Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without meri
Much the way a Tesla is a descendant of the hand crank auto-wagon.
But that isn't what "based on" means. It means the designers started with something else and modified it. The M4 is based on the M16 because they started with the M16 design and made changes to it to improve it. It is not based on the Colt 1911 because that isn't what they started from when creating the M4. Your definition would make the term useless.
Like in the military, in hunting a skilled rifleman abides by one shot one kill.
Snipers, yes. Otherwise not so much. In Iraq and Afghanistan it's more like 250,000 shots, one kill. Thus the desire for smaller, lighter ammunition.
Yes, but it doesn't matter. The fact that there are exceptions doesn't mean that there must therefore be other exceptions. There are exceptions, but this isn't one of them, and there's no reason to think it ever will be.
And before bolt lock we had muzzle load. What’s your point on that?
That those could not be the ancestors of the AR15. I was just trying to figure out what weapons you were referring to and it's difficult when all you use is years.
Both bolt action rifles, totally unrelated to the AR15.
But, in usage, how is an m16 any different in hunting from a k305, or the m14? or an M1 Garand From the 1909 from the 1903 from… Except the smaller round… does less impact damage.
Right. It's poorly suited for hunting deer or anything larger.
They talk of m4s and AR15s. Both descendants of the 1919. A dear rifle.
What 1919 are you talking about? I only see reference to a machine gun. The M-4 is based on the M-16, which is the military version of the original Armalite AR-15, which is descended from the AR-10. Wikipedia seems to indicate this was a clean sheet design, so I'm not sure where the "1919" (whatever that is) comes in. Finally, the M-4 and AR15 are not deer rifles (though they may be dear rifles). They are military rifles whose purpose is to kill people.
I mean seriously, Twitter is one company that really provides one service, how do you split the baby?
It doesn't matter; when he says "break up Twitter" what his supporters hear is "I hate liberals" and they love it. They're not thinking, "ah yes, this is a well thought out plan that will accurately and constitutionally address my specific concerns on this matter without undue unintended consequences".
I am often shocked (well not really) by the mental gymnastics that on the 1 hand portray the "bad people" as masters of time & space able to do everything but at the same time claims they are bumbling idiots.
It's a key component of fascist ideology that The Other is simultaneously incompetent and inferior, and incredibly dangerous.
OK, this is the closest I can find to any mention of bird or bat populations being "wiped out" by wind turbines:
"Habitat loss is the leading cause of species extinction... wind and oil and gas are comparable per unit area but that wind energy would require almost twice the footprint of oil and gas per unit energy produced"
So there's the emotional "damn rat bastard scalpers" reaction, which I understand. Other than that, why is "I don't have a concert ticket because I can't afford the money" worse than "I don't have a concert ticket because I don't have the time to camp out for three days to buy one"? Maybe some tickets should be sold at a low price on a lottery basis, so it becomes "I don't have a concert ticket because I didn't get lucky this time."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We are never going to be able to
It’s about addressing scalpers, and it’s being put forward at a time when scarcity is making scarce products even more scarce in stores.
Yes, but my point is that "addressing" scalpers without addressing the underlying causes of the problem is 1) not going to really solve anything except making customers feel a little better about not having a PS5 and 2) likely to have unintended side effects. So this doesn't strike me as a particularly valuable legislative effort.
All the scalpers do is artificially reduce the supply
How are they reducing supply? Don't they offer for sale all the units that they buy?
because without them the number of people who actually got the product they wanted for themselves would be higher
That isn't what "supply" means...
Which is a big problem when that's not possible
Absolutely my point! The only reason this is even happening is that the real solution is not possible right now.
through the nature of an event
Event tickets are a much trickier issue. In many cases there is no supply that could satisfy the demand. Taylor Swift could play a show in NYC every single night for a year, and I would guess sell every single ticket. Artists don't want to sell tickets only to the wealthy, so what to do? I think it was Kid Rock that had some inventive solutions to the problem, but I forget the details.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We are never going to be able to address
You mean this?
Making scalpers’ “jobs” harder by instituting regulations and enforcement that curbs the ability for bots to be used in this way will enable more consumers to get the products they want at those standard going prices.
The solution with the caveat of:
Will there still be shortages at the stores? Yes.
So that's not a solution, it's changing to a different problem. Again, if you find that to be a preferable problem to have, I have no issue with that, but let's not pretend there would be no problem.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without meri
But that isn't what "based on" means. It means the designers started with something else and modified it. The M4 is based on the M16 because they started with the M16 design and made changes to it to improve it. It is not based on the Colt 1911 because that isn't what they started from when creating the M4. Your definition would make the term useless.
Snipers, yes. Otherwise not so much. In Iraq and Afghanistan it's more like 250,000 shots, one kill. Thus the desire for smaller, lighter ammunition.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/us-forced-to-import-bullets-from-isra el-as-troops-use-250000-for-every-rebel-killed-28580666.html
On the post: Protecting Judges Is Important, But They Don't Get To Throw Out The 1st Amendment For Themselves
Re:
Yes, but it doesn't matter. The fact that there are exceptions doesn't mean that there must therefore be other exceptions. There are exceptions, but this isn't one of them, and there's no reason to think it ever will be.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Totally without merit
Mostly??
