I'm confused. They imply a 3 day trip to mars is possible, but is that at the maximum speed photonic propulsion can deliver, or do they include the acceleration and deceleration times? As I understood it, photonic propulsion can deliver extreme speeds, but only at a minimal acceleration. That means that maximum speed is much faster, but accelerating to that speed takes immensely longer, and the same goes for deceleration. Maybe they've invented a new method I've not heard of with much higher acceleration, but that's not really mentioned in the video.
They actually seem to imply they plan to use the same tech as cyclotrons, which means essentially a huge rail gun (and that's not photonic propulsion BTW, it's magnetic). Again, the amount of propulsion is miniscule, but the top speed is high with that method. Yes, you can expel matter at near speed of light, but only in tiny amounts and using huge amounts of energy.
Yes, it may take 10 minutes to achieve 30% the speed of light....with single molecules or atoms.
There are MANY reasons why we can't do this at macro sizes. Just look at the size of a cyclotron needed to accelerate an atom to those relativistic speeds. Now think about sizing that up to accelerate enough matter to move a spaceship instead of a single atom and it's likely near the size of the entire planet. We won't be building a cyclotron that size ever, nor will we likely ever shrink the accelerators to a size where they can fit inside a spaceship to shoot trillions of atoms out like a light speed gun. They are just too big and use too much power. Maybe once fusion is perfected and miniaturization also perfected it could work for interstellar travel, but never for local space travel, the acceleration levels are just too small.
Also, it seems solar sails give the same or better acceleration to the same top speeds without the impossible technology....but they don't work too well for stopping except at other stars.

Who fights for the unborn? Not the left.

I do agree that these new hindrances are fairly messed up but that is what is available to lawmakers.

There should be a few instances that abortion is allowed and these should be done at the hospital at same day surgery clinics where minor procedures are preformed.

AS fat as the 13 yr old she is not being punished. Where are the cops arresting the rapist? PPH are obligated to report that.
The baby’s heart will start beating during the fifth week. The heart is too small to generate enough sound waves to be audible, even when amplified by the use of medical equipment in your doctor's office. However by the 6th week the beats can be measured.


Its odd if I kill a pregnant woman I get charged with 2 counts of murder. If the woman kills the fetus no problem with that.

I wanna have sex but my dick is too small
But I'm a huge liar, so I'll say I screwed them all
I still can get no play, even though I'm on the tube
Come on fuck a guy, or just let me see some boob
I'm going to say you did, even though you prob-ly won't
Then you'll be one more, of the girls I never bone't
My shiny bald head, got me looking like a phallus,
But the girls still run away, and they all treat me with malice
So I'm playing with myself, like my dick was made of lego
If you want me you can find me, jackin' it in San Diego

it was cool. except the walker. The scale was really wrong. Way too small

...wings too small....

@lucky760, is this sanctioned?

Nah, much too small for Bay, he doesn't bother with anything less than 1000lbs.
Also reminds me why I always used Cellular Ammunition Storage Equipment if possible when playing Mechwarrior.

Russell's video definitely seem to be having an effect here.

For who think he is too small... he has more views and twice the subscribers on YT as the BBC.

True change will only ever come from the bottom up.

Well, perhaps with currently available public domain parts, it's not possible. That doesn't mean it's completely impossible.
The flexible frame might be hard, but there ARE already wristbands that un-bend to make a flat device, they've been around for decades, I recall seeing one in the 90's. Making it support flight might be hard, but not impossible, especially with the small forces this thing provides.
You say there are already 2" square quads out there, this was closer to 18"square(6"X3"), so the 'it's just too small' argument falls flat.
Battery time might be a factor, but a 5 min video is pretty good for now, plenty to prove the concept. Also, battery life is increasing fast.
The camera and GPS in a phone hardly uses any battery power too. These tiny devices are really not hungry enough to make them a power drain problem, at worst they might limit flight time slightly. Also, there's no GPS needed really, it could operate by keeping the subject in frame at approximately the same distance...then it could just follow you through the trees, using the image to avoid obstacles. It would take some computing power, but not an outrageous amount. Perhaps it's paired with a cell phone to do the computing? That part wouldn't be hard.
Again, because the tech isn't available on the market today (and I'm not at all sure that's correct) doesn't mean the tech isn't available to some, or creatable by intelligent people. I just don't see this as that far away.
EDIT: The airdog seems like it's everything this wants to be, but large enough for a go-pro. I see no reason at all they couldn't miniaturize it all.
Flexable/foldable frame...check. Size issue...check. Battery life...irrelevant (so long as you get over 1 minute)...so check. What were the other 2 technologies you say don't exist?

