metalslug

It's often an inevitable thing, you are familiar with the tactical purpose of suppressing fire ? Is this how you debate? By stretching the calibers to either extreme and suggest that I was advocating either one? At least be pragmatic. The concept of suppressing fire has been around since the bow and arrow, and quite possibly even before that. Just to clarify; Do you believe that it is both practical and possible for a modern army to field a company of marksmen with sniper rifles to mount a ground assault where infantry with M16s and SAW's would fail ? If so, then you should discuss your thesis with POTUS. A vacancy has recently opened in the Afghanistan command. You might just get the nod.

Perhaps, but they might know a little about military logistics. The weight of the ammunition and the weapon used to fire it is a factor in unit movement range and ammunition supply. Worth it for you? I'll concede that. It's a less easy decision to enforce that on entire batallions, and factor in the cascading effect of the logistics that would change. "Dont worry guys, we can rise and advance. They only got a SAW, it won't be so bad if it hits you..." In the role of "suppressing fire"; few people will doubt that an M60 is more deadly than a M249 when it hits a target, but it's also more than possible that an LMG chambered for the 5.56 is still keeping enemy heads down after an M60 has spent it's last round.

What does "estate" refer to in this context? Is it limited to property only or the entire monetary value (including trust accounts) of everything inherited? If you inherit property only and no money to pay the resulting tax, then what happens? Do you get nothing? ...or do you get the property with a condition that you sell off some/all of it to cover the taxes? How did this 'cost' the treasury? Did they have to pay something out? ...or were they just denied their second slice of the pie? (since they almost certainly got their first slice when the land was originally purchased)

I'm with quade on this one, from his reply in a related thread on this topic:

This World Cup has turned out like World War 2. The French surrendered early, the Italians are in retreat, the USA arrived at the last minute and the British are left to fight the Germans !

This World Cup has turned out like World War 2. The French surrendered early, the Italians are in retreat, the USA arrived at the last minute and the British are left to fight the Germans !

Are you implying that moderator comments to "cut it out" are directed more frequently towards conservatives than libs ? That's similar to dreamdancer's argument that criminal convictions occur more frequently against people of color. It must be the "system" I tell ya, not the offender.

While in Cancun, I noticed a string of international hotels along prime beachfront property, including the Hilton. Who owns those "properties" ? How is that handled relative to this law ? Anyone know ?

That is the second bizarre reply you have made on this thread. I'm not fluent in turtle and it's too early in the day to drink Jager, so I'm a little slow on the uptake here: Are you saying that SA has not reformed enough for your liking ? ...or are you saying that the reforms have made things worse off than they used to be ? ...or something else ? Depending on which aspects of the country you look at, I think a bit of both is true. ...but what issues are you driving at ?

A lot of freely available items can be assembled into a bomb, and yet you cannot walk into Radio Shack and ask for a ready assembled bomb over the counter. If you want to create you own picks from bicycle parts then good for you I say, but I maintain that there should be deterrents on the casual over-the-counter purchase of professionally made, machine crafted picks. Again I accept that property security is a non-issue for many Americans, so forgive my opinion on this. You may well counter my argument by suggesting that if the number of freely available lockpicks makes me feel insecure, then I should use better locks or biometric security. In many places here we're already living like that. It's not much fun. Pray it never happens in your area.

No matter what your reason for owning a firearm (which I fully support), everyone needs a permit, correct ? ...and there's an age requirement when purchasing alcohol, correct ? I see some comments drawing parallels between the lockpick issue and owning firearms or buying beer. IMO, the connection to those two issues is only relevant if you agree that some sort of limiting legislation should apply to owning lockpicks. It seems to be generally agreed in this forum that most homes, including locked doors, present no significant barrier to anyone. So, if you are in the habbit of locking your home or placing locks on anything, then why bother ? Does the legal definition change if an unwelcome stranger entered your home through an unlocked door vs entering through a window or a picked locked ? (Trespassing vs B&E perhaps ?) Is an insurance claim any easier if your items were stolen from a locked home/container vs. an unlocked one ? To clarify again; If locks present no real physical barrier, since everyone should be allowed to freely own lockpicks, then is it fair to say that locks are a mere legal formality when defining the context of a theft or security breach, if that should occur ?

Are you comfortable knowing that pretty much anyone else can get the necessary tools to pick their way through your door ? (..assuming lockpicks are legal there, of course). I accept that you're in the U.S. and some citizens there sleep with their doors open, but that kinda thing freaks us out over here.

