Toxn

Looks like some folk have gotten a tad too used to being allowed to do whatever they want with no repercussions. Personally I blame the parents for spoiling this particular child.

I am obligated to include this. And this.

What we sometimes forget about human beings is that we're relative creatures. For example, people are far more interested in relative rather than absolute wealth. As in us, so in our institutions. Hence, it can be entirely sensible and rational to tank your own economy just to make sure that the other guy's tanks even worse. I think most of the powers in the new great game (barring, as you point out, the US) understand this.

PS - that guy in the photo is a personal hero of mine. In taking on riot police with only the world's shittiest bow and some exceedingly pretty arrows, he's basically resurrecting the glorious past in ways that your average RPG-playing, LARPing neckbeard can only dream of. Look into those resolute eyes and know that this man's ancestors are proud of him.

This post is probably going to be a bit ramble-y, but bear with me as I get to the point. It has become apparent to me, over time, that the United States has something of a strange pathology regarding violence and authority. With the recent racially-tinged unrest in Ferguson, I thought it might be time to both chat about this and offer a concrete, material, all-American solution to the problem. Firstly, there seems to be a strange (and, from what I hear, common) misunderstanding in the US and some other places about the role, effect and legitimacy of violence in bringing about social change. All too often, there seems to be an implicit understanding that protest can only be legitimate if it is non violent - with any incidence of violence during a protest being used to tar that movement generally. This, combined with a frankly disturbing cult of worship centred around law enforcement officers and members of the armed forces, results in 'seen but not heard' syndrome. The way this works is pretty interesting: if a movement uses non-violent means to protest, then it gets ignored and beaten up by the cops (who are, by virtue of their magical status in society immune from substantial criticism for doing so). If it uses violence, then the cops suddenly play nice while the media takes on the task of delegitimising the movement. Finally, if no protest occurs then nobody notices. There are, so far as I can see, only a few ways out of this trap: Be white, upper-class and non-violent. Push your agenda through using the existing state apparatus and a friendly media (who will treat a rich and pretty white woman with kid gloves 99% of the time and a handsome, well-spoken white man damn near 100%) Be white, of any class and violent. Rely on the fact that the target of your violence isn't on the right side of the media divide and that you can use existing state apparatus to push your agenda from within. Be non-white and form a massive coalition with prominent white backers and supporters. Be aware that any non-white leaders/figureheads will have their lives scrutinised ruthlessly and thus need to be saints. Also be ready to have said leaders/figureheads posthumously canonised by the very same people who would happily feed them to the dogs in the present. The above is, of course, intentionally provocative. However, what is indisputable is the fact that no movement that doesn't already have the nation substantially on its side (in as far as that phrase includes such diverse things as existing biases in media, power dynamics and politics) can achieve much in the way of change in the US if it is peaceful or directly violent. As a consequence, any movement should look to the careful cultivation of the media, a strong and continual attempt to use existing state structures to further your agenda and the ability to credibly threaten violence if it wishes to succeed. Central to all of this is to have very strong discipline and control - something which is especially hard in a surveillance state such as the US. Here is where I (finally) get to the reason why this post is in this forum. What the libertarians get right (even if it is damn near the only thing) is that being well armed suddenly makes people take you seriously. Unfortunately, the people who need to be taken seriously tend not to be well armed: weapons are expensive and weapon controls tend to push down on the undesirables more than the privileged. What people who want to affect change in their societies need, then, is a way to arm significant numbers of their members in ways that are both credible and cheap. For this (overly) simplistic solution to an intricate problem, I am going to ask my fellow forumites to do two things: 1) Debate the use of violence as part of a legitimate strategy of social change in a paradoxically docile and reasoned way, and 2) Design a weapon that can be made simply and very cheaply to provide our would-be protesters the means to march in peace while the cops stand far, far away. Having had a bash at number 1), here is my bid for number 2): For the US - with its easy access to ammunition, parts and machinery - it might be best to design a rifle of some sort. My pet solution here is an intermediate calibre weapon using a gas-delayed blowback action (basically a straight blowback with a gas tube venting to the rear of a very heavy bolt) and firing from a closed bolt. People who know more about gun design than me (a low bar to clear if ever there was one) can feel free to propose something less idiotic. Have at it, gents.

It helps that figurines and Claymation have lots of detail and so tend to hold up well. As compared to CGI, which tends to look progressively worse as time goes by...

Can we start a bad member's fiction thread? You know, for non fanfiction purposes...

TFB (read: Sturgeon) covers a modern attempt to make APCR-esque rounds (ie: very light high velocity) using pellet gun pellets. Notably, high velocity seems to improve penetration, radically improve energy deposition and deformation and partially solve the transonic instability problem that pellet guns have.

Don't forget sutface area to volume. From what I remember from tetrapod zoology, it is entirely possible to have a hella slow metabolism and be in danger of overheating once you get large enough. At that point, feathers become useful as a way of insulating yourself from external heat sources which would make the problem worse.

