champu

Came here to say this.

Most audio noise people are familiar with is actually pink. Truly flat white noise is extremely irritating if you have good high-frequency hearing.

Deterrence. Finality. Justice. Safety of others in society and those in prison. I don't think we actually execute enough people anymore and we certainly don't do it summarily enough anymore for it to be considered much of a deterrence. The probability that you actually get the death penalty if you get caught is smaller than the probability of getting caught in the first place, and criminals generally don't plan on getting caught. The biggest reason we execute people is because it's a tradition. At a time when huge prisons weren't really a workable idea and people generally didn't have the spare time to posthumously exonerate people, I'm sure it seemed like a solution without much of a downside. Plus, it gave people something to come watch, and it probably made victims and/or victims families feel better briefly. /edited to add: And here's a thought... how do you think it would feel to be one of the victim's family members, they convict someone, sentence to death, you witness the execution, and then years later evidence turns up that the person you watched executed couldn't have done it.

Plane changes require less energy the higher you conduct them which means you can use higher efficiency thrusters (that have lower overall output) and still get the job done in a reasonable amount of time. Not sure what they mean by "remove the inclination as the orbit is lowered" though. You lower the apoapsis with burns at periapsis and you remove the inclination with burns at apoapsis. You'd want to do the latter prior to the former, not at the same time.

Coming to an agreement that "a reasonable limit might exist somewhere" isn't very helpful when the bulk of people drafting the laws have no concern over what is reasonable and are only concerned with what they can get away with, often driven by fanciful imaginations and the movies. And they have a body of voters (yourself included) that believe there is no negative impact to them personally, and so regardless of what the politicians put out there, they can count on these peoples' support. Would you really be wiling to hear out a pro-lifer if he came along and said, "Well, we agree you can't just stab your offspring in the head a week after it's born, so we agree there's a limit on murdering babies?" Firearms and ammo are not psuedophedrine where you have this void between how much someone could potentially use in a reasonable quantity and how much you need to cook into meth, leaving a nice grassy meadow of compromise to make limits that we can all agree on. So most every line drawn in the gun control debate doesn't end up being a reasonable compromise like you imagine it to be, it ends up being a shot in the dark that doesn't even have a chance to accomplish it's stated purpose. Someone in the actual California legislature (not just some random person on the internet, people representing you in government) recently tried to ban the sale of more than 6000 rounds of ammunition to an individual per week. In a recent discussion of magazine capacity I posted a video demonstration created by a Sheriff's department showing how magazine limits don't really slow people down and you responded (forgive my paraphrasing), "Nah! whatever, it matters. Imagine what might have happened if John Hinckley had more rounds."

The media outlets mentioned that haven't carried this particular part of the story have likely chosen not to because they feel they have nothing to gain / no more significant point to make by reporting that the political execution ordered by Jung Un of his uncle was specifically objicere bestiis. The media outlets that have carried this particular part of the story have likely chosen to do so because they have nothing to lose / no less significant point to make if it turns out Jung Un ordered his uncle in front of a firing squad for political reasons. In either case I'm inclined to agree.

Mossburg isn't too shabby. Depends on whether you want to go duck hunting or take a door off its hinges in a hurry.

You would certainly be considered "totally fine" if compared to a person who was out all night drinking, but you're not "totally fine" compared to someone who did neither. I've seen the "hangover" from both, the duration is on the same order of time even if the symptoms are quite a bit different. There's a reason it's called "dope." But I think your point was that high or drunk you're impaired, that's fine, but BAC tests will show you're sober even when you're hung over and useless while UA tests will show you've got drugs in your system weeks after you've recovered. I agree and have lamented this here before. This will only get more contentious as more states legalize pot but still go after people for pot DUIs. And there is, as they say, the rub. This is basically an "interstate commerce" clause.

I'm divided on the issue to be honest. Any sort of welfare provision should be assumed from day one to be a temporary arrangement. If the program is to remain sustainable in the long-term, the administrators have a duty to see that the arrangements are as temporary as possible. Insofar as drug usage (illegal or otherwise) inhibits the weening/recovery process, which I'll concede as moot, it makes sense to prohibit it as a condition.

All drones are Reapers and the only type of skydiving accident that ever happens is when the parachute fails to open.

Highly resonate with this one. The fact that people are asked the open ended question of trying to improve the world and what theysome come up with is, "get rid of " is very sad. Edited to clarify that this doesn't apply to all the comments here.

