Alzoc

Interesting idea.  As far as I can tell, avian salt glands use potassium/sodium ion pumps, which are ubiquitous in higher animals and also used in neuron function.  There are potassium/sodium ion pumps in the kidney too, so my guess is that the salt glands are just more efficient at excreting salt per cubic centimeter of organ because they only contain the enzyme for excreting salt, and lack the other enzymes for excreting all the other waste products that kidneys excrete.  I don't think that the fundamental biochemical mechanism for excreting salt in the salt glands in particularly more efficient, it's just more concentrated and the organ does not waste energy by supporting any other functions besides salt elimination.

The current best technology for mass desalination of water is reverse osmosis, although forward osmosis has some proponents as well.  In either case, the technology is getting surprisingly close to the thermodynamic limits for efficiency of the process.  

A number of birds have salt glands located near their eyes.  These glands function something like kidneys, except that instead of filtering out a large assortment of waste products from the bloodstream they filter out excess salt only, and being so specialized eliminate salt about an order of magnitude more efficiently than kidneys.  Birds so equipped fulfill their water requirements by drinking seawater, which would be lethal to any animal without specialized salt-eliminating anatomy.

For the most part these specialized salt glands are seen in seabirds, but the flightless dromornithids of Australia's miocene-pleistocene also had these glands, suggesting there was a lot of brackish inland water that they could exploit and mammals could not.


 
A fossil ornithurine bird from the Early Cretaceous of China's Jehol biota has the first evidence of these salt glands, suggesting that their presence is quite basal for birds.

@SH_MM: haven't gone over the stats sheet, but here's the translation for the articles you just posted. Still a bit sleepy, so please cut me some slack if some sentences appear a bit awkward. *yawn*
    The AMX32's protection
The use of dual hardness steel plates particularly efficient against kinetic projectiles allowed the AMX32 to be protected from the front against high-caliber armor piercing ammunition such as the tungsten-cored 75mm PCOT and the 57mm AP fired by the guns of the Soviet paratroopers' ASU assault vehicles. These plates formed the external part of the armor compartments, creating a ballistic space, such as the gun mantlet or the hull's fore end. Likewise, the turret sides used the same spaced armor principles to provide protection against medium caliber armor-piercing ammunition.
The particularly thick turret roof protected the crew against shells fired by fighter-bombers at an angle of 30°.
Compared to the AMX30, which is protected against 20mm shells, the AMX32 represented a tangible improvement of tank protection for this era, without noticeably increasing vehicle mass/volume.     --------------- Note: obus =/= bomblet. It refers to a cannon shell.       The Leclerc's armors:   Given that the Chobham Armory imparted its name to the first British composite armor, History could have christened "Satory" the armor of the Leclerc tank. It's indeed in the weapons department AMX-APX built on the Versailles plateau that were carried out all of the configuration and integration studies for the new ballistic protection concepts. AMX-APX took full advantage of the fundamental research studies carried out by the ETBS from Bourges and the Central Technical Establishment of Armament in Arcueil.   During the Sixties, the first tests on ceramics integration et the behavior of various materials (glasses, special steels, lightweight alloys among others) during penetration, were carried out. As an anecdote, some natural materials such as granite were also tested.   The Seventies witnessed the development of the first multipurpose composite armors. While the British Chobham protecting the Challenger was optimized against shaped charges, the efficiency of the French armors against shaped charges and arrow-type penetrators was demonstrated from the get-go.   In the following decade, the headway that was made in the field of materials and research on the optimization of geometrical configurations, allowed the creation of armor solutions that could be integrated into the Leclerc. However, a decisive step was to be made with the completion of the first add-on/applique armors. The latter ones would allow the Leclerc to regenerate its protection, in relation to technological developments and threat nature.   Protection level was achieved through the compactness of the tank and weight reduction. Indeed, the Leclerc and Leopard 2A4 have the same mass, around 56 tons. Yet, the Leclerc is 850mm shorter, which translates to a mass of 4 tons (850mm of structure and skirts, those suspension elements, two roller wheels and four times 850mm' worth of tracks). Compared to the German tank, the recovered mass allowed the increase of protection over the frontal arc, the protection of the turret sides against infantry-carried antitank weaponry and the increase of protection over the hull sides, thanks to external/precursor (applique?) armor covering a widened frontal arc.
The Leclerc therefore offers a more balanced protection that no longers exclusively concentrates the armor on the tank's front.
As such, the third-generation French tank boasts applique armor that is evolving, multipurpose, compact, lightweight and industrially reproducible (easily and economically). This technological and industrial mastery has made it possible to keep the Leclerc's mass well below the levels of foreign tanks (Leopard 2, M1A2, Challenger II), whose significant weights (around 63t) are disadvantageous for repair operations (recovery, towing and turret removal become true "combined operations") and for the sappers/engineers who have to deploy technical assets that are expensive and complex.
Maintaining a relatively low mass is an essentially criterion in the eyes of the French Army, whose modes of engagement favor agility and tactical deployment speed.
The Satory teams continue their research and are already proposing armors designed to counter future threats. Thanks to the modularity of its protection, the Leclerc Series 2+ is ready to receive them.       Text on the lower left, under the picture:   One of the numerous armor testing caissons after a live fire session. The fore plate shows three entry holes: in the middle, an arrow, recognizable thanks to the white, star-shaped mark left by the penetrator's aluminum fins that desintegrated upon impact; on the left and right, two high-caliber shaped charges easily identifiable thanks to their red color, typical of the copper deposits left by the perforating jets. The aft plate is slightly deformed as the caisson was installed without a rear support. When integrated into a tank's front armor compartement, this caisson would keep its geometrical integrity.         EDIT: godd*****. I must be doing something wrong with the code, because my perfectly separate quotes always result in nested quotes, like a frickin' matriochka. Will leave formatting as is, for now.

