Toxn

We are talking about terrible music, correct?

I've wondered as well. I got to practice a bit on a farm once, and the best I could figure was that the maximum range is fairly constant so you fire once troops come into that zone and simply angle down as they move in. Then you only need to get good at estimating a single range. I remember reading accounts of prepared defences that included white stones as range markers, but can't recall any specific examples.

Now wait for it to become a breed standard and for the BLOOD PURITY to begin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_whites We apparently still barred them from golf clubs...

Elastic hysteresis happens in bows too.

Having watched a newer video, it seems as if his basic thesis (historical archery was more naturalistic, used a variety of draws/arrow holds and used the quiver mainly for long-term storage) is pretty uncontroversial. It is also known that a snatched draw and release gets you a bit more energy per unit of draw length. I still think he short draws, though.

I haz hard copy

Here's a more comprehensive answer: Like a lot of things, the genetics you learn in school is radically simplified in order to get across a core concept rather than the whole complex truth. In the case of mendelian genetics, the core concept is that genes are transmitted (mostly) in pairs, consist (mostly) of individual functional units and that this can lead to interesting and non-intuitive things. Note that I will talk about genes here, rather than alleles. This is mainly a convenience thing, but also reflects the fact that we now have the technology to drill down to the actual functional units of heredity rather than the hypothetical units whose existence we inferred by clever induction. Having established that genetics is Mendelian, we now discover that traits are almost never controlled by a single gene. Instead, multiple genes will have varying effects on any given trait. Here, the work of Fisher and his contemporaries demonstrated that genes corresponding to traits will invariably form a normal distribution, with many small-effect genes and a few large-effect genes acting on any given trait. This avenue of enquiry then leads of into the thickets of quantitative genetics, upon which the vast majority of our plant and animal breeding is based. Heading back into fundamentals, another important issue to keep in mind is the fact that strongly selected genes tend to get fixed in the population. This is intuitively obvious, as mutations affecting vital processes are pretty likely to be lethal and thus won't get passed on. By corollary, then, only traits that are not strongly selected will vary in a population. Here, the neutral gene hypothesis and genetic drift become important concepts in understanding variation and fixation of traits in populations. Finally, as I mentioned in my previous post; it should be borne in mind that genes code for proteins or control protein coding in some fashion. There is an actual product being produced, with effects upon the cell and organism. Getting two dud copies of, say, tyrosinase will thus have a cascade of effects on the organism, the end product of which is the trait known as albinism. Return the product (in the form of a functioning copy of tyrosinase) and the cascade doesn't happen.

Right next to the tamarillo? This book should be required reading for any discussions about food plants.

A good comparison might be modern western fast-draw and trick shot experts: impressive, but not useful in any remotely realistic situation. My take is that this guy is using a very light-weight (and ugly) bow, combined with a very short draw. Basically he's optimised speed shooting over putting any actual energy into the arrows.

The zulu had a similar approach: before you could even go home you had to go to a sangoma and cleanse yourself of the spirits of those people you had killed. I think having an entry and exit ceremony to sharply separate civilian and military life is a great idea. Especially when said ceremony is essentially about resetting the status quo and obtaining supernatural forgiveness for your crimes.

Neopup PAW-20 now the universal standard rifle for the Western hemisphere.

But me want make boolit be big. 15-20mm case diameter or bust.

I forgot the biggest issue with this idea: ammunition. Specifically, I suspect that it might be challenging to shit out a few billion saboted projectiles with the required tolerences for accurate shooting. Then again, at 15mm we're well within the range of modern hmg/autocannon ammo where that is a solved problem.

SPIW used existing small-bore barrels if I remember correctly. Honestly, I think the main issues with a big-bore sabot slinger (beyond a conservative industry and bureaucratic inertia) are sabots as secondary projectiles and the small magazine sizes you'd end up with.

Speaking of which, wouldn't the best approach be to do the tank thing and use a large bore (15mm+) to fling sabots? I'd think that the option of being able to fit pretty much any boolit, moving at pretty much any velocity, down the same barrel would be pretty attractive. Not to mention the fact that you can now use stubby, straight-walled cases.

I always joke that tradition is something we've done forever since yesterday, but it is striking how quickly it all happens. Care to wager how long it will take until we see the preatorian guard emerge?

I'm tempted to say 'not particularly well' - pure examples of single-gene dominant traits being rather rare. The bit that your teacher left out is that recessive alleles are generally non-functional: a copy of the gene where something got screwed up and doesn't work anymore. As you inherit your genes mostly in pairs, the result of having two recessives is that the organism gets to play a rousing game of 'do I need that gene to live'. In the other hand, one working copy does for two. It is obviously a bit more complex than this, but the rest can bide until I'm in front of a keyboard again.

Part of the problem is where an army at war for over a decade still operates on a peace-time mentality. Fallows has been having multiple follow-ups to the post I linked above, and stuff like this makes me think that your military is, well, dysfunctional.

FTFY

Not quite on topic (also: reddit) but I found this an interesting approach: https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtectAndServe/comments/2qtkn1/police_officer_toby_bryer_educates_cop_hater/cn9pg9n

Some slightly more specific topics to mull over: - The cult of supersoldier and the seemingly endless fascination people have for the Spartans (ugh) and the SS (double ugh). - The public obsession with technology and individual heroism over logistics and clear-headed political goals - War as an extension of geopolitics versus war as a function of internal politics. - Public attitudes towards soldiers and the interaction between those views and policy (lifers vs. conscripts vs. volunteers; rum, buggery and the lash and so on).

This thread is for the discussion of military culture and society: its causes, interactions and pathologies (or perhaps not). This is obviously a broad topic, as military culture is different in each country. Even so, specific examples and analysis of general trends may prove illuminating. What has your experience of the armed forces been, as an insider or outsider? How do you see the role of the armed forces, and how does your society? What is right or wrong about how the military works (or doesn't, or does but not in the way you want it to)?

From my understanding of US patent law (keep in mind the caveats stated in the OP), the rights always vest with the inventor unless ownership has been assigned. However, the law differs somewhat by state (because of your ridiculous and stupid approach to government ) and there are things like the 'hired to invent' doctrine to consider. Here are the crucial issues you have to sort out to determine ownership: did you have a contract with this company ceding your rights? Did the founding documents of the company, which you presumably signed on to, include a clause where you would have ceded your rights? Finally, was there an express understanding between the founders/owners of the company that you were taken on board specifically in order to provide your design expertise in lieu of capital? Without knowing these specifics the most I can say is that, as the inventor, it should have been clear to you that you were giving your ownership away during the process of filing. If not, then there may be a good case that your former company has overreached in their claims of ownership. Lastly, and this is VERY important, I would recommend talking to an IP lawyer (not a generic one) about this. Don't make any public statements, don't call up your former partners and don't write any letters until you know what you're dealing with and have legal council on hand. Once you have done so, you will also have a better grasp of what legal avenues to explore and what measures can be taken to protect your interests. Assuming that you take this route, you should also try to gather as much material (including hard copies of electronic communications, copies of design documents, minutes of meetings and so on) as possible from your end in preparation. Again, though, don't contact people or make demands until you have council.

It depends on the IP. Are we talking about patents, copyright, trademark or design?