|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 07 2017 07:51 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2017 07:21 Mohdoo wrote:On October 07 2017 05:51 ticklishmusic wrote:FREMONT, Calif.— Tesla Inc. TSLA 0.44% blamed “production bottlenecks” for having made only a fraction of the promised 1,500 Model 3s, the $35,000 sedan designed to propel the luxury electric-car maker into the mainstream. Unknown to analysts, investors and the hundreds of thousands of customers who signed up to buy it, as recently as early September major portions of the Model 3 were still being banged out by hand, away from the automated production line, according to people familiar with the matter. + Show Spoiler [rest of article] +While the car’s production began in early July, the advanced assembly line Tesla has boasted of building still wasn’t fully ready as of a few weeks ago, the people said. Tesla’s factory workers had been piecing together parts of the cars in a special area while the company feverishly worked to finish the machinery designed to produce Model 3’s at a rate of thousands a week, the people said.
Automotive experts say it is unusual to be building large parts of a car by hand during production. “That’s not how mass production vehicles are made,” said Dennis Virag, a manufacturing consultant who has worked in the automotive industry for 40 years. “That’s horse-and-carriage type manufacturing. That’s not today’s automotive world.”
In a statement, a Tesla spokeswoman declined to answer questions for this article and said, “For over a decade, the WSJ has relentlessly attacked Tesla with misleading articles that, with few exceptions, push or exceed the boundaries of journalistic integrity. While it is possible that this article could be an exception, that is extremely unlikely.” The Journal disagrees with the company’s categorization of its journalism.
Tesla introduced the Model 3 at an event outside the company’s factory in July, when Chief Executive Elon Musk drove a shiny red Model 3 onstage as hundreds of his employees cheered the first sedans rolling off the production line.
Within minutes of stepping out of the new vehicle, Tesla’s leader warned his engineers and designers the coming months would be challenging. “Frankly, we’re going to be in production hell. Welcome, welcome!” he said to laughter.
Behind the scenes, Tesla had fallen weeks behind in finishing the manufacturing systems to build the vehicle, the people said.
The extent of the problem came to light on Monday when Tesla said it made only 260 Model 3s during the third quarter—averaging three cars a day. The company cited production bottlenecks but didn’t explain much further.
“Although the vast majority of manufacturing subsystems at...our California car plant...are able to operate at high rate, a handful have taken longer to activate than expected,” the company said at the time.
In Mr. Musk’s pursuit to rid the world of combustion engines, Tesla is trying to apply Silicon Valley’s ethos of rapid change to the type of complex manufacturing process that traditional auto makers have spent decades perfecting. Unusual in the U.S. tech industry, where even companies that do make hardware generally outsource their manufacturing, Tesla’s challenge requires integrating an army of factory workers and some 10,000 parts from suppliers around the world.
Tesla’s rollout of the Model X sport-utility vehicle in 2015 also was plagued by quality and design issues that left suppliers scrambling and hourly workers having to rush to meet lofty goals. But the plans for the Model 3 are far larger, meaning the lack of a fully working assembling line so late in production could deal a bigger blow to the company.
Mr. Musk has said Tesla learned from the Model X mistakes. And he has proven doubters wrong before, creating a luxury brand that competes against BMW and Mercedes-Benz for buyers and has demonstrated that fully electric cars can find an enthusiastic following beyond a niche of environmentalists.
Calling his cars a “computer on wheels,” Mr. Musk caught conservative Detroit off guard with Tesla’s ability to quickly change features, such as a semiautonomous drive system, with software updates over the air. The company’s stock has soared about 69% in the past 12 months, at times pushing its market value past General Motors Co.’s .
But building 500,000 vehicles a year—as Mr. Musk had projected Tesla would start doing next year—is a sizable leap for a company that only made 84,000 Model S sedans and Model X SUVs last year. By comparison, General Motors Co., the largest U.S. auto maker by sales, delivered about 10 million vehicles globally last year, or more than 27,000 a day.
To approach what a typical factory in North America churns out, 14-year-old Tesla must build the muscles to roll out a car every minute of the workday and do it so well that the vehicles don’t cause headaches for customers down the road.
Most auto makers celebrate the start of production of a new vehicle to sell—so-called Job 1—after six months or so of running the assembly line to build a few hundred vehicles to work out the bugs, said Doug Betts, senior vice president of global automotive operations at consultancy J.D. Power and a former manufacturing executive for Toyota Motor Corp. , Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV and Apple Inc.