I'll do the stats sheet:
 
General characteristic of the AMX 40
 
Crew: 4
Total length with the gun at 12 O'clok: 10,04 m
Hull length: 6,8m
Width with appliqué (front side armor): 3,36 m
Width hull only: 3,18 m
Total height: 3,10 m
Height (turret roof): 2,38
Mass with combat load: 43,7 t
Ground pressure: 0,83 bar
Fuel reserve: 1300 L
Fuel consumption: between 180 and 220 L/100 km on road
Autonomy: 550 km on road
Top speed (road): 70 km/h
Acceleration: 0 to 32 km/h in 6s
Max obstacle height: 1,1 m
Trench: 3,2 m wide
Slope: 60%
Cant: 30%
Fording without preparation: 1,3 m
Fording with 5 min preparation: 2,3 m
Engine: V12X 24,69 L diesel with a 1100 hp output ; water cooled 2 stage overfeed ; power can reach 1300 hp with adjustment
Transmission: Automatic ZF LSG 3000 ; 4 forward gear ; 2 reverse gear
Suspension: Torsion bar and rotary dampener
Tracks: 570 mm width with dry axis
Main gun: Smoothbore 120 mm L52 NATO
Secondary armament: 20mm M693 (coax) and 7,62 mm (RCWS on the commander cupola)
FCS: Digitalized COTAC allowing to fire on the move on moving targets
Gun elevation: -7°/+20°
20 mm coax elevation: -7°/+40°  (independent from the main gun)
RCWS elevation: -10°/+40°
Commander sight: M527 Stabilized panoramic sight ; x2 and x8 day ; light intensification night ; linked to the FCS allowing to fire on the move (apparently by using the commander sight as a reference that the gun try to follow)
Gunner sight: M581 scope with a x10 unitary zoom ; linked to gun
Thermal camera: Castor
Self defense: 6 Galix tubes
Ballistic protection: Composite block providing a protection against 76 mm AP and RPG-7 in the frontal arc ; 23 mm AP on the sides.
 