I started writing a longer reply but I just canned it and decided instead to say I think it would improve the world if people on the whole were more likely to laugh at things that happen and things they read and less likely to get angry or self-righteous about them.

Trying to negatively correlate police killed by gunfire with the number of firearms in circulation is a little silly. At best it shows that more guns doesn't necessarily cause more police officer deaths. But that aside, this statistic presented by itself can't be assumed to be good news. It's more difficult to trend people shot and killed by police

If the credit card companies stick the merchants with the fraudulent charges (their first line of attack) thaen it ends up on the merchants' books and their prices will go up to account for the shrinkage.

I think it's all the calls to action like "so and so should be sued..." and groups constantly bringing things to the polls like CA Prop 8 that make it very difficult to see differences of opinion as simply that. It's very difficult to hear someone speak ill of a group of people or present an objectionable viewpoint without imagining them standing behind a voting curtain and using the government to impose ill or their objectionable viewpoint on others as well. I'm happy to debate other people's opinions on the sources of problems and eventually agree to disagree, but when it ends codified in law it is more than disagreeing.

Concrete Rebound Hammer: The Freshmaker.

State and local laws do not concern you when using Concrete Rebound Hammer.

Of course it is. Robertson expressed his opinion in a magazine interview. rolls- wait, let me take a few steps back and get a running start... ROLLSEYES

You have to aim them too... that step is important. Look, keeping people from snapping and doing things like this, as a goal in itself, is not something that people are going to get in your way over. Of course nobody wants these incidents to happen. But even the most defensible of suggestions like, "don't allow firearms sales to people who are mentally ill" requires an improved mental health system that people can get into and get help from before they do something like this in order to function. And, if the system ends up being any good, it can help prevent violence/suicides by other means as well and we can stop having these "well they could just make a bomb" arguments. And don't sell yourself short by saying, "well I don't have an answer, but there's some smart experts and law makers out there and the set of gun laws that are really gonna make a difference are right around the corner." It's really not the case. If you see it as a difficult problem it's because it is, and just because someone has come up with some proposed legislation, it doesn't mean they're smarter than you or that they've worked longer and harder on the problem than you have. Every year brings another volley of crap proving again and again that people are willing to try anything if it doesn't affect them negatively. All I really ask is that people consider the attack vector of proposed gun laws critically rather than simply, "If I can imagine a way that this might help, then it's worth writing into law."

I don't always rebound when hammering concrete, but when I do, I prefer Concrete Rebound Hammer. Danger, Concrete Rebound Hammer, danger! The best part of waking up is Concrete Rebound Hammer.

http://sd22.senate.ca.gov/news/2013-12-17-press-release-senator-de-leon-calls-banning-%E2%80%9Cghost-guns%E2%80%9D-proposal-targets-weaknesses Translation: "This isn't actually a problem or caused any problems that we're aware of." Translation: "This law will require people to come to us to ask for our permission to do something they are capable of doing on their own in such a way that we have no way to know they are doing it, because if we don't want them to do it, and they have to ask us if they can, then we can stop them. Right now they don't ask because they don't have to." Translation: "This is any proposed gun legislation ever. Also, we probably wrote it."

Well, if nothing else this thread went undetected for almost four years.

Let's see, 1. Limit magazine capacity to 15 rounds. The shooter had a pump-action shotgun and alcohol bombs. No difference in outcome. 2. Require a background check. The shooter was a good student who enjoyed debate and had some popularity in school. Probably, he took the shotgun from his father, anyway. No difference in outcome. 3. Require gun applicants to pay for the background check mentioned above. No difference in outcome. This same tragedy, 20 years in the future, would have happened exactly the same way. Re #2: According to reports he bought the shotgun himself not too long ago. Not a whole lot of people between 18-25 in suburbia are going to have criminal backgrounds that prevent them from buying a firearm. I'd guess even fewer are going to have been adjudicated as mentally ill. Ability to buy a firearm or not this kid went without needed mental counciling as res ipsa loquitur. The outcome here (as always) was more related to purpose and conviction or lack thereof from the perpetrator and the reaction of everyone else than to what weapons he brought with him and whether any of them had a shoulder thing that goes up.

It's kinda like that as both situations create a fine line that authorities have a lot more experience tip-toeing along than do would be Johns and terrorists. See my thoughts on the issue as well as nerdgirl's tempering/clarification with which I agree.

The photos make her look about 1000x more graceful than the video.