Jews have the old testament.
Christians have the old testament and new testament.
Muslims have the old testament, new testament, and yet a newer testament.

All 3 share the old testament.
The 'violence promoting' scriptures are found in the old testament - which all 3 have in common.

Reza is right.
If people want peace, the religious of them simply ignore the violent edicts of their religions.
If they want to be violent, the religious of them legitimize it with excuses from their religions.

He's also right about the national hypocrisy. Al-Qaeda at the time of 9/11 was a pet organization of members of the Saudi royal family.
But instead of going after the Saudis (who also today finance ISIS), we go after 2 countries that are unrelated to the attack.

Look at today's irony. Assad in Syria (who we wanted deposed because he was friendlier to Russia than the U.S., and allowed Russian bases on Syrian soil [in the middle east]) is now fighting ISIS, while we ally with the Saudis who are supporting ISIS.

We also didn't mind supporting the Mujahedin (Jihadi fighters) in Afghanistan when they were fighting our enemy. We had no problem throwing Afghanistan into the dark ages when it suited us.

Ultimately, extremist Islam is a foil, meant to rouse western people's emotions. As national policy, we don't _actually_ do anything to stop it, we just use it as an excuse to do whatever else is of national interest.
Who would be the boogey man if extremist Islam was gone? We need a boogey man if we want to keep excusing and paying for a large military. People simply don't have the foresight and patience to maintain a strong military without someone scaring them into support. Particularly now, when we don't have the manufacturing capacity to quickly build a large military.

However, Reza is ignoring Turkey's and the Pacific islander's Muslim problems. Indonesia and the Philippines have extremist Muslim organizations doing attacks home (Philippines also has Christian terrorists). Turkey is a large source of Muslim fighters pouring into Syria.



The various related religions also have historical developmental differences.

Jews were for a long time in such minorities that they did not have the political capability of waging any campaign of violence. They were either too small, or too busy being occupied by European powers (Rome, etc).

Christians did have a long period of majority, starting around 400ad when Rome decided that a good way to control/pacify any dissent within the empire was to make the empire 1 religion and make Rome the head of that religion. They elected Christianity as the state religion, forced everyone in the Roman empire to convert, and you had a continent's worth of Christians.
This included north Africa and Middle East - and is when Jews (by now called Palestinians) were forced to convert from Judaism to Christianity (**and few hundred years later forced to convert from Christianity to Islam).

Although, Christians had the benefit of the Inquisition(s) to temper their enthusiasm for Christianity. A large part of the population was killed for consorting with the devil. Once it got so bad that everyone knew someone who had been convicted and killed - and everyone was sure that those killed were innocent, it cast a large doubt on Christianity as whole. People questioned if the devil even exists, or if it's all a sham. The distrust and resentment paved the way for the eventual birth of Deism and Empiricism. A time when the scientific method and physical observation started to take over.

Islam is still a young religion. They still have to experience their religion becoming all powerful, and the inquisitions that inevitably come from absolute power. The one good thing about Islamic extremism is that it makes the people living under those conditions more likely to suffer. Once the suffering becomes so pervasive that everyone is suffering, the people will start to dislike/distrust their religion, and the extremism will resolve itself from the inside out - like it did with Christianity.

