I'm proving it right now.

I'm sitting down and not sliding all over the place. In order to move, I have to propel myself by some mechanism, such as appendage movement (i.e., contraction and extension of muscle fibers that terminate at more rigid structures, e.g., bones).

Yeah, I'm not seeing how I'd be able to move otherwise, except perhaps by some kind of motion device external to my person.

I don't like to speak in absolutes, though, so I'll still just say I *think* there might be something a little fishy about this video. Maybe.

This has been one of my key problems with the ongoing debate. They represent the product, the companies. Though the GOP way now is to let the fox guard the hen house and say everything is fine... Have a lobbyist for an industry be in charge of regulating that industry... as if he'll have the public's interest and not the industry's interests. Have the lawyer for Verizon in charge of regulating Verizon and similar companies, and we've already seen he has no interest in the public good, just what is good for Verizon. Put a guy who hates the EPA and has tried to shut it down, in charge of the EPA... let the Cuyahoga River burn again by rolling back all the regulations that prevent it from happening again. These people have zero integrity, and the NRA is just an extension of this issue, and perhaps was the wedge in the door. Let the industry's lobby group control the debate, and people get used to the idea of the fox guarding the henhouse. It is rather maddening.

By far the best class I took while getting my Computer Science degree was "Software Engineering Project". We got assigned a project and divided up into teams including CS, CIS, and MIS majors. The MIS people managed and divided up assignments, and the CS people handled different aspects of the programming, like data structures / algorithms / UI / whatever.

This looks like an extremely fun and interesting extension of that. There's CS guys programming, EE guys doing hardware / sensors / haptic panels, full-on Engineering guys doing fluid dynamics, etc.

Destin seems like a great "jack of all trades" type that can get in there and ask really smart questions off the cuff. All the guys geeking out and being impressed with his intuitions and yet hesitant to confirm anything is hilarious to watch.

Sigh. What a sad day to have to read the likes of you.

I didn't know there was a strict definition. I asked a question and pondered some answers. Oh no! There world is ending. Why do you have to be a continual callow fool about such things? You'll note I didn't jump to google (like others do) to quickly look up a definition (I chose not to). I don't like using google as a false extension of my knowledge like others do. I like to have a good discussion using only the knowledge I have at that instant. But instead we all have to suffer people like you who jump in keyboard blazing "you're wrong on a thing and therefore you're an inferior fucktard who doesn't deserve to be here" instead of going "Actually, there is a strict definition of assault rifle. It's defined as...". Do you see the difference? I hate to be the one to tell you, but you need to learn to control your emotions. As an adult you should have learned this by now. You may believe you are communicating effectively but you are not. You are abrasive and abusive to anyone and everyone on far to regular a basis. You should be ashamed of yourself but I doubt you have the introspection to see your flaws.

The most irritating thing about having to point this out is that, now with strict definition in hand (provided by you), I can point out that instead of you telling Digitalfiend there is a strict definition and that "assault rifles" are already heavily restricted (as you should have pointed out), that I have to point it out to him instead.

And yes, I was already familiar with the studies I quoted previously - I have previously researched the topic of gun control in Australia.

"Why must you feign being so obtuse and naive as a pretext to sesquipedalian and pedantic argument of your own creation?"

Please stop making things up. The second you see what you consider a mistake you jump in with bullshit like this thinking you are going in for the kill. You're laughable and you're making life hard for yourself.

Shotguns aren't rifles? No shit Sherlock. It was an example of where semi-automatic is better. Semi-automatics are better than pump guns. You're dreaming if you think they're even in the same league. Duck hunting is better with a semi-automatic.

The only person who said anything about "Indiscriminately pumping animals, even nuisance animals full of lead" is you. I don't know where you learned to hunt but I learned one shot one kill. And a semi-automatic makes this more efficient (and if you do need a backup shot it comes very quickly). Most pest animals are left to rot. It's too much trouble picking up the carcasses (and often legislated that you must leave them where they drop). If you don't know how to hunt then leave it to the people who do, please (it's so easy to turn your words around).

