all that means is you can now formally forward the extortion threat to your new overlords. somebody who is anxious at not "getting a taste" can get this bumped up to $5 billion at the drop of a hat.
this court just dotted the "i"s. somebody else will get to cross the "t"s.
commercial mixes have always been punched up. if you sit at a console and watch a slow-rise standard VU meter, even the wildest disk jockey's rants will average -3 to -5 dBv. on a waterfall display, you will see a hot, strong midrange that doesn't fall.
now imagine a "wall of sound" where the waterfall display is almost fully lit. that's complex music production, or your average commercial today. if you are going to peak-limit that stream to the average power of programming, which mostly is talk, the commercials disappear.
that's what viewers want. not what broadcasters want. certainly not what advertisers want.
and face it, those peak limiters are not installed. past few months on DirectTV channels we watch, for instance, the program owners are not really controlling audio content. it's apparent that whoever is walking past the console at the uplink will occasionally come over and crank the gain up or down from the sharp differences mid-sentence (I'm talking to you in particular, Scripps, but DTV promos suffer from the same issue.)
regulators are going to have to mandate a spec to plug into the audio limiters before there is any real progress. most of the units in use like Orbans have the capability to dump octave bands or the whole audio stream on a peak in any octave of the audio band. they are generally set up to punch that waveform monitor to a big white wall, with whatever the program director wants emphasized in a little peak.
every yahoo (pun intended) with a tin desk, a telephone, and a tie can set up a little telecom company with just a few thousand dollars for the lawyers to draw up the papers. many have. the reason is that they get wholesale rates from every other telecom company on colocation, facilities, duct access, dark fiber, provisioned carriers, and everything including access to the bathroom. it's infinitely cheaper than bending the ears (or passing "campaign contributions" wink wink) to scores of local politicians who are studiously looking over their shoulders. and it gouges the incumbent carriers greatly.
gut the sucker and burn it down, let India collect on the 6-buck value of the land. still the extortionists.
You don't seem to be following the argument.
There so very many things for which there is no evidence, that it becomes incredibly questionable for you to select just a few of them to believe in. If you believe in a god for which there is no proof, why not the Grey Men? the Invisible Pink Space Unicorn? Why not the flying spaghetti monster? Why not Russell's Teapot? Why not the dragon in my garage? Why not Harry Potter? Why not the Sasquatch? Why not Atlantis? I could go on for a very long time before I run out things that I could name that don't exist.
So how and why do you choose, with no supporting evidence, to believe in some things and not to believe in others?
There is now a
They are trying to find ways to contain the heat a bit longer, long enough to get it out of the breech on a bolt gun.
The purpose of that is to keep the rifle barrel at a lower and more stable temp longer with sustained fire, making snipers more effective because a warmer barrel puts the bullet in a different place.
It will not be long before the case and possibly the primer will be plastic. Leaving only the projectile as the last step.
No. It is not illegal to sell a gun that you made yourself.
It is illegal to make a gun with the intention of selling it, and then sell it.
If you make it, decide you want a different grip shape, sell the gun, and use the money to buy more raw materials. Totally legal.
If you are going to participate in gun control discussion, get the basic facts correct.
You may be wrong yourself. If you look at the FBI Crime Reports, you will see that there are 37 criminal firearm based homicides for every self-defense homicide by a civilian. The USA has a much higher gun death rate than other developed countries, and when you look within the USA itself, you find that Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the U.S., where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide., or put simply more guns, more crime. All of the above citations go to original or academic sources. So what could be going on? Well, firstly, the NRA attempts to stop scientists from studying gun violence. (In a similar vein, the junk-food industry tries to limit the study of the health effects of sugar.) Secondly, the NRA keeps its own datasets to do it's own "research" to reach its own conclusions, which (call me crazy), keeps the donors happy. Those would be the gun manufacturers. Most large industries do this. I'm open minded on the issue, and follow it because I have an academic interest in cognitive bubbles. If you are interested learning a different perspective on the issue, then read this. You don't have to believe a word of it; however, if you *can* read it, and accurately repeat back the arguments made, then that would indicate enough cognitive flexibility to really be informed about the issue, and be an expert. Ideologues do not have this flexibility, but want to maintain the self-concept of being an expert, which explains most of what is wrong with politics.
You are a liar. Here, let me quote:
If you look at the FBI Crime Reports, you will see that there are 37 criminal firearm based homicides for every self-defense homicide by a civilian.
Homicides are not a good measure of defensive actions. Defensive homicides are what happens when the criminal does not back off when warned, is too violent too fast for a threat backed by a gun to work, etc. The vast majority of defensive gun uses are simply displays. Like the guy up thread with the gun on his lap. The criminals were there, and may have been working themselves up to act, but left because of the gun.
Your assertion that a gun has to kill to do it's job is both myopic and factually incorrect. Heck, often a simple display indicating this victim will not go down as easy as they thought is enough to prevent the crime.
Why would you need to LIE to support your position unless your position was wrong? You sir, are a LIAR.
How many Black "youth" live in Iceland? Exactly.
Again, crappy culture. The benefit of a socialism like Iceland is that people from problematic groups are brought into a situation where it is easy and beneficial for them to grow up and become productive members of society. There is the concept of being able to move from a lower economic class into a higher one by hard work. Some call it the American dream. The ironic thing is that the U.S. have one of the most rigid class structures in the west. The movement from one class to another is rarer than in most other nations. If you want to actually live that dream you are better off living in Iceland or Norway or some other nation that doesn't treat you like a criminal just because you are poor.
It might be noteworthy that Iceland didn't import slaves by the boatload and create an antagonistic racial divide, where today the descendants of the slaves see accepting "white man's culture" -- getting educated, holding a job, raising kids in a two-parent home -- as becoming an Uncle Tom and betraying your kin.
They also don't have a president creating an antagonistic racial divide by sticking his nose in an ordinary self-defense case.
Sorry. That is illegal. You cannot transfer a gun without a serial number.
Wrong. It's illegal to manufacture them for sale without serial numbers. Likewise, there are lots of circumstances where transfers can legally occur without concern for the serial number at all. (Face to face, within the state, for example.)
And, one can put a serial number on a gun one builds from say, a shovel.
In any case, building with intention for personal use, then giving away or selling is perfectly legal, unless you are in one of the retard states.
So, when is Grandma no longer Grandma?"
You are asking the wrong question. When you know what "grandma" is, then the question of "when is it not 'grandma' ?" becomes quite obvious. You'll never get to the answer if you keep asking the wrong questions.
If you are a philosopher, you are a poor one.
Thinks it's a hoot
$10B in loot
GM still a coot
As I understand it, on a normal day (stormy days are different) the sun will heat the air closest to the ground causing it to rise and mix with the colder air above it which will create wind, thus the strongest winds should coincide with the daily temperature peak which should be sometime in the afternoon. Because the ground tends to cool off quickly after the sun goes down, the air also cools and less of it rises, and thus there is less mixing and the wind will normally be weaker at night.
In coastal areas, there will also normally be a temperature differential between the air over land and over water which will drive some wind on warm days (and potentially cold days too, I guess), amplifying the effect you would get in landlocked areas.
I'm not sure if this daily variance is sufficient to drive a noticeable trend in wind-power generation, but it could be.