Wow, stupidity at its highest, I'll give the an *eia

I believe he said it was a .500 Magnum (S&W), which is a true hand canon of a gun. I'm far from a gun aficionado, but being from Texas I'm required to watch at least a few minutes of people firing guns on TV every month. And I've seen professionals fire those beast, most of the time they're using a rest to sturdy their aim and absorb some of the impact from the shot. I've seen it fired free standing like that, but by guys with beefy looking arms, and a good stance, and even then it had a very notable kick back. She on the other hand, didn't seem to have much muscle strength on her nor a particularly good stance. Hopefully they were smart enough to only put one bullet in that thing.

>> ^imstellar28:
NetRunner: Do you even understand the principles of Keynesian or Austrian economics? If you had actually read anything on either of them--I don't see how you could support what "90% of the economicists believe" . The number of people, or the authority behind them has absolutely nothing to do with the veracity of their arguments. I will paypal you $20 if you read the magnum opus 900 page book on austrian economics "Human Action: A Treatise on Economics" and can explain why it is inferior to Keynesian economics. Even if you COULD explain why it was inferior (which I charge is highly improbable if not impossible) you would still be on the losing end of a philosophical argument--namely that only austrian economics has a moral basis for its implementation.

Newp, can't say I've read up on either Keynesian or Austrian economics, but I wasn't really trying to wade into the middle of the "gold standard" argument beyond pointing out that a lot of people who are familiar with both don't agree with you and BansheeX.

I agree that has nothing to do with which philosophy is correct, but it does mean that there shouldn't be some assumption that it's the obvious or only way to do things.

Mark me as being in the "not opposed, but not convinced" column on a gold standard.

Oh, and I'll happily take your $20, though I'll probably just use it to take my wife to the movies.

BansheeX: You have all the right ideas on economics, inflation, monetary policy, individual rights, contracts, and the scope and nature of government--why not take it a step futher with taxation? I agree with you wholeheartdly that the government only has three proper functions:
1. national defense, to prevent the infringement of rights from other countries
2. police, to prevent the infringement of rights from other citizens
3. legal system, to settle contractual and criminal disputes, in order to ensure individual rights.

NetRunner: Do you even understand the principles of Keynesian or Austrian economics? If you had actually read anything on either of them--I don't see how you could support what "90% of the economicists believe" . The number of people, or the authority behind them has absolutely nothing to do with the veracity of their arguments. I will paypal you $20 if you read the magnum opus 900 page book on austrian economics "Human Action: A Treatise on Economics" and can explain why it is inferior to Keynesian economics. Even if you COULD explain why it was inferior (which I charge is highly improbable if not impossible) you would still be on the losing end of a philosophical argument--namely that only austrian economics has a moral basis for its implementation.

One also needs to keep in mind that a voluntary taxation is the end goal of a free society, and that given our current level of regluation and budget expenditures--is not possible to immediately implement. However, this is what we should be working towards, and as an end result it is entirely feasible and possible--given some creative solutions. There are many intermediate systems which enable us to get there--of which the best current proposals have been coming from the libertarian party.

Here is an example: the net income of U.S. citizens is around 9,000 billion dollars. If every citizen donated a mere 5% of their income this would amount to 450 billion dollars--roughly 18% of our current 2,500 billion dollar budget. Or to look at it another way, there are 300 million people--if each person donated a mere $1,500 to the government each year, it would support a $450 billion dollar budget. If the richest 50% donated $3,000 and the poorest 50% donated nothing, it would be funded just the same. Or if the richest 10% donated $15,000 and everyone else donated nothing...etc. Keep in mind you are currently losing up to 30-40% of your income to taxation, or probably somewhere between $2,000 and $40,000 a year! There is a motivation for people with higher incomes to donate more money to national defense and police protection--for the very reason that they have more to lose in the event of an emergency. $15,000 is only 1.5% of the net worth of a millionare, and only 0.0015% of the net worth of a billionare! You don't think a millionare would gladly pay such a pittance for the protection of their assets? Also, in a time of crisis, maybe people in general would donate a larger percentage of their incomes. Remember--this is going to be a bare-bones government--no 3,000 billion dollar illegal invasions, or trillion dollar medicare/social security schemes, no subsidies, regulations, or "department of x.."

Even if people decided that national defense or police protection isn't worth 5% of their income and donated 0% of their income--there ARE other ways to **voluntarily** collect taxes. One such system might be legal insurance--where you can protect contracts via the legal system by paying a nominal fee--say 5%. Now nowhere are you forced to make contracts, loans, or other agreements with your fellow citizens--nor are you forced to pay the nominal fee. However, if the contract is broken--you would have no legal recourse to seek compenstation unless you bought the "legal insurance". The credit and loan business alone is a multi-trillion dollar industry...and a 5% "legal insurance" added to loans from the bank could easily fund a government with a 500 billion dollar budget. For example, you want to take out a $200,000 loan from the bank, and the bank only gives out loans that are legally protected, so they add a 5% tax to your loan--so your loan becomes $210,000. Perhaps there is another bank which only gives loans to extremely low-risk individuals such that they don't need to have their contracts legally protected--if you were such an individual, you could get a loan from them for only $200,000 and would have to pay no taxes.

