photos_and_videos/TheGreatGame_10155865944942264/23231415_10155865946032264_6272603013853521059_n_10155865946032264.jpg It is absolutely possible to produce a grenade pistol. And it is absolutely possible to produce an under barrel 30mm or 20mm grenade. But it appears to be more useful to keep two separate weapons.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-08 13:31:00 UTC
photos_and_videos/TheGreatGame_10155865944942264/23435206_10155865944987264_8262852331500311867_n_10155865944987264.jpg The original idea we all want: over barrel magnum, and under barrel shotgun. The Le Mat Revolver.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-08 13:31:00 UTC
by Bill Joslin
(Bill is there. 😉 )
only an operational epistemology can produce a testimonial ontology. And when it does all dimensions of truthful speach tie together coherently. This is why operational epistemology models or demonstrates what exists (existential consistency) because operational terms glue together the all the demensioms – correspond ence, internal consistency, existential consistency, falsifiability, parsimony.
Correspondence = identity. An object’s identity rests on stable constant relations within limits. The “presence” (constant relations) with in boundaries (limits)
Internal consistency- no contradictions in logic or evidence …. However operational terms for our identity now allows us to ensure there are no contradictions in the relation between evidence and logic (soundness and validity coupled via operations)
Existential consistency-are the constant relations and limits possible (spectra of what allows the relations to be constant and related to those boundaries-where the phenomena starts and ends)
Falsifiability – if identity exists we can falsify by exceeding it’s limits to know where the relation ends along with verifying if it exists within (are the limits real-no limits no identity)(efficient flexibility to explanation)
Parsimony – only what is related (operations with in its boundaries) and everything that occurs with in the boundary (necessary and sufficient) (no cherry picking, framing or overloading) (full accounting)
All of those dimensions revolve around relations and the conditions for those relations to work – ie. operations.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-08 13:13:00 UTC
(stupid stuff)(gun nerd warning. re: games and movies)
Ok, so yes, dual wielding is stupid if you are trying to aim and fire with two weapons. You will simply be faster and FAR more accurate with one that cycles quickly (esp steel 1911 in 9mm or 38sp). 9MM has a long flat trajectory. Even the old guys who carried two guns was simply so that they didn’t have to deal with slow reloading. Although there are and were trick shot guys who shoot one at a time, it is in fact faster to shoot one pistol at a time.
But if you use one as a shield/reloading and the other offensively, that’s different altogether.
If you train to not use sights but point shoot or hip shoot that’s even better. It takes more work. But I mean, if we are talking advanced skills then … that’s what more work means.
Are you better off with two men with SMG’s? Yes. But they are far harder to hide, and from the evidence, it’s far harder to train idiots to use without killing you by accident.
BTW: the Barretta 92 is a sh-t gun. It’s just durable enough to survive generations of 19 year old morons. There are only three guns I care about 1911, Browning, CZ75, and below that I’m just gonna stick with my Walther for “Date Nights”.
The HK417A2 combines the skeletal features of the M4 with the (thank god) G36(AR18) piston system and 7.62/.308 ammunition – and with full size barrel will reach out to the long distances we have seen in mountain/desert/steppe regions compared to the jungles of the M16 era. The G2 removes select fire (leaving it only semi-auto), and adds steel (upper receiver) instead of aluminum.
My undrestanding is that the military (finally) is seeking an even better munition between 6.5 and 7mm, as well as .300 whisper for suppressor fire.
So the debate over the ‘light’ .556 ammunition is finally over. We are continuing to engage at longer ranges.
I assume that westerners will increasingly seek to ‘own the night’.
My suspicion is that we will develop disposable (explosive) close quarters robots and gear carriers as soon as battery manufacturing reaches the next energy density multiple.
Until the robot itself is the explosive weapon then I think we are not cost effective. Electronics prices are there. The energy prices are not.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-08 13:11:00 UTC
Mathematics by the virtue of consisting of nothing other than positional names, preserves constant relations, since only constant relations are expressible in the grammar of mathematics: the grammar of positional names.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-08 10:48:00 UTC
( F—K. I feel like my brain was in a pressure cooker since August and solving this damned problem of commensurability is like being pulled out of solitary confinement. People have no idea how hard it is to solve these damned problems, and how much time and effort it takes.)
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-08 10:40:00 UTC
Women are disloyal which is why they have only a few close friends, but many acquaintances. Men form loyalty networks instead, of less deep but more flexible relations.
Aside from differences in bias between experiential and algorithmic, this difference in loyalty vs harmony causes the various differences in occupational achievement.
As risk increases so does the risk of defection, and men do not defect under disharmony where women will defect at the first sign of it.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-08 10:39:00 UTC
—“Is modern art masculine or feminine?”—Erik Lukovsky
It is not so much masculine versus feminine, but decoration, criticism and ridicule versus art, heroism, and sacredness.
In the sense that modern art is gossip, and traditional art is sacred then yes, modern art is feminine and traditional art is masculine.
Furthermore, modern art is, like gossip and criticism, cheap, whereas traditional heroic art is expensive, like truth and sacredness.
So one of the factors driving modern art is the same as that driving all other forms of fashion: producing consumable status signals for ever lower classes.
And while aristocracy of necessity shall demonstrate masculine values, peasantry of necessity shall demonstrate feminine values.
DIfferences in all forms of capital concentration: individual male, collective female.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-08 10:30:00 UTC
Well, I would say that the difference between epistemology and ontology as it is used, is the difference between truth and meaning.
Ontologies are arbitrary, but epistemology is a product of the hierarchy of constant relations of the universe.
To state it prosecutorially, I would say that epistemology produces a testimonial ontology, and that all other ontologies are merely fictionalisms.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-08 10:23:00 UTC
—“How much use would propertarianism be to a futurist?”– A Friend
Well, I would say it explains the cause of emergent technologies and each of the layers of artificial intelligence.
I would say that (as Wolfram’s been harping) that he next science is one of emergent operations.
And that we have been all to interested in mathematics (averages of operations) rather than the operations themselves.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-08 10:21:00 UTC