Unlikely, 106Ru being a fission product (hence if it came directly from used fissile fuel, it would have been mixed with other RN) it comes either from a facility handling it separately (either a fuel cycle facility designed to separate it or a radioactive source production plant) or a satellite  using this RN as a heat source.
The satellite hypothesis have been excluded so it most likely comes from a facility handling 106Ru.
They just screwed up at some point liberating it in the air.
 
http://www.irsn.fr/FR/Actualites_presse/Actualites/Documents/IRSN_NI_Ruthenium-106-en-Europe_20171109.pdf

You know, I seem to remember the last time the French tried to rely on the power of elan against a bunch of machine guns it didn't go so well.

I agree that those thing takes time to mature, several generations.
Legislations are just here to put an upper limit on what the society find acceptable
and of course over time those lines will move and so will the law.
 
 
Don't worry I don't want to^^
The main reason being the rampant puritanism (which is also sadly slowly contaminating our society as well).
 
But well in the end different society, you guys just live the way you want and so do we.
There are things that you find unacceptable in our society and there are thing I (we) find unacceptable in yours.
And everybody will think that their solution is better^^

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?idArticle=LEGIARTI000023711920&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070719
 
Basically she had every right to respond to the journalist that made a parallel between her party and ISIS, which even if the FN is trash level far right xenophobic party with history of holocaust denial (which is also punishable by the law and her father have been found guilty countless time for it) they're not ISIS level.
 
The problem is that she put gore image of ISIS degrading human beings (Syrian soldier run over by a tank, a Jordanian pilot burned alive,  an American journalist with his severed head put on display over his own body) on public display and basically this law is here to protect minors from seeing it.
 
She could just had said that ISIS do that kind of thing and that indeed her party cannot be compared to them and that would had been fine.
We know ISIS are barbarians, no need to put their work on display.

I raise with Flag Admiral Stabby (completely unrelated I know, but I love this humans are space orks thing^^)
 

 



 

You Frenchies always take things too far, we were satisfied with making the point to a king.....You lot did your whole aristocracy! 

That a correlation doesn't necessarily imply a cause-effect relation.
That in any election in the world you'll find a strong correlation telling you that rural area tends to vote more conservative and urban area more progressive (whatever you put behind those terms in the relevant country)
That there is a correlation between the percentage of the population that own guns in a state and the number of death or injury by firearm (who would have though that when you increase a population you increase the frequency of associated events?)
Tons of correlations.
 
As you said earlier gun violence is a complex problem and demographic is a an important part of it and I doubt that people voted Trump or Clinton for the exact same reasons depending on the demographic or the peculiarity (that I'm not familiar with) of a particular region.

I raise with Flag Admiral Stabby (completely unrelated I know, but I love this humans are space orks thing^^)
 

 



 

Well, personally I make a strong difference between a government and republican institutions.
If a government start proposing laws outside of the spirit of the constitution, said laws will be shut down by the constitutional council
 
If things goes really wrong, protecting the Republic would be the role of the army even against our own government, like de Gaulle did (in the sense that he assumed temporary power, and rejected the Vichy government ,but left it to restore democracy).
And I believe that French citizens trust their soldier to stand true to our values (2016 poll show that 87% of our Citizen have a "good image" of our army), the so called "Army-Nation" link is strong.
I understand that it can be seen as a risky bet considering the history of military coup around the world. But that's the way it is.
 
 
And you could add the restoration of monarchy and the two empires.
I know that there are contradictions, we just seem happy with it (or simply pretend to not see them depending on your point of view).

Well, personally I make a strong difference between a government and republican institutions.
If a government start proposing laws outside of the spirit of the constitution, said laws will be shut down by the constitutional council
 
If things goes really wrong, protecting the Republic would be the role of the army even against our own government, like de Gaulle did (in the sense that he assumed temporary power, and rejected the Vichy government ,but left it to restore democracy).
And I believe that French citizens trust their soldier to stand true to our values (2016 poll show that 87% of our Citizen have a "good image" of our army), the so called "Army-Nation" link is strong.
I understand that it can be seen as a risky bet considering the history of military coup around the world. But that's the way it is.
 
