It was a 30 minute hailstorm
http://allafrica.com/stories/200809070113.html

--

In Tessin/Ticino, Switzerland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticino
there has been unusual heavy rainfall on saturday, on average 200 liter/m2 (usually this amount falls in the entire month of September)
In Locarno: 240/m2

(in German)
http://www.tagblatt.ch/aktuell/schweiz/schweiz/art622,622525

Ok, im not done yet. Here are the weights:

M2 BSFV 29.9 tons
M270 MLRS 53 tons
M1 Amrams MBT 60 tons
M60 Patton MBT 60 tons
M88 Hercules Recovery Vehicle 70 tons

Heres a nifty little chart you can all look at, so you can get an idea of how big some of these tanks out there are. Notice the Bradley, Abrams, and the aforementioned M113 on the left. All the rest are non-us.

Farhad2000:
You want to talk about a weapon and it's inferiority because of it's age? The AK-47 was designed in 1947 - and it hasn't changed a bit. The AK-74 is a completely different weapon with an entirely different round (@ 5.45mm whereas the AK-47 has a 7.62mm round). Just because something is old does not make it outdated. Yes, there are better weapons being developed, like the new Heckler and Koch, but for now, we have the M16A4, which is a fine weapon.

Look at the Browning M2 .50 cal. Machine gun: It has been in service since 1921, and is a hell of a weapon, still going strong today.

Yes, the M16A1 might have done poorly in Vietnam, but our troops were still using the M14 then, so the introduction to a new weapon meant little time in training, and it might have jammed more than the M14 with equivalent cleaning, so that might have skewed reports of reliability.

Fiver2: Soldiers prefer a weapon that can actually hits the target, hence the M16. Don't tell me what soldiers want. So long as you maintain your weapon, the M16 is reliable. I know mine was.

Abducted: I'm not really sure where you were going with that.

Arsenault185: Take better care of it next time. Also, we used to have contests in the squadbays to see who could disassemble and reassemble an M16 the fastest - while blindfolded. It never really look longer than a minute and a half.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'humvee, firing, during, military, operation' to 'humvee, firing, during, military, operation, m2 50 cal, ring mount' - edited by MarineGunrock

Wow. Someone doesn't know what proper headspace and timing are.
Also, it's an M2 .50 caliber machine gun.

Who would've guessed that a pistol could fire a shotgun round? Fake.

A little more explanation: different firearms produce different sounds when fired. A M2 Browning .50 machine gun has a slower but very loud thudding sound to it, similar to a jackhammer. Pistols tend to sound like firecrackers only louder. Shotguns sound like a very loud blast, in other words the stock sound effect that's played when there is the supposed accidental discharge in this video. I don't know about you but I don't of many M1911 pistols chambered to fire a shotgun round.

That's an APC, not a tank - "M2 Bradley (Wikipedia)"

Music: I Got Levitation - 13th Floor Elevators.

And the rest of the story:

In 1962, FRC Director Paul Bikle approved a program to build a lightweight, unpowered lifting body as a prototype to flight test the wingless concept. It would look like a "flying bathtub," and was designated the M2-F1. It featured a plywood shell, built by Gus Briegleb (a sailplane builder from El Mirage, California) placed over a tubular steel frame crafted at the FRC. Construction was completed in 1963.

The success of the Flight Research Center M2-F1 program led to NASA development and construction of two heavyweight lifting bodies based on studies at the NASA Ames and Langley research centers--the M2-F2 and the HL-10, both built by the Northrop Corporation, Hawthorne, California. The Air Force also became interested in lifting body research and had a third design concept built, the X-24A, built by the Martin Company, Denver, Colorado. It was later modified into the X-24B and both configurations were flown in the joint NASA-Air Force lifting body program located at Dryden.

The X-24B design evolved from a family of potential reentry shapes, each with higher lift-to-drag ratios, proposed by the Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory.

To reduce the costs of constructing a research vehicle, the Air Force returned the X-24A to Martin for modifications that converted its bulbous shape into one resembling a "flying flatiron" -- rounded top, flat bottom, and a double-delta planform that ended in a pointed nose.

First to fly the X-24B was John A. Manke, a glide flight on August 1, 1973. He was also the pilot on the first powered mission November 15, 1973.

Among the final flights with the X-24B were two precise landings on the main concrete runway at Edwards, California, which showed that accurate unpowered reentry vehicle landings were operationally feasible. These missions were flown by Manke and Air Force Maj. Mike Love and represented the final milestone in a program that helped write the flight plan for the Space Shuttle program of today.