As opposed to Zimbabweans themselves - all the ones I've met/briefly dated have been honest, earnest, educated and hard working. Politically, its kind of sad to see the level of patience they have for shitty governance. God knows my countrymen and I would be burning things if it ever got as bad as it did there. Let alone that it seems to be happening again.

Irony: old school environmentalism is inherently conservative in outlook (this works now, if anything changes it won't work anymore) As mentioned, I prefer the idea of managed ecosystems. This includes niche filling, even where an 'invasive' organism is doing the filling. Going further, I'd argue that synthetic ecosystems are not only a good thing but also potentially better in terms of providing environmental services. I'll take working systems over doomed attempts to isolate and fix in place existing ones.

{Puts on hipster glasses} I only write original fic. But it's pretty obscure so I doubt you've heard of it. Being serious again - one of my former lab mates wrote a novel: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00LA6DPCI?ie=UTF8&redirectFromSS=1&pc_redir=T1&noEncodingTag=1&robot_redir=1

http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Chakat

Cue the lumpers v splitters debate... On a more serious note, I want to thank all the people participating for not making me want to burn the thread down. Know that, when it comes to threads on phylogeny or dinosaurs, this is about the highest praise I can give. Beer and a medal for all of you.

Part of the problem is that environmental and medical issues are dealt with using the precautionary principle. Which is fine (if a bit odd considering all the potentially disastrous things we don't deal with that way) but leaves things wide open to obstruction based on the fact that you can never conclusively prove a negative. A good example here is the controversy around bt maize and monarch butterflies: it was claimed that dusting by pollen from these GM crops would kill off monarch caterpillars. Cue shitstorm aided by media dutifully giving 'both sides' air time, followed by a decade of exhaustive studies. Once the studies are complete, scientists are happy that there is an insignificant effect on monarch populations and that the original research was flawed (which everyone knew anyway). Only, for the last ten years greenies have been using this as an issue. It's entrenched now, too deep for the public to bother questioning it. So the science community sighs, shakes its collective head and then discovers that greenies have whipped up another dozen controversies based on equally shaky research and are now demanding that all of these get exhaustively disproved as well.

Since this is the place for it, I was wondering how often if the small arms equivalent of APCR has been developed. I konow that sectioned projos are a thing, but these all seem to be homogeneous rather than cored...

No chakat?

I actually inferred from the context that you weren't referring to that particular approach: this was more a clarification. In any case, I apologise for even tangentially associating you with that crowd. Working breeds are fine, so long as you have common-sense policies like an open book and functional (rather than aesthetic) standards. Screening is a good idea too. The problem is that sensible breeders are rare while grifters, charlatans, sadists and blood purity advocates are common. Combine that with breed standards written by show societies and you get genetic carcrashes that suffer throughout their short, pointless lives.

The Kurds, bless their poor downtrodden hearts.

I've been having a think here, and have come to the conclusion that historicity rather than realism may be the most problematic factor. As an example, think of how much better WoWP would have been if, instead of real-world designs it had used the same class approach (fighters, GA, heavies and so on) on clean-sheet designs inspired by real aircraft. It could be perfectly realistic (use X-plane or something to model flight characteristics and keep the old weapon/damage model) without having the baggage the real aircraft bring along. Plus, balance becomes the infinitely easier.

We are both deviants of the same stripe it seems: that was my assumption too.

If I accept your argument, then I am tempted to blame that one on capitalism. More socialist countries seem to have had less issues retaining functional homes then ones that gleefully sucked up and then wasted the increased productivity provided by women entering the work force. Speaking of productivity, I've been wanting to introduce the economic rationale into this debate. Will do so later...

Oh hahaha, auto-emoticons.

Thanks for the clarification, Sturgeon. My apologies for incorrectly interpreting 'thong biters'. I do feel that WWI was different, as it was a) massive on a heretofore-unseen scale, involved industrialized societies, followed a century of peace in those societies and d) happened in the age of mass media at the nexus of media production. One of the strange effects of mass communication has been the homogenisation and fixation of culture. A war like the great war, happening in the place it did to thr people it did is a great way to take overburnished ideas of manly virtue and smash them. We can see this just by comparing art and literature before and after the war. As to autistic man children, I see that as a consequence of atomisation of culture due to more modern mass media, combined with an existing cultural focus on rights over duties and the conception of rights as inherent ideals rather than negotiated compromises. A pox on both your houses, basically.

My wife, in her capacity as a veterinary nurse, endorses this comment. But also adds a disclaimer that 'alpha training' (where you dominate the animal physically, roll it and so on) is also bullshit. The thing with dogs is that you need to provide them with consistent feedback, consistent behaviour and a secure place in the hierarchy. Getting mad and punishing the animal is wrong, just as rewarding it without reason is. Another part of the problem with long leashes (besides their pathetic design and construction) is that by allowing your dog to roam you remove him from your sphere of control and thus remove your ability to correct his behaviour. Finally, the real sign of the end times isn't the leash, it's the proliferation of Dachshunds, Pugs and other useless 'purebred' animals. Using 19th-century (in)breeding practices to make an animal conform to an arbitrary list of breed standards is evil, yo.