all ‘round, on all subjects. And as you know, those most opposed to it are the same that are against abortion. Abstinence education is redundant when proper sex-ed is given, because it goes without saying that “no sex = no unwanted pregnancies” is a part of basic sex-ed. Of course, it is un-pragmatic to expect teenagers (or anyone for that matter) to forego sex, so why harp on it, other than for misguided religious purposes?

Your conception of consciousness is fuzzy at best. Everything we feel, experience, etc. is due to electro-chemical reactions in our body/brain. Magical thinking is saying some non-physical “me” exists attached to it, what religious people call a soul. Consciousness is not subordinate to cognition in terms of value, but in the sense that without the one (cognition) you simply don’t have the other (“subordinate” as in “dependent upon”). I mentioned blind-from-birth people for a good reason; they have no visual aspect to their consciousness, their identity/consciousness is built upon the other sensory input. Now imagine a being that has zero sensory input (or a central system capable of making use/sense of it), and you have a mass of muscles/cells/organs devoid of consciousness. And that is what is aborted before the 25th week. I must make it clear, however, that even if this developed much earlier it would still be the woman’s prerogative to choose what she does with her own body/life. In that respect I think the “viability” argument is a pragmatic (albeit conservative) one, because it draws the line between an excrescence and a (possibly) autonomous being.

After the first two paragraphs, your response goes from bad to worse. What I said about adoption v abortion still stands, but I would add that it is still forcing women to go through a pregnancy they do not want (thus still affecting the quality of their lives), not to mention leaving them with the guilt of abandonment, the kids with issues, etc etc. And all for what? So some third person’s unfounded superstitions be upheld? And then you have the gall to compare criminalising abortion with criminalising incest and crazy people locking up/raping their families. You seriously need to think a bit before making comparisons. In the case of child abuse and/or rape (incest itself is a victimless crime, but that’s for a different discussion), there are actual victims, for one, and secondly, the crazies would lock them up whether it was legal or not, because it is a question of absolute control over the other.

Since you cite Guttmacher statistics, allow me to suggest you read a little more:

• Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America—regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.

• Where abortion is permitted on broad legal grounds, it is generally safe, and where it is highly restricted, it is typically unsafe. In developing countries, relatively liberal abortion laws are associated with fewer negative health consequences from unsafe abortion than are highly restrictive laws.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

So basically pushing for the criminalisation of abortion is pushing for there to be more abortions, and more dangerous ones.

You note how a large percentage of abortion-seekers are above the poverty line. Obviously, they can afford it / are aware of the possibility. Ever notice how the poor/uneducated tend to have more kids than the others? Do you really think being poor makes you want to have more mouths to feed? Or perhaps it is because they lack access to contraception/abortion (not to mention the poor/uneducated tend to be more religious; religion thrives on misery). Of the “developed” world the US is a bit of a special case, because it is so backward with regards to healthcare and contraception. Notice how most women in the US pay for their abortion out of pocket, and “Nearly 60% of women who experienced a delay in obtaining an abortion cite the time it took to make arrangements and raise money.” (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html/) As an aside, the religious right here in Switzerland (not as influential but almost as stupid and backward thinking as that of the US) are trying to make abortion be no longer covered by the universal healthcare system.

On the “potential” question, everything has been said. I’d simply point out that your “95%” potential leaves out something absolutely crucial, namely the choice of the woman to terminate the abortion, which can reduce that to “0%”. You say “it’s nearly guaranteed”, but so what? Two people having heterosexual vaginal sex without projection over a long period of time will conceive of a child, it’s “nearly guaranteed”, therefore every possible pairing of male and female should have continuous unprotected sex otherwise they are depriving potential beings from existing. “But what if they don’t want to?” Exactly, what if the woman doesn’t want a child at that moment? See how absurd the “potential” argument is?

I’ll risk making this wall of text even wallyer and propose an analogy, The Analogy of the Film and Camera. When you put a film in a camera, the potential for it becoming a strip of individual, unique photos goes up. But so long as no pictures are taken, so long as nothing is imprinted on the film’s receptive surface, you lose no individual photos by taking the film out, and there’s the same amount of potential if you put in a different film at a different time. It’s wonky, I know, but it illustrates that potential individual (the film) is not the same as existing individual (the photo), nor does destroying the first cause any damage to the second, because the second doesn’t exist yet.