Trapping, baiting, etc. are others methods that work well in varying circumstances.

Choosing a pump gun over a semi-auto is a beginners mistake. The spread of buckshot or home defense rounds at close quarters is fairly low and you must always aim your firearm properly. In a home defense situation, anyone who is relying on the spread of shotgun pellets to hit their target is a terrible marksman and should consider getting some lessons. You get the same loading sound from a semi-automatic when you let the bolt go forward. I don't know of any data to support the notion that the loading sound scares people away. It has some merit though.

Now, as usual for me I'll be busy for the next 4 months (back at work this morning - I shouldn't even be replying to this but I thought - "hey, I've gotta throw a dog a bone"). I may or may not get to reply to the expected vehemence to come. Have fun howling at the wind. Don't worry, you're views are the immutable truth and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and you're insults are totally the best (snigger).

The data of the study came out of Germany, where the effects of a change in temperature are much more moderate than in many other areas. Basically, this decline is attributed mostly due to farming, the saturation of everything with pesticides, and, generally speaking, the destruction of the ecosphere. Even worse, this is in a country with comparably extensive regulation on all these matters, unlike, say, India.

As you say, this really is no bueno.

Driving past fields of rapeseed in the late '90s meant a windshield full of bugs. We used to head into the fields wearing yellow shirts just to see who can get the densest armor of bugs. Now, I can walk past the very same fields outside the town I grew up in with less than 5 bugs on a yellow shirt.

Or how about another anecdote: when I grew up, barbecue in my (grand-)parents yard meant paying attention to all the wasps, so that you don't swallow one by accident. I haven't seen a single one over several barbecues this year. Bees and bumblebees are still around, though less plentiful, but wasps are a complete no-show. Haven't seen a hornet in two years.

Even the non-firearm homicide rate in the US is 5 times that of Japan. Japanese gun control can't take credit for all that. Personality is more than 50% heritable, and by extension, so is violent behavior. (Case in point: the vegas killer's father was on the FBI most wanted list). Personalitywise, Japanese tend to be relatively meek and inhibited. Even if every one of them owned a gun, their murder rate would probably still be a fraction of the US murder rate.

Thoughts:

1) There has been a ban on sales of new, fully-automatic firearms ("machine guns") since 1986. That leaves some loopholes (can still buy them if they were manufactured before then, but that demand plus scarcity makes them expensive, etc.) but in general, there isn't a whole lot of uproar over that 20-year-old ban.

2) These bump-fire stocks don't technically convert a firearm into fully-automatic; the trigger is still being pulled 1 time for each bullet that comes out (semi-automatic).

3) However, they easily allow for rates of fire (bullets per minute/second) comparable to fully-automatic weapons. So, I think an unbiased and reasonable person would say that while a firearm equipped with one of these does not violate the letter of the ban on fully-automatic firearms, it does quite reasonably violate the spirit of that ban.

4) Doing anything to correct that discrepancy will require updated laws. Updating the law requires a legislature that generally supports the update and a president that agrees, or a legislature that overwhelmingly supports the update and can override a presidential veto.

5) None of that exists at the moment in the US. So, it is (perhaps coldly) logical to say that these bump-fire stocks will not be banned as an extension to the 1986 ban on full-auto firearms, at least not in the short term.

6) However, before quietly accepting that, it is worth noting that political fallout amongst those individuals in the legislature that refuse to consider updating the law is a very real possibility. Plenty of people, even on the right, even plenty of gun nuts, say that they are in favor of some degree of "common sense" gun control. Pointing out that bump-fire stocks essentially circumvent the already in-place ban on fully-automatic firearms seems like a good way to test that professed adherence to common sense.