This sytem would be voluntary, and thus, it would be moral--nobody would be forced to pay taxes, although it would be encouraged. It would be entirely up to private business and individuals as to whether to purchase the "legal insurance", or to contribute any portion of their income to the government.

Also, this is only a federal-level proposal--this says nothing of what the states can tax, although one would hope they would come up with similar, voluntary schemes.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
Obama has voted contrary to his common sense stance on gun control.

That link seemed a bit strange as evidence of your conclusion -- the quote at the top is the general statement of his position: there's a right to bear arms, but there's also reasonable limits we're allowed to place on the right.

The rest of the page is filled with comments/votes on what he considers reasonable -- you might disagree with what he considers reasonable, but he isn't voting contrary to his stated opinion.

As with all politicians This man is a wolf is sheep's clothing.
"americans cling to their guns out of bitterness?" - I dont care if that was a slip up or not, Explain what the hell that means?

He means that people are so used to getting fucked over by government on economic issues, they focus instead on gun rights, and start voting counter to their own economic self-interest on the basis of issues that probably have less impact on their life as a whole than the economic ones.

Here's a video where he explains it himself.

I don't cling to any thing, to me a firearm like an axe (both deadly) is a tool.

This is an argument I've heard over the years, but it's disingenuous to try to equate an axe with a firearm. An axe is usually used to chop wood, which is pretty non-lethal. Sure, it can be a deadly weapon, but that's not it's purpose. Guns on the other hand are designed to kill things -- in other words: a weapon. Sure, there are places you can practice with them without killing things, but that doesn't make it a tool.

I'm picturing Homer Simpson using a 44 Magnum to open his beer...it makes as much sense as that.

To think that a gun is any more dangerous than the person standing next to you in the subway is folly. Because with out the human element steel and cordite are just objects, they cannot act on their own accord.

This is a fair point, to a certain extent. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," is true. Concluding that therefore we should make it as easy for people to kill each other as humanly possible because of it, seems misguided at best.

Despite what's grown into a very long post -- I'm pretty ambivalent about gun rights. I don't think we can get rid of them entirely, so law-abiding people should be able to buy them. I don't want just anyone to be able to get them, at any time, no questions asked, though. I'd like to own my own assault rifle, just in case someone starts a revolution, but even then, I'm not convinced it'd help me much in that situation, either.

This is not real. Just special effects created using the sun's magnetic fields for refrence.

from http://www.myspace.com/magneticmovie

"Combining their in-house lab culture experience with formidable artistic instincts in sound, animation and programming, they have created a magnetic magnum opus in nuce, a tour de force of a massive invisible force brought down to human scale, and a “very most beautiful thing.” "

The enjoyable suspension of disbelief is thoroughly ruined by mixing television shows. This is like where George Kostanzas "friends" world meets with his "fiance" world. They are incompatible like matter and antimatter and nothing good comes of it.

Instead of the depicted scenario, I would prefer if Magnum PI and his friend Rick were flying around the Hawaiian islands in the helicopter, and discovered a shipwreck along the coast which turned out to be Giligan and the Skipper and the rest of the gang.

More food for thought. I'm leaving the ones I don't like out. Like the dumb-ass rail gun from Eraser.

The quad rocket launcher from Commando.
The laser whip from Johnny Mnemonic.
Rambo's survival knife and bow.
The frisbee things from Tron.
Inigo Montoya's sword from The Princess Bride.
Charles Bronson's .44 Magnum from Death Wish.
Travis Bickle's quickdraw gun Mechanism from Taxi Driver.
Dirty Harry's .357 Magnum
Bullet Tooth Tony's Desert Eagle .50 from snatch.
Freddy Kruger's glove
Jason's Machette

This isn't over yet!

number of crazy fucking shootouts in UK shopping centres and schools in the last twenty years: one i think. then handguns were banned. hasn't been another one.

"if you outlaw guns only the criminals will have them"
GOOD because there's less criminals than law abiding people, and they tend to shoot each other, not us.

If i am mugged by a guy with a gun, and I don't have a gun, what are the chances of my getting shot? Like, zero. I just hand him my wallet and phone and that's that. I am not gonna get all medieval on someone's ass for taking a small amount of money and a phone which is insured. I am not gonna "defend my property" by risking my life. Take my property. I can get some more later.