“You’re not really improving the final process if you’re not running on it,” Mr. Betts said. “Problems can only be solved once they are found.”
It isn’t uncommon for much larger auto makers to handbuild pre-production versions of a car prior to the sales launch, but those are typically reserved for employees and others willing to test the cars and return them to the company. By the time a car goes on sale, the body shop is typically fully automated.
Inside the Fremont factory, workers said equipment for the so-called body-in-white line for the Model 3, where the car body’s sheet metal is welded together, wasn’t installed until by around September. They guessed at least another month of work remained to calibrate the tools.
One worker who spent time in the Model 3 shop—dubbed by some as Area 51 because of the limited access and secretive nature—described watching young workers in September struggling to move large pieces of steel to weld together instead of using robots as is traditionally the case.
“In place of the robots…you’ve got two associates lining up with a big, old spot welder hanging from the ceiling by a chain, and you’ve got one associate kind of like balancing it and trying to get the welder in position, and you’ve got another welder with his arm guiding it,” this worker recalled seeing. “Sparks go flying.”
In August, Mr. Musk told analysts that the Model 3s coming out of the factory were “not engineering validation units.”
“They’re fully certified, fully DOT-approved, EPA-approved production cars,” Mr. Musk said, referring to the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency. “These are not prototypes in any way. They’re not validation anything. They are full production cars.”
But he also said early versions coming out of Fremont would have issues, which is why the first cars were going to employees and investors who paid for them.
Tesla has said it expects to begin delivering the first cars to nonemployees this quarter. It will have to seriously boost production to meet Mr. Musk’s 5,000-a-week projection. Sourcedon't worry though, elon is gonna fix puerto rico with batteries and solar power. lmao. "We blame lack of manufacturing on a lack of manufacturing." tesla decided they were smarter than all the other car people at those lame old-school car companies and pretty much decided they were gonna build cars and build car factories their way. i mean, who needs experience or tried-and-tested manufacturing processes? they also blamed the WSJ more or less. darn, where's LL when i need him to shit on elon? did someone say electability?
I mean yeah, his companies are all disgraceful shams that prove that financial markets are highly feels over reals but does that really warrant repeat mention?
|
What is this, the 1980s? If gun laws don't stop criminals, taking away birth control isn't going stop teens from fucking.
|
|
|
also D'souza is now apparently going with the Hitler was a decent guy argument for some reason.
|
Wow, that is stunningly stupid. Even for Trump. Totally on brand though, given his love of bribing DAs to not charge his kids.
|
On October 07 2017 08:08 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2017 07:52 Danglars wrote:On October 07 2017 07:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 07 2017 07:32 Danglars wrote:On October 07 2017 07:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 07 2017 07:18 Plansix wrote: You missed out on the Vox Day, western culture an the 14 words discussion. It was, stunning at the time. And by "at the time", I mean a couple months ago. Needless to say, this thread has felt the effects of Breibart and Milo's efforts. I don't understand what anyone sees in Milo. A good general rule in life is that if someone got famous during gamergate then don't listen to a single word they have to say about anything. All of these people are the kind of individuals whose ideology is so basic and crude that it can be spread like fire using a 7 word meme. The lack of logic, rationality, interesting ideas and ability is far more damning than the moral immaturity in my opinion. He would've stayed as just "that one gamergate guy that published the game journalist collusion" if nobody had protested his speeches and got into twitter spats. Or if people didn't insist gay men think this way and behave this way. The combination of the two made him what he is to broader society, or he could've just been another twitter & Breitbart pundit you've never heard of. + Show Spoiler +Also, maybe if people weren't so droll in their responses when he had his bit of flamboyant, provoking fun. Political correctness and all that. Thinking about it it would probably be better to have Milo as public enemy number one than someone smart like Sam Harris or Shapiro. At least with Milo any sensible point he's trying to make is a: hidden behind his idiotic trolling b: easily torn apart by any high school student who's taken a politics or philosophy lesson. Unfortunately that didn't stop a shitload of morons hanging on his every word because he hates feminists. Its quite damning of the current political discourse when smart people are ignored in favour of vacuous morons by both sides. Its a way of sidestepping discussion and I think both sides are equally culpable. You’re missing the roll humor and ridicule function in broader society. If your opponents, say radical feminists, are acting like morons, it’s the job of the court jester to subject them to ridicule. Point