Does it bother any one else to hear politicians and news reporters incorrectly calling things "machine guns," "assault rifles" and "clips?" It makes them look ignorant, just like watching Fox News report on anything scientific.

Machine guns are primarily support weapons for sustained automatic fire. They usually have an active or passive cooling mechanism to prevent the barrel from overheating during sustained fire.

An assault rifle is a rifle which has a select fire mechanism that allows it to switch from semi-auto to burst or full automatic fire. An assault rifle can overheat if fired fully automatic (or even semi-automatic) without letting it cool, which can lead to failure of the weapon (if you can even hold on to it when it's that hot).

A magazine is simply something that holds bullets. Guns can have internal magazines or external detachable magazines. A clip is a mechanism used to load bullets into a magazine.

"I referred to the modern nazi who supports them"

Fair enough.

"It's not just a belief, it's a desire to exterminate, alienate and persecute an ethnic group. "
Agreed. That desire should not be considered an acceptable point of view. But there's a big gap between saying expressing a desire and carrying out an action.

"This implies that you think being 'nicer to Hitler' (i.e. not solved it with violence) would have gotten rid of them yet you contradict this later on."
No, I don't believe that. Hitler was in power, he had an army and he was already committing genocide. At that point, violence is your only recourse to stop the atrocities.

But yes, ultimately, if someone had been able to take Hitler aside BEFORE all the horrors of WW2 and been able to convince him to lay off the genocide, wouldn't that have been a better solution?

There are absolutely times when violence is the best course of action, but it ALWAYS represents a failure to resolve differences.

"I'm just saying if a nazi happens to get punched, on balance, it's probably ok."

I'm certainly not going to shed any tears over it and being completely honest, part of me relishes it. But intellectually, I know it's a) not a sustainable solution and b) it's a juvenile response.

"It's a bit like trying to 'defeat' religion. If you stamped out any sign of all religions in the world, all the imagery and documents and let's say memories too. Before long, religions would form because the human brain is drawn to those ideologies"

Completely agree. Put enough humans together and they form tribes and ascribe bad things to "the others". What saves us is the ability to learn from past mistakes as a civilisation, and even then we're REALLY slow learners.

But we have made progress.
Going from right to left, I would bet that even most Nazis think women should be able to vote; the vast majority of conservatives view racism as abhorrent (at least, consciously) and "Middle America" has mostly come around to gay rights.

"Defeated" might be the wrong word here. I want Nazism to become as laughable a philosophy as flat earthers. Espousing it should be met with the same response as someone who claims thunder is the gods playing football.

" TL;DR sorry for the wall of text, ignore me"

Don't apologise... it's an interesting discussion.

Those are Canadair CL-415 water bombers.....

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=199266

A CL-415 amphibious aircraft sustained damage during a water takeoff.
Two CL-415 were lifting off the surface of a lake when one of the aircraft contacted a mast of a barge with the left hand wing, according to a video posted on YouTube.
The aircraft reportedly returned to land.

For the lieutenant colonel Bernier from the Office Manager communication of the direction of the Sécurité Civile : " The wing of the Fire-fighting plane is damaged, it will be unavailable for several weeks, there were projections on two barges, fortunately without making of wounded person.
They are experimented and confirmed pilots who knew well the stretch of water. They managed to fly up to the base of Nîmes. The pilot and the co-pilot are shocked, they were suspended as a protective measure and are going to be examined by a specialized doctor who has to make sure that they are in capacity to re-fly. "

@Diogenes

I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying. Why should a reasonable person be pissed off at a third party calling out offensive language use? To use a hypothetical:

I jokingly call my brother a "retard" because he locks his keys in the car. We grew up in the 80s, so this this pejorative is something we are comfortable with and feel no inhibitions about using. My brother laughs it off.

Now let's assume this happens in a parking lot as we're standing outside my brother's car and a woman passing by overhears my comment and chastises me for equating stupid actions with people who have mental disabilities.

Should reasonable bystanders watching all this be pissed off, since my comment wasn't directed at the woman? On the one hand, my brother and I weren't offended by the use of the word "retard" to mean stupid. On the other hand, our very usage of the word "retard" in that particular way promotes and sustains a culture that already heavily looks down on mental illness and mental disabilities.

I'm genuinely curious about your answer to this. If I'm reading your comment correctly, the primary negative of PC language that you see is that some people feel smug when they call out other people on their language usage. But does the fact that some people are smug about it make them wrong in pointing out the offender?

