@newtboy
@ChaosEngine

It seems I'm an outlier in my opinion then. I don't agree that one second after I said "no" that constitutes rape anymore than my wife grinding into me a few more times when I tell her something similar because I'm seeing cracks in the damn that are going to cause a tidal wave.

To be clearer, I'm laying out a definition argument. I don't feel rape should be defined that way. You can't interlock two sweaty bodies and reasonably expect to constantly have a hand hovering over an ejector seat button.

I'm uncertain about what exactly rape should be defined as, but, in spite of me feeling that what happened to me was an outcome I explicitly didn't want; at some point during the initial physical union of the male and female genitalia, permissions about what is suddenly okay or not okay with that intimate contact becomes EXTREMELY difficult to define. When two people seem to be working in tandem at that point, I assert that permission is intertwined and, as a result, confusing. (hence our debate)

It's because of that confusion that I'm so hesitant to assign blame for a miscalculation of affection/passion.
@newtboy I think this is where the question of intent plays a role.

That is how you fix it if you are using the old sift format. In the new sift you scroll over your name in the top header and a drop down menu with an "edit this video" button, will appear.

Your video, Here's how Trump's nuclear "button" actually works, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

is there a dead button

"How to kill music, with the click of a button"

The case against Auto Tune!

It looks fake. The Guradsman does not wear a belt, has no weapon, has no chinstrap on the bearskin, etc. etc.
By the grouping of the buttons on his tunic, he should be of the Coldstream Guard, their full uniform looks like this:
https://changing-guard.com/images/foot-guards/coldstream-sentry.jpg

Here is the playlist of live trains which you can quickly flip through with a next video button. It's quite enjoyable to use. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI7Uzng9fUY&index=1&list=TLGGBv__D_5Vt3owMjAxMjAxOA

used to be a dead video fix button, forgot the *backup replace code

Well, at least we know the dogs are as well trained as the rest of the police.

(I wish I could click the sarcasm button in good faith here.)

Remember the mayhem when the DC sniper was loose? He was only 200m away from his targets, and firing a loud gun. Imagine how much easier it would be to kill if all you had to do was upload a target profile and press a button to release some drones a mile away? And quite a bit harder to solve as well.

I lived near a SAC base during the 80s, and when the wind was blowing the right direction, I could hear the alert klaxon from the base. Then a stream of B-52s would lumber skyward, engines trailing black smoke.

More than a few times when this happened I wondered if Reagan had pushed the button and I was now 15 minutes from being vaporized.

* flash *
* sizzle *

I may have asked such a question before, but I forgot.
Is each sound mapped to a specific button, or does any button trigger the next sound in the file? That is could you play the whole thing with just one button, meaning it is just a matter of timing, or does it actually require knowing which button does what in each configuration?

Best summary of the current situation: A scared monkey on a submarine randomly pushing buttons.

Which, like he said, is funny until you realize we are all on that fucking submarine with that fucking monkey.

*quality

Hmm. I disagree with your description text, @ChaosEngine.

I've never shot something fully-automatic. I have shot an AR-15 semi-automatic, and I know where you're coming from when you say that hitting a target on full auto would be difficult, especially for a relatively untrained person (recoil control).

However, I think Vox and others are basically correct when they say that this modification (bump stock) contributed to the Las Vegas shooting being so deadly. Specifically in that sort of scenario.

The dude wasn't picking targets and sniping, going for accuracy. He picked an ideal shooting location (elevation with clear LOS) and sprayed into a crowd. He'd have been more accurate by keeping the weapon on semi-auto and actually aiming carefully, and certainly would have gotten more hits per bullet fired, but on the other hand the rate of fire difference would have so different that people would have had more time between shots to scramble for cover, etc.

He had position, an abundance of bullets, and lots and lots of time. Given those givens, having a rate of fire approximately equal to fully-automatic means a much higher body count than if he'd have been limited to traditional semi-auto.


The NRA is being more cunning than I figured they would, and has come out in favor of banning bump stocks. I agree with you that they see that mostly as a pointless concession, and a distraction from additional / better stuff that needs to happen.

But it isn't a pointless concession. If banning fully-automatic firearms in 1986 (minus the ones grandfathered in) was the right thing to do, extending that to include bump stocks is also the right thing to do. For the same reasons.

@newtboy is correct to note that technically, a rifle with a bump stock isn't a fully-automatic "machine gun". The user's finger still pulls the trigger once for every bullet that comes out -- semi-automatic.

However, I think that the "spirit" of the distinction is that with semi-automatic firing you have to think and consciously decide to pull the trigger each time you want to shoot a bullet, whereas with fully-automatic you consciously decide when you want to start and stop shooting. By the letter of the law, weapons with bump stocks are semi-automatic. But by that definition of the "spirit" of the law, they are fully-automatic. Pull the grip/barrel forward to start shooting, pull it back to stop.

It's a pretty frequent occurrence for technology to outpace the law. The definitions of semi vs fully automatic include the word "trigger" because they didn't anticipate this kind of conversion that makes the trigger sort of one step removed from the conscious decision to fire. The law would have similar hiccups if a weapon was developed that used a button or switch to fire, rather than a traditional trigger.

When those hiccups happen, the solution is to clarify the intent of the law and expand or clarify definitions as necessary. I'm pleasantly surprised that many legislators seem willing to do that with bump stocks, and that the NRA seems like it won't stand in the way. Mission accomplished, situation resolved? No. But a step in the right direction.