out the folly, crack a couple jokes, show you’re having a fun time doing it. Then you can have a Shapiro too-serious followup of the ten reasons why they’re factually wrong and their desires will lead to ill for society. Chances are you won’t have the final introspective leftist pick up national review and see the Cooke column, but they might see this gay dude on a stage cracking jokes about his black lovers and the size of their cocks. If there’s no free speech, political correctness, or gay orthodoxy problem in society, Milo just fills the role of entertainer and firebrand and makes little impact. You’re going a little too much into zlefinesque commentary about how it’s a shame the smart people are ignored. I want an abundance of speech both for laughs and for pondering. I don’t think curating discourse so morons aren’t distracted is any way to run society. Let the sacred cows on left and right fall and there will be less need for the entertainers to slaughter them. Right now I see that need, and no it doesn’t fill other roles as liberals and conservatives find their new leaders. I don't think I'm missing the role of humor at all. I love going to watch a comedian. I like satire and the light it shines on stupidity. What I don't like is when the whole political world is hijacked by jesters. You have one as a president for crying out loud. I'm not trying to curate discourse. I mean people can listen to whoever they want, but the overall tone of the discourse is a reflection of what people want, and it appears to be based on simple, stupid laughs (which is fine) and having a group of people to hate. This is ok on its own but it has replaced political discourse in the mainstream media. Its all hate figures and ideological nonsense, pretty much everywhere you turn. How often does this kind of discourse lead to solutions, or even genuine suggestions about solutions, for any of society's problems? So the problem i'm pointing out is more about who is getting exposure rather than who is allowed to speak, and it could be that I'm wrong, and its good to have trolls and jokers running the country, but I just can't see it. Sometimes I think you're right and I'm just a bit of a snob when it comes to this stuff, but again I just can't see how having less competent people in charge is better just because they are stupider, louder and idiots can understand their stupid ideas. Hey, I see your perspective and it’s very easy to have that as the takeaway. Trump does his schtick loud and proud, damn everyone else. Discourse is at very sucky lows that coincides with Trump’s election for people just tuning in. I say history demonstrates the need for these jesters in the political world because radical feminism, SJWs, “speech=violence,” and “everything is race, class, sex, sexual orientation, and sexual identity” are too prominent of perspectives in society today. In a happy timeline where the left detangles itself from these extreme views in coming years, I’ll be worried if the Milos of the world still figure heavily in popular press. Seriously, who needs them if we return to civility.
I say the current state of discourse on the topic is reflective of the history of politics rather than a present-focused “reflective of what people want.” People wanted aggressive retorts to the topics I mentioned in the previous posts, but all they got was politicians cowering and conservatives desperately trying to placate their rivals. I won’t go novel length to persuade anyone that started with the oppposite opinion. It’s at least 30 years of slow build for the big topics that gave rise to Trump. Maybe I’ll type out an outline for this thread later on. Trumps as much a RINO phenomenon as a Dem/media/leftist-culture phenomenon, and many parties are to blame.
|
On October 07 2017 08:36 Nevuk wrote: That buzzfeed article from yesterday pretty clearly outlines that Milo's rise was due to a well oiled machine funded by the mercers, Bannon as the brains, and racists as the idea makers. Leftist reactions were the smallest part of it. Leftists reactions are.what have him and.breitbart legitimacy above.other.far right news sources. Its what differentiates them from.their.competition. Saying thats.the smallest part is like saying the euro club scene was tye smallest thing to redbulls success.
|
On October 07 2017 09:20 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2017 08:36 Nevuk wrote: That buzzfeed article from yesterday pretty clearly outlines that Milo's rise was due to a well oiled machine funded by the mercers, Bannon as the brains, and racists as the idea makers. Leftist reactions were the smallest part of it. Leftists reactions are.what have him and.breitbart legitimacy above.other.far right news sources. Its what differentiates them from.their.competition. Saying thats.the smallest part is like saying the euro club scene was tye smallest thing to redbulls success. Why is it the left's fault when people buy into this shit? Why is this left vs right? White supremacist are making a push into main stream discourse, that is an everyone problem.
|
On October 07 2017 08:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The country's real economy. Show nested quote +WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. State Department has approved the possible sale of a THAAD anti-missile defense system to Saudi Arabia at an estimated cost of $15 billion, the Pentagon said on Friday, citing Iran among regional threats.