That's certainly the law over here, and it makes sense to me. Maybe its because our crime rate warrants such a law. Certified locksmiths carry a licence/certificate that allows them to own professionally made lockpicks. They show these credentials when buying lockpicks and if you're caught with such a set and cannot provide locksmith credentials, you can get arrested.

TMNT is the obvious answer here. Something that paranormal has an automatic intimidation effect. If you were the punk getting ready to work someone over and 4 olive "aliens" (coz they don't look like any turtles that I've seen) appeared around your intended victim, that would be some freaky shit right there.

As other posters have stated in similar threads; The term is "equal opportunity", not "equal outcome". The moon won't come to you. You need to go get it.

Here's mine. ..from a previous thread on this.

If that's true, then the article linked below may be of interest.

The irony is not lost on me. Possibly of equal irony is that some 16 years later we still have these identity documents, and issue more of them than ever before because now every legal citizen is entitled to have one. It protects many of our citizens from the thousands of illegal immigrants crossing the borders from other parts of Africa to compete for jobs and state resources. "Papers please" can still be useful when it starts to serve one's own interests. Evidently even our new government agrees. Arbitrary requests by authorities is unconstitutional here too. I never stated anything to the contrary.

Surely there are times when "Papers please" is appropriate or even necessary ? In my country (and probably several others) we've had national identity documents for as long as I've been alive. We use them for banking transactions at a teller, proof of age at certain locations and events, as a precursor to applications for other forms of identity (passport, driver's licence,...) and pretty much any kind of legal contract. In my opinion, they solve more problems than they create. We have never been required to carry them on our person for random inspection by any authority, despite having an illegal immigration problem that is arguably worse than the U.S. Of course, I'm not in the U.S, so you may say "apples and oranges", but I think its premature to assume this new idea will lead to any significant level of totalitarianism.

With respect to the genius of your system, I'm pretty sure your assembly line is programmed to identify a limited number of inventory parts corresponding to very exact dimensions and exclude or reject those it cannot identify. Could I drop a $10 bill, a broken key or even a valid inventory part scaled to half the correct size onto your assembly line and receive a voice or display telling me exactly what it is ? This was more my direction regarding the superiority of (adult) humans in object recognition. The military is already a socialist system. Unemployment doesn't seem to be a problem there. ...unless the military is already retrenching pilots? Are they? An exclusively automated pilot would surely be uncommon on any aircraft that carries personnel. The reasons for having human pilots are at least partly ethical too; value of human life vs. the reliability of A.I. and I have my doubts that will change anytime soon. Exactly right. I could swap the ketchup and mustard bottles, swap the onion tray and the cheese tray, replace the meat with wooden discs of similar dimensions. Our burger flipping droid would not independently resolve these dilemmas as easily as the human before it.

Enough technology ? Perhaps yes, but I think we're still a few decades away from "enough". One of the bigger shortcomings of robots and artificial intelligence is object recognition and, in some cases, cost. A human can almost instantly recognise a metal doorkey. If the key were cut in half to form 2 pieces, a human would not take long to identify the change. A computer would require complex measurement scanning to identify a whole key and would probably never correctly identify a broken one. This example makes humans superior for quite a while still in almost all the occupations that we see around us every day. "Burger flipping" is the classic menial job, and yet how long until we trust a robot to make us a burger with the correct garnish options such as "hold the onion"? How long until a robot like that costs less than minimum wage to produce and maintain? Aviation autopilot systems are very advanced, and yet human pilots still occupy the cockpit and collect a paycheck even if they never touch the controls for the entire flight. Automated systems can fail, power can be interrupted. Most will require backup and maintenance. The human factor will be necessary for quite a while still.

"We are the Borg. Negotiation is irrelevant..."

I can explain so much more than you can understand. It's obvious to everyone else here where the failure lies. Your comments in this forum are a disservice to the very groups and ideals that you claim to support.

Are you being deliberately obtuse ? ...or did you not understand my previous post ? Most candidates of color were inadequate compared to their claimed qualifications and experience, as submitted in their resumes. Half of these interviews were conducted by a black manager, a good colleague of mine, and yielded the same trend. I deliberately withheld that fact in my previous post just to see how long it would take you to jump to the conclusion that a "white vs black" interview is automatically biased.

Does it matter ? Would the questions sound any different when spoken by people of different ethnicity ? Is it a voice or accent attribute that concerns you ? Dude, your own brand of racism is showing.