 
And you could add the restoration of monarchy and the two empires.
I know that there are contradictions, we just seem happy with it (or simply pretend to not see them depending on your point of view).

@Alzoc, @Sgt.Squarehead, this article fairly neatly communicates why Americans are so fond of their guns.

The French Republic is sometimes considered in the US to be a copycat of the USA, and I think that's fair to a degree. Now you just need to complete it by passing a constitutional right to arms.

In France it's mostly viewed as a cultural thing.
It's part of the history of the country that still have a king, just the same way that we got rid of our, and that's about it.
Do whatever you want as long as it's democratic.
 
We still do have royalist party (mostly right to far right wing) but they are too busy fighting between each other to do something significant:
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orléanist
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimists
 
Other than that the vast majority of the population is attached to the Republic.
 
Fun fact, our executive have a huge power (compared to the Legislative and Judiciary power) to the point that our government is often described as a "republican monarchy" in France.
And you can also see that in the fact that the president lives in l'Elysée which is a royal palace and that a lot of place of powers are strongly linked to the past monarchy.
We still cling a lot to the concept of the "providential man" and thus constitution of the Vth Republic give the president a huge power compared to other democracy, and we are attached to it (although there is a significant will from the far left to go toward a more parliamentary system)
 
Since we had bad experiences with the 3rd and 4th republic, that through the inherent instability of parliamentary system coupled with petty alliances between numerous party led to passivity during both WWII and the Algeria war, we (generally) have a profound distrust for parliamentary system.
 
The good points of the current system is that it keeps the extremes (both far left and far right) away from power and allow the ruling party to implement it's policy without too much interference.
The major drawback being that if one extreme party ever win both the presidential and the legislative election (the later generally giving a large majority to the party of the president) it will be very hard to completely stop them within the rules of the constitution.
 
But we still have ways to slow them down, as the parliament can destitute the government (not the president though) but the president can dissolve the parliament in retaliation provoking anticipated elections.
Every president that tried to do so that ended up losing his bet as the opposition won the election forcing him to take a prime minister from the opposition.
From that point the president cannot do much in terms of proposing laws but  can merely delay the application of the laws made by the opposition by delaying the signature of the application decree
 
And by that point I'm seriously off-topic^^

A video of the VEXTRA during it's development (I don't think there are much images left of it)
Those of you who consult the AW forum may have already seen it.
 
 

POrteur LEger

Yes
 
I don’t know. 
The purpose of the POLE was (not only) to test the firing of 120mm from a wheeled platforme but to test indirect tank firing. The accuracy achieved was very good. 
 
Indirect fire was lost with the Leclerc MBT introduction. Until the AMX-30, tank crew were trained to this capability. Into each AMX-30 turret, you can put a level to use the balistic table. There is a special support on the cradle.
With the AMX-10RC, there is only one level per troop and tank crew were not trained to this (even if it was to be known).
 
Indirect firing capability will come back with the next tank generation. 

A video of the VEXTRA during it's development (I don't think there are much images left of it)
Those of you who consult the AW forum may have already seen it.
 
 

That definitively wasn't my intention but I reckon that I have been patronizing (or at least sounded so).
As I said the US is perceived as an anomaly from Europe and each time a mass shooting happen it raise the question again, I though it would be interesting to talk about it since as you said our cultures are extremely different and point of views were bound to be different.
 
However I didn't came with enough knowledge (especially about the legal text associated) and argument while talking to people who obviously had this discussion countless time ^^
I did learned some new thing however for example the FFL system was completely out of what could be acceptable within my own cultural bias and I would have never imagined it.

This might be one of the most retarded things uttered in this den of autism we call a forum.
 