The approval opens the way for Saudi Arabia to purchase 44 Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) launchers and 360 missiles, as well as fire control stations and radars.
“This sale furthers U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, and supports the long-term security of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region in the face of Iranian and other regional threats,” the Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation agency said in a statement.
Saudi Arabia and the United States are highly critical of what they consider Iran’s aggressive behavior in the Middle East.
Iran also has one of the biggest ballistic missile programs in the Middle East, viewing it as an essential precautionary defense against the United States and other adversaries, primarily Gulf Arab states and Israel.
THAAD missile systems are deployed to defend against ballistic missile attacks.
Saudi-owned al Arabiya television reported on Thursday that the kingdom had agreed to buy Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile systems, an announcement that came as Saudi King Salman made during his visit to Russia, the first by a Saudi monarch.
U.S. military sales to Saudi Arabia have come under increased scrutiny over the Saudi-led coalition’s war in Yemen.
Riyadh and its allies have been bombing the Iran-aligned Houthis in Yemen since the Houthis seized much of the country’s north in 2015. Riyadh says the coalition is fighting terrorists and supporting Yemen’s legitimate government but the office of the U.N. human rights chief has said Saudi-led air strikes cause the majority of civilian casualties.
Lockheed Martin Co (LMT.N) is the prime contractor for the THAAD system, with Raytheon Co (RTN.N) playing an important role in the system’s deployment.
The United States deployed THAAD to South Korea this year to guard against North Korea’s shorter-range missiles. That has drawn fierce criticism from China, which says the system’s powerful radar can probe deep into its territory. Source
I would really prefer Saudi Arabia not be well armed. Why are we friends with Saudi Arabia and not Iran? Iran reflects our values a lot better right? I imagine Israel and Saudi Arabia don't like each other any more than Iran and Israel.
|
On October 07 2017 08:44 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2017 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2017 08:35 Gahlo wrote:On October 07 2017 08:10 GreenHorizons wrote: The main problem with the CNN video is that they screw up an important distinction. He says "allowing the shooter to fire the weapon repeatedly without having to release the trigger."
If that was true they would be illegal. It's the most important aspect of the ban on automatic weapons. The fundamental difference is whether you have to release the trigger between rounds or not.
Additionally, the most important feature of a bump stock is that it has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic mechanical function when installed.
Danglars has a point (you know it hurts my soul to say that), he doesn't know much more than the CNN people, but he's right that not knowing the parts of the gun and how they work makes regulations pretty ineffective.
EDIT: I love how someone like Danglars thinks we're supposed to take seriously his whining about people pointing out racist stuff as "racist" and also his "If Milo bothers you, you're too sensitive". Incorrect. The the bump fire modifications are stocks. Only the receiver portion of a gun is legally labeled as a firearm. As such, it doesn't fall under the regulatory domain of the ATF. Even if they wanted to ban the bump fire stocks, they'd need to expand their ability to regulate the other parts of the gun. Good luck with getting that to happen. lol. I know what they are, one of few here who's actually used one. I was pointing out that the CNN video got a critical part wrong by suggesting it was a modification that allowed the user to fire continuously without releasing the trigger. If it did that, it would already be illegal. Also the NRA basically gave the ATF a pass to "reinterpret" their ability to regulate them so they could probably do that without much resistance (save maybe from companies that basically only sell bump stocks). This is the kind of detail that is only relevant to gun nuts. The rest of the people don't really care about the nitpicky details of how you managed to be smart and have an automatic rifle without it being an automatic rifle by law. They just don't want to be shot at with automatic rifles. (Probably they would prefer to be shot at with no guns at all, but that is apparently impossible in the US)
No, it's the kind of detail that is relevant to anyone who wants to legislate against automatic weapons, or modifications that imitate the feature or to understand what it is they are discussing.
On October 07 2017 08:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2017 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2017 08:35 Gahlo wrote:On October 07 2017 08:10 GreenHorizons wrote: The main problem with the CNN video is that they screw up an important distinction. He says "allowing the shooter to fire the weapon repeatedly without having to release the trigger."
If that was true they would be illegal. It's the most important aspect of the ban on automatic weapons. The fundamental difference is whether you have to release the trigger between rounds or not.
Additionally, the most important feature of a bump stock is that it has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic mechanical function when installed.