After launch from the B-52 "mothership" at an altitude of about 45,000 feet, the XLR-11 rocket engine was ignited and the vehicle accelerated to speeds of more than 1,100 miles per hour and to altitudes of 60,000 to 70,000 feet. After the rocket engine was shut down, the pilots began steep glides towards the Edwards runway. As the pilots entered the final leg of their approach, they increased their rate of descent to build up speed and used this energy to perform a "flare out" maneuver, which slowed their landing speed to about 200 miles per hour--the same basic approach pattern and landing speed of the Space Shuttles today.

The final powered flight with the X-24B aircraft was on September 23, 1975. The pilot was Bill Dana, and it was also the last rocket-powered flight flown at Dryden. It was also Dana who flew the last X-15 mission about seven years earlier.

Top speed reached with the X-24B was 1,164 miles per hour (Mach 1.76) by Love on October 25, 1974. The highest altitude reached was 74,100 feet, by Manke on May 22, 1975. The X-24B is on public display at the Air Force Museum, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.

Here's to you, Chaucer.

Wikipedia's summarization of "Theory"

The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.

In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

Dictionary.com's definition of "Theory"

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -ries
1 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <the theory and practice of medicine>
2 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena —see ATOMIC THEORY, CELL THEORY, GERM THEORY
3 : a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation —the·o·ret·i·cal

What a scientific theory is NOT:
Guessing
Conjecture
Speculation

Wikipedia's summarization is more than enough to get the point across, but there are those who do not accept the validity of Wikipedia as a source material. For that reason and that I don't like to just grab stuff off the internet and submit it as my own idea, I wrote this.

Intelligent Designers argue that Evolution is just a 'Theory', not a fact. This is true. The fact that beings evolve is not under debate; the process by which they evolve is the question. It has been scientifically proven that evolution occurs. As xxovercastxx rightly pointed out, new strains of influenza appear all the time. The thing is, There is no ladder from observing to fact. This is not a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. What you have is a failure to understand the terms that are used to describe evolution, as well as other theories. A fact is a data, some quantitative or qualitative expression of something that is true. A theory is a description of an idea that interprets and explains those facts.

I shall further explain via example.

In layman's terms, gravity is a physical interaction through which all masses attract each other. Gravity can be observed and tested. In fact, go ahead and test it right now. Stand up and jump. You should find that you return to the ground at a rate of acceleration roughly equal to 9.8 m/s/s. You have just proven a fact: You are attracted to the Earth upon which you rest by an attractive force we call gravity. How does that work, you might ask? Well, Issac Newton's description of gravity went something like this: “I deduced that the forces which keep the planets in their orbs must be reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the centers about which they revolve; and thereby compared the force requisite to keep the Moon in her orb with the force of gravity at the surface of the Earth; and found them answer pretty nearly.”

That means every single point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line combining the two. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses.

Thus,
F=G(m1m2/r2)
Where
F= the magnitude of the gravitational force between the two point masses
G= the gravitational constant
m1= the mass of the first point mass
m2= the mass of the second point mass
r2= the distance between the two point masses
One could plug in the numbers and actually find the magnitude of gravitational force of your jump.

What I have just described is a Theory explaining the fact that when you jumped, you returned to the Earth (It might be wise to add at this point that newton's theory was later found to be inadequate to describe more than simple interactions between masses, such as the experiment you just performed, as well as interactions at great distances, such as more than 1 or so astronomical unit. More complex interactions require The Theory of General Relativity).

It is with this relatively brief comment that I hope to clear up any confusion for further viewers. Hah, and you though YOU were long-winded, xxovercastxx! If anyone wishes to argue with me, go ahead and shoot me an e-mail at RSRegisterPass@Gmail.com, and I'll be happy to shoot you back a compilation of reasons why you're wrong. Have a nice day!

Tags changed from "shuttle,nasa, m2-f1,steve austin" to "shuttle,nasa,m2-f1,steve austin" by gold star member therealblankman.

Tags changed from "shuttle, nasa, m2-f1,flying bathtub" to "shuttle,nasa, m2-f1,steve austin" by gold star member therealblankman.

How is he making fun of Weezer? He's just doing a partial cover set to polka music.
Theo, this video seems like a hack job, unless he purposely pulled crap off of M2, VH1, and MTV. Upvote just because it's Weird Al.