The comparison with the IGB campaign is terribly inappropriate and simply false. In one case it is question of keeping living individuals from ending their lives, whereas abortion is about preventing eventual individuals from coming into existence because it would harm the quality of life of an already existing individual (as well as the one to be). IGB is about giving people options/hope, whereas criminalising abortion is about taking that away (from women, to give it to the mind projections of superstitious third parties). The only connection between the two is that in both cases the unsubstantiated beliefs of third persons impinge on an individual’s quality of life and liberty. I already addressed your “good from bad” argument, which you draw out again in an emotionally manipulative way (which frankly made me sick).

On eugenics, oh boy. What you’re saying is akin to saying “self-defence should be outlawed because otherwise some (like Zimmerman) might commit crimes and say it was self-defence”. Or, a little closer to home perhaps: “we shouldn’t have universal healthcare because some might fraud”. Yes, some people fraud the insurance, and yes, some people are aggressive and try to pass it as self-defence. That’s why we have a judicial system. Bringing in eugenics is seriously grasping at straws and you know it.

I’ll end my last contribution to this exchange with the following: having a child should never be an inevitability. Bringing a human life into existence is way too big a responsibility to be an obligation. A women’s body is her own, to deal with as she chooses, uterus and co. included.

Cheers

It's more than speed it's control and efficiency of movement. You start off very very slowly, like literally moving in slow motion working on balance at every stage of a defense and counter and progressively get faster and faster. I wonder how it would look in an actual fight but notice how the guy sparring with him looks jerky and off balance even before being touched.

Pretty cool, love this stuff.

I gave up on Clancy when I was 16. I don't remember which book it was but there was a scene at the start where two full grown US military spook types meet in a bar somewhere in SE Asia, Bangkok maybe. They have a 'some damn fool said you were the best' type conversation then start good naturedly sparring with their knives, as you do. He describes the 'whirling, twisting' playfight -- for AGES (with a full on army boner no doubt).

Then he adds that a crowd (of natives) had gathered and were whooping and cheering them on delightedly. When the boys (let's call them JAKE and CLINT) have got it out of their system the crowd disperse, sad the fun is over. Then our heroes get back to planning who the US gov wants them to go and assassinate.

Clancy deals in right wing wet dreams. Interesting that his lot are starting to sell the same bullshit but now against US citizens - OWS. Couldn't play this game though. Pretending to shoot Castro in the head at the start of Black Ops made me feel queasy already. I mean Castro is a royal dick but millions of kids being taught to shoot real people by intellectually and morally questionable GAMES PRODUCERS?

All a bit dark.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^ShakaUVM:
Heh, I taught kids TKD for a number of years. This isn't too out of line with what normally happens.
Sometimes I'll get on my knees and tell them to punch me in the chest, and they can't do it. I'm not moving. I'm not blocking. They just can't do it.

There were teenagers in my class; of higher rank than me, even; who fit that description and were no more dangerous in sparring than these little guys. It used to really annoy me that they kept passing their belt tests without developing any skills at all.


It's funny there could actually be a thread about this.

Even fifteen years later and 70 pounds heavier, I can still knock a fucking house down with my back-turning side-kick. But I remember when my one tough instructor Marcus used to yell at me to hit him while sparring, I could never hurt him. He was a veteran of a shitty childhood and even when he put his hands behind his back, I could never hit him hard enough in the chest, stomach, kidneys, etc. to even make him blink. Of course, I was wearing gloves, but still. It was always like one of those dreams when you just can't do the thing you want to do and it always made me feel like my arms were just a couple of limp sausages.

>> ^ShakaUVM:

Heh, I taught kids TKD for a number of years. This isn't too out of line with what normally happens.
Sometimes I'll get on my knees and tell them to punch me in the chest, and they can't do it. I'm not moving. I'm not blocking. They just can't do it.


There were teenagers in my class; of higher rank than me, even; who fit that description and were no more dangerous in sparring than these little guys. It used to really annoy me that they kept passing their belt tests without developing any skills at all.