Danglars has a point (you know it hurts my soul to say that), he doesn't know much more than the CNN people, but he's right that not knowing the parts of the gun and how they work makes regulations pretty ineffective.
EDIT: I love how someone like Danglars thinks we're supposed to take seriously his whining about people pointing out racist stuff as "racist" and also his "If Milo bothers you, you're too sensitive". Incorrect. The the bump fire modifications are stocks. Only the receiver portion of a gun is legally labeled as a firearm. As such, it doesn't fall under the regulatory domain of the ATF. Even if they wanted to ban the bump fire stocks, they'd need to expand their ability to regulate the other parts of the gun. Good luck with getting that to happen. lol. I know what they are, one of few here who's actually used one. I was pointing out that the CNN video got a critical part wrong by suggesting it was a modification that allowed the user to fire continuously without releasing the trigger. If it did that, it would already be illegal. Also the NRA basically gave the ATF a pass to "reinterpret" their ability to regulate them so they could probably do that without much resistance (save maybe from companies that basically only sell bump stocks). Congress will need to pass a law to give the ATF the ability to regulate stocks. Right now it is the receiver and that is it.
Not exactly. They are basically constrained by what the NRA approves. If the NRA says they can regulate something about guns, there's not really anyone left on the opposing side (save specialist producers of that particular item). But legislation would certainly be a preferable solution.
But yeah, the political dynamic and balance of seats means that there's no way legislation gets passed. So if you want this to stay the only time a bump stock was used in an attack like this, your only hope is that the ATF takes the NRA up and does something.
|
On October 07 2017 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2017 08:44 Simberto wrote:On October 07 2017 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2017 08:35 Gahlo wrote:On October 07 2017 08:10 GreenHorizons wrote: The main problem with the CNN video is that they screw up an important distinction. He says "allowing the shooter to fire the weapon repeatedly without having to release the trigger."
If that was true they would be illegal. It's the most important aspect of the ban on automatic weapons. The fundamental difference is whether you have to release the trigger between rounds or not.
Additionally, the most important feature of a bump stock is that it has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic mechanical function when installed.
Danglars has a point (you know it hurts my soul to say that), he doesn't know much more than the CNN people, but he's right that not knowing the parts of the gun and how they work makes regulations pretty ineffective.
EDIT: I love how someone like Danglars thinks we're supposed to take seriously his whining about people pointing out racist stuff as "racist" and also his "If Milo bothers you, you're too sensitive". Incorrect. The the bump fire modifications are stocks. Only the receiver portion of a gun is legally labeled as a firearm. As such, it doesn't fall under the regulatory domain of the ATF. Even if they wanted to ban the bump fire stocks, they'd need to expand their ability to regulate the other parts of the gun. Good luck with getting that to happen. lol. I know what they are, one of few here who's actually used one. I was pointing out that the CNN video got a critical part wrong by suggesting it was a modification that allowed the user to fire continuously without releasing the trigger. If it did that, it would already be illegal. Also the NRA basically gave the ATF a pass to "reinterpret" their ability to regulate them so they could probably do that without much resistance (save maybe from companies that basically only sell bump stocks). This is the kind of detail that is only relevant to gun nuts. The rest of the people don't really care about the nitpicky details of how you managed to be smart and have an automatic rifle without it being an automatic rifle by law. They just don't want to be shot at with automatic rifles. (Probably they would prefer to be shot at with no guns at all, but that is apparently impossible in the US) No, it's the kind of detail that is relevant to anyone who wants to legislate against automatic weapons, or modifications that imitate the feature or to understand what it is they are discussing. Show nested quote +On October 07 2017 08:45 Plansix wrote:On October 07 2017 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2017 08:35 Gahlo wrote:On October 07 2017 08:10 GreenHorizons wrote: The main problem with the CNN video is that they screw up an important distinction. He says "allowing the shooter to fire the weapon repeatedly without having to release the trigger."
If that was true they would be illegal. It's the most important aspect of the ban on automatic weapons. The fundamental difference is whether you have to release the trigger between rounds or not.
Additionally, the most important feature of a bump stock is that it has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic mechanical function when installed.
Danglars has a point (you know it hurts my soul to say that), he doesn't know much more than the CNN people, but he's right that not knowing the parts of the gun and how they work makes regulations pretty ineffective.