As for defending my home from an evil government, well, how about you GET REAL. It's already been said, they got nukes and apaches and clusterbombs and shit, look at Iraq, they have millions of AK's and suicide bombers and it doesn't save them from being colonised.

What are you gonna do, sit on your roof with your Magnum .44 and shout "DEATH TO THE FASCIST OVERLORDS" as a cruise missile targets your town hall?

And to those who dismiss peaceful protest... LOL. As if it's never been tried and never worked before. LOL!

Someone invoked Tiananmen Square as an exammple of the failure of peaceful protest. Erm... have you noticed something called the market economy in China lately?

Definitely a good guide for starting spies, by far my favorite class, of which I have the most points in my Best Moments. Just remember, these are rules of thumb, not written in stone by any means. Spies can do some amazing things given the opportunity. Very situational class and spotting your opportunity before the window of that opportunity closes is half the battle. Like he says, cut your losses if the plan fails to execute. Also, it's a pretty good idea to quickly change disguises after you flee from someone who's spotted you, once you find some cover. I tend to automatically disguise as the last person I've killed to avoid being spotted as a dupe. There are those who pay attention to who's dead and whatnot though so even then it's not a guaranteed strat. You can sap a level 1 SG from the front without much trouble after taking out the engi as well...any higher than that and they push you back real fast. Don't underestimate the Magnum either, many a time has that saved my life after a failed attack and the enemy moves out of range or even fleeing from a p'oed pyro.

Happy tactical espionage'ing!

I love that Swamp Women catfightin and Magnum PI are related videos to this.

Hey! I just started a new playlist on tv themes. I'd like to add your Magnum pi, but it's dead. I left an embed on the comment thread that I'll edit off later.

"I was more impressed with Batman & Robin Mr. Freeze thingy, and that was what.. 1999? I've ridden Dragster, and it's about as exciting as any of those generic, at any amusement park type rides. Like a power tower, or whatever. The best rides are Raptor, Magnum XL, Beast, Millennium Force"

Nonsense. I've been on those coasters many many times and they're totally different. No comparison.

"And no, they ripped off a ride designed for Cedar Point to be the fastest/tallest. And just modified it 2 yrs later to be a clone to steal title of fastest/tallest. It clearly is an attempt buy some "coolness" to another park."

Whatever. Knowing that there's a similar coaster somewhere else doesn't make this one feel any less awesome.

I was more impressed with Batman & Robin Mr. Freeze thingy, and that was what.. 1999? I've ridden Dragster, and it's about as exciting as any of those generic, at any amusement park type rides. Like a power tower, or whatever. The best rides are Raptor, Magnum XL, Beast, Millennium Force

And no, they ripped off a ride designed for Cedar Point to be the fastest/tallest. And just modified it 2 yrs later to be a clone to steal title of fastest/tallest. It clearly is an attempt buy some "coolness" to another park.

Gotta reach out and *save some classic television.

And Magnum was a Tigers fan, damn right!

Hey Mr Scientist, riddle me this.

The Nature of Hydrogen:

* Hydrogen is less flammable than gasoline. The self-ignition temperature of hydrogen is 550 degrees Celsius. Gasoline varies from 228-501 degrees Celsius, depending on the grade. When the Hindenburg burned, it took some time before the hydrogen bags were ignited.
* Hydrogen disperses quickly. Being the lightest element (fifteen times lighter than air), hydrogen rises and spreads out quickly in the atmosphere. So when a leak occurs, the hydrogen gas quickly becomes so sparse that it cannot burn. Even when ignited, hydrogen burns upward, and is quickly consumed, as shown in the Hindenburg picture. By contrast, materials such as gasoline and diesel vapors, as well as natural gas are heavier than air, and will not disperse, remaining a flammable threat for much longer.
* Hydrogen is non-toxic. Hydrogen is a non-toxic, naturally-occurring element in the atmosphere. By comparison, all petroleum fuels are asphyxiants, and are poisonous to humans.
* Hydrogen combustion produces only water. When pure hydrogen is burned in pure oxygen, only pure water is produced. Granted, that’s an ideal scenario, which doesn’t occur outside of laboratories and the space shuttle. In any case, when a hydrogen engine burns, it actually cleans the ambient air, by completing combustion of the unburned hydrocarbons that surround us. Compared with the toxic compounds (carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and hydrogen sulfide) produced by petroleum fuels, the products of hydrogen burning are much safer.
* Hydrogen can be stored safely. Tanks currently in use for storage of compressed hydrogen (similar to compressed natural gas tanks) have survived intact through testing by various means, including being shot with six rounds from a .357 magnum, detonating a stick of dynamite next to them, and subjecting them to fire at 1500 degrees F. Clearly, a typical gasoline tank wouldn’t survive a single one of these tests.