The bigger problem would be if things are 'too tolerable', and the religion grows more extreme (no one is inclined to say 'no'). The biggest problem would be if the religious leaders 'solve' the balance issue, and manage to stabilize the oppression at a level that is as extreme as it can be while still being permanently sustainable. Then the religious leaders can live the life of power without the threat of deposition.

-scheherazade

The fallacy though is that there is a strong anti-gun movement. There isn't The pro-gun people desperately cling to that strawman fallacy any time there is a call for gun control.

The number of people who are actually "anti-gun" in the US are too small to politically matter, but who knows, as @ChaosEngine pointed out, maybe that will change someday as attitudes and technology changes, but that day is not today.

However, the majority of people ARE for gun control/regulation. The vast majority of Americans have no problem with armed citizenry. The debate is ACTUALLY about the level of armament. They want stiffer controls to keep them out of the hands of criminals and the mentally disturbed. And maybe some required training/certification for those that do choose to own firearms, just like we test periodically for drivers licenses.

Even the pro-gun people should (I hope) agree that nuclear arms should be under tight control and not in the hands of civilians. Should a civilian be able to own a cruise missile? a tank? A battleship cannon? How about one of those new magnetic rail cannons being developed? If you agree that these types of weapons should not be used by civvies, then you are pro-gun control.

The question is just one of degree. I completely agree that "assault" weapons is too vague a term and stricter definitions need to be created to define what civvies should and shouldn't have.

Precedent is already set. We have a constitutional right to bear arms as well as many other rights, but rights have been taken away countless times (with the consent of the governed) for people who have proven that they can be a harm to others, so you can't really argue that the 2nd amendment is inalienable. Many, if not all, rights have conditions to them.

There are ALWAYS exceptions.

I've harped on it before and I'll harp on it again. Bill Maher is exactly right. There is no "anti-gun" party. We have a "loves guns" party and a "likes guns" party.

There is NO significant anti-gun movement in America. But the pro-gun people are scared so they try to bogeyman you into thinking there is.

I have mixed feelings about the UK plug. 1) they are HUGE. therefore power strips are also quite large, and the wall outlets only have place for one device. 2) I've seen plenty of UK plugs where the conductor goes all the way to the housing, not halfway like he shows as a feature. I've seen Euro-plugs with both types as well. 3) putting fuses on the plug instead of part of the house means that too many <13A devices could be plugged in, and (if used simultaneously) cause a fire in your walls and burn your house down (I assume UK requires circuit breakers and branch circuits nowadays). 4) the same safety device that requires ground to be plugged in first makes it really-hard to plug into cheaply made outlets or power strips (the plastic cover doesn't slide easily).
That said, another safety feature that he didn't mention in the video was that most wall outlets have their own switch on the outlet itself. Turn-off ; plug-in ; turn-on. This prevents arcing, which is easier with the higher 240V.

Euro outlets' holes are too small to fit most screwdrivers, knives, fingers into, and they have both grounded and ungrounded (smaller) variety.

My favorite are the IEC-60309 plugs/outlets, but are only for bigger amperages - 20,30,50,60, etc.

It's not irrelevant if they really do take up arms and start becoming domestic terrorists if they haven't already.

they may be too small to really do anything, but they can cause a lot of damage when they finally do decide to go out in a blaze of glory...and damage/end a lot of lives.

...I'd like to not see that happen.

Merlin, right? Looks too small to be a Griffon...

That's fabulous. We bought three wonderful female gerbils last November. They were about 8 weeks old. We only wanted two, but there were three in the cage at the pet shop and I told my husband that it would be cruel to leave one behind. They are delightful little critters. I grew up with pet rats, and domestic rats are somewhat more personable, well, a lot. But, we were given an unused Habitrail system that would have been too small for rats. So, Gerbils! (Sorry, in my experience (I worked in a pet store for a while) hamsters are solitary, territorial and tend to bite.) I was immediately impressed by how naturally friendly they are. In the gerbil manual we bought with them, it talked about taming them. These little girls were like, "Hey, who are you? Can I climb on you?"