EDIT: I love how someone like Danglars thinks we're supposed to take seriously his whining about people pointing out racist stuff as "racist" and also his "If Milo bothers you, you're too sensitive". Incorrect. The the bump fire modifications are stocks. Only the receiver portion of a gun is legally labeled as a firearm. As such, it doesn't fall under the regulatory domain of the ATF. Even if they wanted to ban the bump fire stocks, they'd need to expand their ability to regulate the other parts of the gun. Good luck with getting that to happen. lol. I know what they are, one of few here who's actually used one. I was pointing out that the CNN video got a critical part wrong by suggesting it was a modification that allowed the user to fire continuously without releasing the trigger. If it did that, it would already be illegal. Also the NRA basically gave the ATF a pass to "reinterpret" their ability to regulate them so they could probably do that without much resistance (save maybe from companies that basically only sell bump stocks). Congress will need to pass a law to give the ATF the ability to regulate stocks. Right now it is the receiver and that is it. Not exactly. They are basically constrained by what the NRA approves. If the NRA says they can regulate something about guns, there's not really anyone left on the opposing side (save specialist producers of that particular item). But legislation would certainly be a preferable solution. But yeah, the political dynamic and balance of seats means that there's no way legislation gets passed. So if you want this to stay the only time a bump stock was used in an attack like this, your only hope is that the ATF takes the NRA up and does something. That isn't how laws or regulations work. The ATF doesn't make decisions or work with the NRA. They do what congress tells them.
|
On October 07 2017 09:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2017 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2017 08:44 Simberto wrote:On October 07 2017 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2017 08:35 Gahlo wrote:On October 07 2017 08:10 GreenHorizons wrote: The main problem with the CNN video is that they screw up an important distinction. He says "allowing the shooter to fire the weapon repeatedly without having to release the trigger."
If that was true they would be illegal. It's the most important aspect of the ban on automatic weapons. The fundamental difference is whether you have to release the trigger between rounds or not.
Additionally, the most important feature of a bump stock is that it has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic mechanical function when installed.
Danglars has a point (you know it hurts my soul to say that), he doesn't know much more than the CNN people, but he's right that not knowing the parts of the gun and how they work makes regulations pretty ineffective.
EDIT: I love how someone like Danglars thinks we're supposed to take seriously his whining about people pointing out racist stuff as "racist" and also his "If Milo bothers you, you're too sensitive". Incorrect. The the bump fire modifications are stocks. Only the receiver portion of a gun is legally labeled as a firearm. As such, it doesn't fall under the regulatory domain of the ATF. Even if they wanted to ban the bump fire stocks, they'd need to expand their ability to regulate the other parts of the gun. Good luck with getting that to happen. lol. I know what they are, one of few here who's actually used one. I was pointing out that the CNN video got a critical part wrong by suggesting it was a modification that allowed the user to fire continuously without releasing the trigger. If it did that, it would already be illegal. Also the NRA basically gave the ATF a pass to "reinterpret" their ability to regulate them so they could probably do that without much resistance (save maybe from companies that basically only sell bump stocks). This is the kind of detail that is only relevant to gun nuts. The rest of the people don't really care about the nitpicky details of how you managed to be smart and have an automatic rifle without it being an automatic rifle by law. They just don't want to be shot at with automatic rifles. (Probably they would prefer to be shot at with no guns at all, but that is apparently impossible in the US) No, it's the kind of detail that is relevant to anyone who wants to legislate against automatic weapons, or modifications that imitate the feature or to understand what it is they are discussing. On October 07 2017 08:45 Plansix wrote:On October 07 2017 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2017 08:35 Gahlo wrote:On October 07 2017 08:10 GreenHorizons wrote: The main problem with the CNN video is that they screw up an important distinction. He says "allowing the shooter to fire the weapon repeatedly without having to release the trigger."
If that was true they would be illegal. It's the most important aspect of the ban on automatic weapons. The fundamental difference is whether you have to release the trigger between rounds or not.
Additionally, the most important feature of a bump stock is that it has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic mechanical function when installed.
Danglars has a point (you know it hurts my soul to say that), he doesn't know much more than the CNN people, but he's right that not knowing the parts of the gun and how they work makes regulations pretty ineffective.