Diagram of re-entry for the Soyuz:
---------------------------------------------
http://spaceflight101.com/soyuz-tma-20m/wp-content/uploads/sites/77/2016/09/6618866_orig.jpg

Orbital Module:
---------------------
It houses all the equipment that will not be needed for reentry, such as experiments, cameras or cargo. The module also contains a toilet, docking avionics and communications gear. Internal volume is 6 m³, living space 5 m³. On the latest Soyuz versions (since Soyuz TM), a small window was introduced, providing the crew with a forward view.

Service Module:
---------------------
It has a pressurized container shaped like a bulging can that contains systems for temperature control, electric power supply, long-range radio communications, radio telemetry, and instruments for orientation and control. A non-pressurized part of the service module (Propulsion compartment, AO) contains the main engine and a liquid-fuelled propulsion system for maneuvering in orbit and initiating the descent back to Earth. The ship also has a system of low-thrust engines for orientation, attached to the Intermediate compartment. Outside the service module are the sensors for the orientation system and the solar array, which is oriented towards the sun by rotating the ship.


Consequences of bad jettisons:
------------------------------------------
The services modules are jettisoned before the spacecraft hits the atmosphere. A failure or partial jettison of the modules means that the capsule will not enter the atmosphere heat shield first which can lead to a number of scenarios:
- Capsule pushed off course (by hundreds of km)
- High sustained g-loads on reentry
- Plasma on reentry can burn through the craft if the heat shield is not exposed and oriented properly resulting in loss of crew.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TMA-10
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TMA-10

You say that like those are bad things.

Taking money from the rich? Fuck yes. In case you missed it, they've been taking money from you for decades.

Killing babies? Well, most people would call it "allowing a woman to decide what happens to her body", but either way, there are too many damn people on the planet, so anything that lowers the birth rate is good.

Oppressing business owners? How exactly? Making them pay their employees a fair wage? Not allowing them to discriminate against people? Making sure they don't fuck up the environment? Zero problems with any of that.

Allowing illegal immigrants to enter? Leaving aside the fact that that is completely untrue, immigrants commit less crime, work harder and contribute to your economy. Get rid of the immigrants and watch your country fall apart in a week.

Get rid of capitalism? The fucking DEMOCRATS? Seriously, you think the democrats are socialist? You seriously need to see the rest of the world. In most other developed countries the democrats would be the right wing party.

But capitalism is ultimately on borrowed time anyway. Not in the short to medium term, but in 30-50 years, capitalism won't be sustainable. You can't have a capitalist system if the majority of the populace is unemployable (see automation, AI, etc).

A few things to mention: If the other car would have been as strong, the newer car would have sustained much more damage. The old one basically acted as an airbag for the newer one.
Also they removed the airbag. A 1998 Corolla had front airbags. Maybe even side airbags, but I am not sure.

You mean apart from the explanation that the speed required to run a marathon is close to a flat-out sprint for most people, and that the maximum speed that you can sustain over two hours depends on the three factors that they explained in the video? It was discussed around 2:10 in the vid.

The handful of people have physiology that gives them unusually high oxygen uptake, lactate thresholds, and running efficiency.

It's slightly clickbaity because Nike... and despite serious cheating their attempt on the sub-2 hour marathon to sell shoes failed by 26 seconds.

p.s. The Grauniad had an article on what the rest of us can learn from these elite runners https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/may/06/secrets-two-hour-marathon-men-alter-running

In terms of the UK, your average house price was under £10 000 in the 70s. If wages had increased at the same rate as house prices have increased, which is not an unreasonable request, especially if you're mocking them for not having the money, then the average wage would be £87 000. Alternatively, if house prices had increased at the same rate as wages have, the average house would be worth around £60 000. It's no good talking about people buying iPhones when that disparity exists - if anything, the iPhones help distract them from their poverty.

It's been rigged for 40 years now, bob. Who do you think a landlord/renter economy benefits more - the young or the old? You are blind to the reality of life for people just starting out.

Sooner or later, civilisation is going to have to change to account for this. You can call me a lefty all you like, but the numbers don't lie - this isn't sustainable, the cost of living does not match full time pay for a huge number of people, including necessary and skilled jobs like nurses and teachers (in the UK).

It's no longer about aspiration, or working harder at school. Average people are struggling and that should be a concern to you if you care about society at all. In fact, if you're a die-hard, card carrying, flag waving capitalist it should worry you. Landlords aren't wealth creators.

