Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:May I suggest (Score 1) 317

by PopeRatzo (#48209821) Attached to: No More Lee-Enfield: Canada's Rangers To Get a Tech Upgrade

What makes you believe that?

Well, the main firearm for police is the sidearm. The weight that a suppressor adds makes the gun more difficult to handle. Granted, my only experience is with the old fashioned suppressors with the rubber grommets, but I don't think the new suppressors are that much lighter. Additional weight at the muzzle of a handgun may not matter in target shooting (my forte) but it really matters in tactical situations.

When you hear the evidence that suppressors make a weapon more accurate, it's always in reference to a stationary firing position.

Also, the new types of suppressors are much less effective in quieting a weapon. Even the volume of a suppressed weapon is enough to cause hearing damage (it's the attack portion of the envelope that causes the damage as much as it is the volume).

Of course, this is not viable so long as silencers remain regulated and taxed as heavily as they currently are in US (much more so than guns themselves).

I'm pretty sure the suppressor regulations are local, not national, by the way.

If anything, local police are too eager to go to their weapon to solve a problem as it is. I'm not sure you want to encourage more of it by making gunfire quieter.

Comment: Re:May I suggest (Score 1) 317

by PopeRatzo (#48209283) Attached to: No More Lee-Enfield: Canada's Rangers To Get a Tech Upgrade

Just FYI, even a single round fired causes permanent hearing damage, which is why wearing hearing protection is required on pretty much any firing range regardless of how many people are there.

They're using silencers on the firing range? What's wrong with regular ear protectors?

It would certainly be a very good thing for police to have and use silencers consistently, in light of the fact that they do occasionally use their firearms in public, and this negatively affects the health of every single person on the scene.

Yes, we have plenty of evidence that police using firearms in public negatively affects the health of people at the scene.

Especially if you happen to be of a certain shade.

But still, both of the main types of suppressors negatively affect both control of the firearm and impact on the target, and some accuracy. Why would you want police to have less control of their firearm, less stopping power, and less accuracy?

Let's not pretend that the DoD equipment being shipped to local police forces has anything to do with improving policing or protecting people's safety.

Comment: Re:Is it open source yet? (Score 2) 91

If you want real control, it's ownCloud or no cloud I think...

I've been meaning to ask someone about this. Is OwnCloud something that someone who's kind of a moron could set up on their own server? Asking for a friend.

Maybe not a moron, I mean, I've set up Apache and a media server, and I can read instructions when I'm sober. I just worry that I'll do something wrong and end up syncing my data with some Estonian hackers by mistake.

Comment: Re:WTF, the antarctic gets FO before me? (Score 1) 70

by khayman80 (#48207951) Attached to: Fiber Optics In Antarctica Will Monitor Ice Sheet Melting

Granted, Goddard got some things wrong in the beginning, but lately he's been getting a lot more right, as even GISS has admitted. [Jane Q. Public]

Have they. Do you have a link to this admission? [Truth_Quark]

Do you really want to ask for that link? Watch what happened the last time someone asked Jane/Lonny Eachus for that link:

GISS ADMITTED GODDARD WAS RIGHT. YOU DIDN’T KNOW. YOU’RE IGNORANT OF THE FACTS. LEARN THEM. MEANTIME, GO AWAY. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Try Google, dumbshit. Unless you don’t know how. It took me all of 20 seconds. ... Why? Why should I do this for you? Would you like me to wash your balls too? Answer: no. ... The fact I WON’T wash your balls for you is not evidence that they don’t exist. The fact that YOU won’t, IS. ... Correct. To all outside observers, so far, your balls don’t exist. Why don’t you prove that they do? show us. ... Should we just ASSUME it? Or, like you, should we require that you SHOW US? ... To make an even better analogy: there is a picture of them that has been posted online by your girlfriend. ... BUT we don’t believe you really have any. Should we ask you to prove they’re yours? Every time we discuss it? [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Sorry, dude. You aren’t going to get me to wash your balls. The rest of us are looking at pictures of your girlfriend. wondering when you’re going to say “I won’t hang them out again just for you. Look it up.” [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Are you REALLY that fucking stupid? [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

I’ve insulted you because you deserve it. Arguments were made. Your inability to absorb them is not evidence. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

I guarantee something: that doesn’t make ME an asshole. I’ll leave it up to others what it does mean. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Comment: Re:Another failure of ZAW!!! (Score 1) 229

by MightyMartian (#48207511) Attached to: The Classic Control Panel In Windows May Be Gone

I don't know if it ever went as far as trying to get rid of sysadmins (Redmond has made no lack of money off of MCSEs and the like over the years), but they certain encouraged an attitude that command prompts, scripting and of the more "traditional" methods of system administration had been rendered obsolete; or rather, would be with "the next version". I have been subjected to numerous issues over the years that required me manually altering the registry, registering/re-registering/de-registering COM DLLs, screwing around in the bowels of IIS, Exchange, SQL Server, and yes, in many cases, invoking the dreaded command line. It was always alright because "In the next version, this functionality will be added!"

And now, as of 2014, Microsoft has pretty much flipped everything on its head. The GUI admin tools are all but deprecated, viewed as the lesser way to administer a Windows server, and PowerShell is proper and appropriate way.

The worst part about all of this is neither Microsoft or its legion of faithful sysadmins see any irony in this. Unix, in their view, is still some antiquated operating system with dated methodologies and philosophies (despite having commands like Move-Item to *nix's mv).

Comment: Re:PARC monument (Score 1) 114

by mbkennel (#48207311) Attached to: Xerox Alto Source Code Released To Public
| If the original Macintosh had shipped with a Smalltalk interpreter in ROM, the world would be a hugely different place.

It would have been 2x as expensive and 5x as slow, and a flop.

All the original Mac programs were exceptionally hand-optimized 68000 assembly.

On his NeXT project, Jobs had Objective-C built in, whose object model is nearly Smalltalk, at a time when C++ was the overwhelmingly dominant object-oriented language. And so NeXT had the first major commercial operating system with a serious object-oriented API---and in 1989, programming and using the NeXT was so far ahead of everybody else other than the commercially irrelevant Lisp machines.

So I don't think Jobs was as ignorant as one imagines---he surely heard from people who knew the deep details.

Comment: Re:WTF, the antarctic gets FO before me? (Score 1) 70

by KeensMustard (#48207243) Attached to: Fiber Optics In Antarctica Will Monitor Ice Sheet Melting
But again, this says that geothermal activity might contribute to mobility of the glacier, not that geothermal activity has increased over the last 100 years and is thus the cause of the west antarcitc ice shelf melting: per the GP's assertion: Is that the one that's shrinking due to geothermal effects?. The assertion you claimed was supported by scientific papers: I'll help GP a bit and show you [ a paper detailing geothermal activity as the cause of the observed melting of the west antarctic ice shelf ].

Is there a paper that meets the criteria - or were you planning to keep posting articles on glacial mobility?

PLUG IT IN!!!

Working...