7) Get that word out there, and pretty importantly, try to do it in a way that is as respectful towards the average "gun nut" as possible. Their minds can be swayed. Hunters, sportsmen, and even people that have guns for self defense can be persuaded with reason -- they can still do their thing even without bump-fire stocks, just like they can do their thing without fully-automatic firearms. Congresscritters probably can't be convinced, because they've already been bribed"persuaded" with campaign donations, NRA lobbyists, etc.


So, don't preach to the choir. Try to convince the people that do actually own guns. The good news? You've got "common sense" on your side.

maybe I'm just not familiar with his political views; I respect him for his extensive acting career and some of his directing; is he really that dicky a lot?

Not that any of this is acceptable, but it's funny how your video omits the part where the armed and armored (clubs, helmets and full body pads) right wingers violently pushed into the counter protest crowd, starting the violence you now decry, and that this video edits to look one sided.

At this point, it's more than probable that nothing will get Trump reelected, but if the right is successful painting these anarchist asshats as liberals, and by extension liberals as these asshats, it could get another Trump like feculent demagogue elected.
That's why I think it's important to denounce them (antifa) at every opportunity. Fascists against fascism are still fascists, just incredibly stupid ones. They don't stand for what I think the left is about, and I certainly don't stand with them.

I agree, horrifyingly, this is apparently escalating towards gunplay. I'm not at all sure which side will shoot first. Don't fool yourself into thinking the left and the anarchists don't have guns too, though, or that totally non political citizens won't take up arms against rampaging Nazis and fascists (hopefully fascists left and right). Just something to consider when you're standing next to one hoping a gunfight breaks out.

Ok; super geek time:

1) Smithsonian Air and Space, including the Udvar Hazy extension at Dulles; B-29, SR, and shuttle and for extra geek points
2) Make a special call and get an appt slot WAY ahead of time for the Smithsonian Air and Space's Paul E Garber restoration facility...There's is (or was) unbelievable stuff in there...

He's part of it, its like an extension of himself. He knew exactly how to move his body to keep level. Extreme Skill with years of experience. Well done indeed.

Uh......slavery didn't start in the 1700's. It likely began in Mesopotamia as an industry, but probably existed long before cuneiform existed to record it.

Even sticking to Africa, Egyptians used slaves extensively eons before this.

Most active slavers in 18 th century Africa were Arabs or Europeans. Africans traded/sold POWs from other tribes caught during tribal warfare, and later began to actively participate in the European slave trade. They absolutely were not the sole kidnappers, however, nor were they the first.

If he was their boss, it would still be a douchebag, insecure, abusive move to just shove them aside....
.....but he's NOT their boss.....
..making this a pure dick move by a little cry baby that has to be front and center at all times or he throws a tantrum, a dick move meant to disrespect other diplomats and by extension expose his total lack of respect for any non American country.
This is not how you get others to work with you....which is his job.
Fostering dislike and disrespect between yourself and those you must negotiate with is just plain dumb.
Trump is dumb, and not a good negotiator (before you cry "but he's rich", prove it, because he's completely refused to prove he has 2 nickels to rub together....and before you cry "but he's a great businessman" most of his negotiations are actually done by others, to the extent that he doesn't have a clue what's in many/most of the contracts he signs, according to his own sworn testimony, making him the dumbest kind of negotiator and businessman possible).

Boss Trump....yep, like a boss....like this boss.

Certainly that exists, but I don't feel it's the norm, or majority of media that plays that way, and it seemed to me he was painting all non right wing media with that brush, and by extension most 'progressives' too. Maybe I misunderstood.

Russia is a continuing problem for us and our allies on many fronts, so it's not surprising that they get mentioned constantly...that's not the same as harping about the Trump/Russia investigation though, or being myopic about it. I'm sure there are far left outlets that are, but most offer a selection of reasons to be pissed off. At least that's how it looks to me...I try to avoid opinion news though, from any side, so maybe I just don't see it.