Most vehicle side windows are made of tempered glass, compared to the laminated glass of the windscreen. The windshield is designed to "hold" its pieces upon severe impact due to the lamination process (a layer of plastic material sandwiched between two layers of glass) whereas the tempered side windows will shatter into small relatively harmless globules. Tempered glass is used due to it being roughly 4x the strength of non tempered glass, and cheaper to produce than laminated.

Most automotive side glass is typically between 3-6mm thick, depending on the region of origin, eg Europe, Japan, USA etc. That said, calculating the compression, tensile and sheer strength a particular window can sustain is not exactly simple. However as a simple baseline, a 2ftx2ftx5mm sheet of tempered glass, with supports 2ft apart can support roughly 160lbs of sustained weight. In the case of automotive design, window frame support, distance of supports, curvature etc will change the properties and strength of the glass.

Long story short, with the vehicles window fully rolled into the frame, that lion would need hundreds of pounds of force directed at a single point to reach the shatter point. Granted, I've never arm wrestled a lion, so maybe those folks were just a can of Vienna Sausage ready to open anyway. Best not to mess with the king.

Yeah, at this point in his speech (after the thanks) last year, Obama was quoting scripture.
"And on this occasion, I always enjoy reflecting on a piece of scripture that’s been meaningful to me or otherwise sustained me throughout the year. And lately, I’ve been thinking and praying on a verse from Second Timothy: “For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.” For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind."

Trump then goes on talking how he'll destroy the Johnson amendment, passed by a Republican congress and President, that limits the ability of non-profits from endorsing candidates, so that preachers can more freely endorse candidates... not that the law has stopped them yet anyhow, and the government never seems to enforce that rule.

Then Trump goes on about the typical Republican love of war... which of course in contrary to the teachings of Jesus, but the crowd loved it. Nothing makes modern right wing Christians happier than murdering and killing non-white, non-Christians, but they're "pro-life"... blah... anyhow, yeah.

You don't have to change your entire way of life, all you have to do is stop eating animal products - which account for 51% of Global Warming. http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/

What does this mean? It means that even if the governments and technology could give us entirely sustainable electricity and transport, then global warming would still destroy the planet, because of the gases released from the 80+ billion farm animals raised each year.


The good news is though, that as individuals we have the power to save the world, with every meal.

Bon appetite, Planeteers: http://tinyurl.com/jfh5wfw

People have to fucking change. They don't need to eradicate forests to do these things, there are plenty of sustainable architectural / eco living books out there. Plenty of space out in the desert and there is plenty of ocean water to filter. Plus, so much tech to help with this wave of transformation.

I do agree that simply put, people need to get snipped. Continue fucking but STOP having kids, please!

Well, OK. I do love me some Chris Hedges, but god damn - the left is never going to win anything with tone like this. No one *wants* to listen to it. Sure, they should, but it's hard to be annihilated by the truth when it's spoken in a piercing frequency, lol.

I think that is what Sanders was trying to do - the political establishment understands this "Tweet" culture, of simple-minded ADHD, ritalin addicts who know nothing about politics, or the truth so you basically have to keep it short & sweet. I definitely don't believe Sanders would have made any better impact as an Independent (except for the fact that I would have voted for him), I agree - he didn't teach us much, but he kept it slightly angry (good tone though and tone is huge) and simple for mass consumption.

I feel like the only thing to save humanity (and the environment) is massive & sheer economic collapse to fucking ruin capitalism FOREVER, let's move to a forest and make a 100% sustainable living & future. We have the tech to do it now. And it needs to be done right now, like right this split second.

Perhaps the most important thing with anything that you buy from the store is to read the label, organic or not. There are brands that try to use clever labeling to try to mislead customers, as the video alludes to.

One of the ways labeling can be deceptive is that it is often extremely unclear where the ingredients come from. A box of cereal might be 100% organic, but if the ingredients are all from China you simply cannot know what quality you're buying, for a multitude of reasons, including poor regulation, poor water quality etc.

A couple of other points:

Farming traditionally, without synthetic (petrochemical) fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides is sustainable... forever.
Farming techniques that require oil will have to be phased out eventually, because it's a finite resource. So in this regard, the video is wrong (in regards to them both being able to sit side by side), at least in the long term.

Grow your own food (you don't need much space for a garden), or buy local. Transportation/shipping causes an unbelievable amount of pollution.