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
That those could not be the ancestors of the AR15. I was just trying to figure out what weapons you were referring to and it's difficult when all you use is years.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
This?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_Mauser_Model_1909
This?
https://en.wikipedia.o rg/wiki/M1903_Springfield
Both bolt action rifles, totally unrelated to the AR15.
Right. It's poorly suited for hunting deer or anything larger.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
Here are several fully automatic rifles, some of which have been used by the US military:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_rifle
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
What 1919 are you talking about? I only see reference to a machine gun. The M-4 is based on the M-16, which is the military version of the original Armalite AR-15, which is descended from the AR-10. Wikipedia seems to indicate this was a clean sheet design, so I'm not sure where the "1919" (whatever that is) comes in. Finally, the M-4 and AR15 are not deer rifles (though they may be dear rifles). They are military rifles whose purpose is to kill people.
On the post: Josh Hawley Thinks We Should Break Up Twitter Because He Doesn't Like The Company's Editorial Choices
Re: Re: Au contrairian
I just didn't want any passersby to see that crap go unchallenged. Maybe I should have said something about the racism too...
Shut up.
There we go.
On the post: Josh Hawley Thinks We Should Break Up Twitter Because He Doesn't Like The Company's Editorial Choices
Re: Au contraire
So very wrong.
On the post: Josh Hawley Thinks We Should Break Up Twitter Because He Doesn't Like The Company's Editorial Choices
Re:
It doesn't matter; when he says "break up Twitter" what his supporters hear is "I hate liberals" and they love it. They're not thinking, "ah yes, this is a well thought out plan that will accurately and constitutionally address my specific concerns on this matter without undue unintended consequences".
On the post: Colorado Appeals Court Says A Drug Dog That Alerts On Now-Legal Weed Can't Create Probable Cause For A Search
Training
So are they going to stop training dogs to alert on marijuana?
On the post: The Bad Apples Control The Bunch: USA Today Report Details Law Enforcements Punishment Of Good Cops
Re: Re:
Probably this story:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/police-officer-wins-settlement -city-fired-him-not-shooting
On the post: The Bad Apples Control The Bunch: USA Today Report Details Law Enforcements Punishment Of Good Cops
Re: Re: Re: Re: No surprise
It's a key component of fascist ideology that The Other is simultaneously incompetent and inferior, and incredibly dangerous.
On the post: Texas Gas Companies Hit Texas Consumers With 'Whoops You Froze To Death' Surcharge
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OK, this is the closest I can find to any mention of bird or bat populations being "wiped out" by wind turbines:
"Habitat loss is the leading cause of species extinction... wind and oil and gas are comparable per unit area but that wind energy would require almost twice the footprint of oil and gas per unit energy produced"
On the post: Silly, Pandering Politicians Introduce Silly, Pandering 'Cyber Grinch' Law That Would Ban Buying Bots
Re: Re: Re: Re: We are never going to be able to address problem
Do enlighten me Toom, what have I gotten wrong? I would like to understand the issue better, and I enjoy learning about economics.
On the post: Silly, Pandering Politicians Introduce Silly, Pandering 'Cyber Grinch' Law That Would Ban Buying Bots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm disagreeing on this one...
This is clearly about holiday gifts and toys, not daily essentials. If those are being scalped too, then that's a different issue.
I have not noticed anyone saying otherwise.
On the post: Silly, Pandering Politicians Introduce Silly, Pandering 'Cyber Grinch' Law That Would Ban Buying Bots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So there's the emotional "damn rat bastard scalpers" reaction, which I understand. Other than that, why is "I don't have a concert ticket because I can't afford the money" worse than "I don't have a concert ticket because I don't have the time to camp out for three days to buy one"? Maybe some tickets should be sold at a low price on a lottery basis, so it becomes "I don't have a concert ticket because I didn't get lucky this time."
On the post: Silly, Pandering Politicians Introduce Silly, Pandering 'Cyber Grinch' Law That Would Ban Buying Bots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We are never going to be able to
Yes, but my point is that "addressing" scalpers without addressing the underlying causes of the problem is 1) not going to really solve anything except making customers feel a little better about not having a PS5 and 2) likely to have unintended side effects. So this doesn't strike me as a particularly valuable legislative effort.
On the post: Silly, Pandering Politicians Introduce Silly, Pandering 'Cyber Grinch' Law That Would Ban Buying Bots
Re: Re: Re: I'm disagreeing on this one...
How are they reducing supply? Don't they offer for sale all the units that they buy?
That isn't what "supply" means...
Absolutely my point! The only reason this is even happening is that the real solution is not possible right now.
Event tickets are a much trickier issue. In many cases there is no supply that could satisfy the demand. Taylor Swift could play a show in NYC every single night for a year, and I would guess sell every single ticket. Artists don't want to sell tickets only to the wealthy, so what to do? I think it was Kid Rock that had some inventive solutions to the problem, but I forget the details.
On the post: Silly, Pandering Politicians Introduce Silly, Pandering 'Cyber Grinch' Law That Would Ban Buying Bots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We are never going to be able to address
You mean this?
The solution with the caveat of:
So that's not a solution, it's changing to a different problem. Again, if you find that to be a preferable problem to have, I have no issue with that, but let's not pretend there would be no problem.
Next >>