And people have said some stuuuuupid shit here. Go look up a thread about hunting pigs, or education, or Wade through the small arms threads. 
 
This really takes the cake.

OK, so there are really a few issues we need to tackle here. I'll try to make this brief, so please look into these subjects yourself for additional info. I am trying to keep it to 1-2 paragraphs per issue.
 
1. Gun Law in the USA
 
The United States is a totally unique country in that it has a right to bear arms which is uninfringeable, that is to say, guaranteed as part of the compact that allows the country to exist, and which cannot be removed or eroded without Constitutional Amendment. Two other countries, Guatemala and Mexico, also have constitutional rights to bear arms, but these are each much less broad and absolute than the Second Amendment in the US. Many students of Constitutional scholarship have argued that the Second Amendment in fact guarantees a right to keep and bear arms with no restrictions whatsoever, although this has never been supported in formal courts. However, in the United States there is some judicial recognition that the "arms" referred to in the Second Amendment do indeed mean for personal defense/martial purposes, and not just for hunting or sporting use. In this way, the United States is totally unique among the nations of the world.
 
We must also take a quick moment to understand the organization of the US itself. The United States is a federalized republic, in effect 50 independent countries with their own governments, unified by a single Federal Government. While each state (and even county, city, etc) may have their own gun laws, we will only discuss gun laws at the Federal level. This will give you a general sense of gun laws in the US, as most places have few restrictions beyond Federal law. Also, the "Constitution" refers to a specific document in US law (rather than the whole body of US law), the US Constitution of 1787, which has been amended 27 times from 1791 to 1992. The first ten amendments (passed in 1791) are referred to as the "Bill of Rights", and collectively are thee model upon which virtually every other country's system of rights is based. The US Constitution is the oldest active constitution in the world.
 
The Second Amendment in the US is regulated and restricted by three major Federal laws: The National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, the Gun Control Act  (GCA) of 1968, and the Firearm Owner's Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986. The National Firearms Act introduced the first substantial restrictions, which were applied to fully automatic weapons (called "machine guns" in US law, regardless of whether they meet the military criteria), short barreled weapons (rifles and shotguns), silencers/suppressors,  and "destructive devices" (bombs, grenades, cannons, etc). The NFA established the NFA registry, whereby these weapons and items must be registered and a $200 tax paid for a citizen to manufacture, transfer, or own them. The Gun Control Act established the concept of "prohibited persons" (e.g., felons, those who have been adjudicated insane), as well as the current system of firearms transfer. The GCA's provisions created what is called the "Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) network", which is a system of licensees who are capable of transferring firearms to any private individual, regardless of whether that individual also possesses an FFL. Therefore, the way this works is that firearms purchased by private individuals must first go through an FFL, who will run a background check and have the purchaser fill out a Federal form (called a "Form 4473"), and, if this is approved by the FBI, the purchaser can take their gun and go home. Therefore, in the US, licenses are not granted for firearms ownership, but are granted to dealers authorizing them to transfer firearms in large scale to purchasers. A typical example of an FFL would be a gun store, but FFLs can exist without a storefront. For example, the FFL I use to buy firearms is just a guy who does some gunsmithing on the side. There are different kinds of FFLs which determine which kinds of weapons the license holder can deal in. In most states, it is perfectly legal for one individual to transfer a firearm to another individual without going through an FFL, this is called a "private transfer", and is encoded in law via the 1968 GCA. However, this cannot be a business or significant source of revenue for the seller, or else they need an FFL.

Finally, the 1986 FOPA improved some of the provisions created in the 1968 GCA (for example, according to the GCA, if you were traveling with a weapon that was legal in your own state, but illegal in the state you went to or were passing through, you could be arrested in that state and tried - the FOPA repealed this), but also included a provision (snuck in at the last minute) called the Hughes' Amendment, which closed the NFA registry for machine guns. This means that no new machine guns can be registered as "fully transferable" weapons, and this has dramatically driven up the price of legal automatic weapons since 1986.
 
TBC