EDIT: I love how someone like Danglars thinks we're supposed to take seriously his whining about people pointing out racist stuff as "racist" and also his "If Milo bothers you, you're too sensitive". Incorrect. The the bump fire modifications are stocks. Only the receiver portion of a gun is legally labeled as a firearm. As such, it doesn't fall under the regulatory domain of the ATF. Even if they wanted to ban the bump fire stocks, they'd need to expand their ability to regulate the other parts of the gun. Good luck with getting that to happen. lol. I know what they are, one of few here who's actually used one. I was pointing out that the CNN video got a critical part wrong by suggesting it was a modification that allowed the user to fire continuously without releasing the trigger. If it did that, it would already be illegal. Also the NRA basically gave the ATF a pass to "reinterpret" their ability to regulate them so they could probably do that without much resistance (save maybe from companies that basically only sell bump stocks). Congress will need to pass a law to give the ATF the ability to regulate stocks. Right now it is the receiver and that is it. Not exactly. They are basically constrained by what the NRA approves. If the NRA says they can regulate something about guns, there's not really anyone left on the opposing side (save specialist producers of that particular item). But legislation would certainly be a preferable solution. But yeah, the political dynamic and balance of seats means that there's no way legislation gets passed. So if you want this to stay the only time a bump stock was used in an attack like this, your only hope is that the ATF takes the NRA up and does something. That isn't how laws or regulations work. The ATF doesn't make decisions or work with the NRA. They do what congress tells them.
You can't honestly think I don't know that? You know what I'm talking about, please don't be dense.
|
On October 07 2017 09:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2017 09:20 Sermokala wrote:On October 07 2017 08:36 Nevuk wrote: That buzzfeed article from yesterday pretty clearly outlines that Milo's rise was due to a well oiled machine funded by the mercers, Bannon as the brains, and racists as the idea makers. Leftist reactions were the smallest part of it. Leftists reactions are.what have him and.breitbart legitimacy above.other.far right news sources. Its what differentiates them from.their.competition. Saying thats.the smallest part is like saying the euro club scene was tye smallest thing to redbulls success. Why is it the left's fault when people buy into this shit? Why is this left vs right? White supremacist are making a push into main stream discourse, that is an everyone problem. Its not their.fault for white supremacists from buying into him its.their.fault for.engaging with him like he was legitimate and not just another troll. Campus groups did aot of really dumb shit that fed into his manufactured image as a gay jew that the left hated.
|
On October 07 2017 09:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2017 09:39 Plansix wrote:On October 07 2017 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2017 08:44 Simberto wrote:On October 07 2017 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2017 08:35 Gahlo wrote:On October 07 2017 08:10 GreenHorizons wrote: The main problem with the CNN video is that they screw up an important distinction. He says "allowing the shooter to fire the weapon repeatedly without having to release the trigger."
If that was true they would be illegal. It's the most important aspect of the ban on automatic weapons. The fundamental difference is whether you have to release the trigger between rounds or not.
Additionally, the most important feature of a bump stock is that it has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic mechanical function when installed.
Danglars has a point (you know it hurts my soul to say that), he doesn't know much more than the CNN people, but he's right that not knowing the parts of the gun and how they work makes regulations pretty ineffective.
EDIT: I love how someone like Danglars thinks we're supposed to take seriously his whining about people pointing out racist stuff as "racist" and also his "If Milo bothers you, you're too sensitive". Incorrect. The the bump fire modifications are stocks. Only the receiver portion of a gun is legally labeled as a firearm. As such, it doesn't fall under the regulatory domain of the ATF. Even if they wanted to ban the bump fire stocks, they'd need to expand their ability to regulate the other parts of the gun. Good luck with getting that to happen. lol. I know what they are, one of few here who's actually used one. I was pointing out that the CNN video got a critical part wrong by suggesting it was a modification that allowed the user to fire continuously without releasing the trigger. If it did that, it would already be illegal. Also the NRA basically gave the ATF a pass to "reinterpret" their ability to regulate them so they could probably do that without much resistance (save maybe from companies that basically only sell bump stocks). This is the kind of detail that is only relevant to gun nuts. The rest of the people don't really care about the nitpicky details of how you managed to be smart and have an automatic rifle without it being an automatic rifle by law. They just don't want to be shot at with automatic rifles. (Probably they would prefer to be shot at with no guns at all, but that is apparently impossible in the US) No, it's the kind of detail that is relevant to anyone who wants to legislate against automatic weapons, or modifications that imitate the feature or to understand what it is they are discussing. On October 07 2017 08:45 Plansix wrote:On October 07 2017 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2017 08:35 Gahlo wrote:On October 07 2017 08:10 GreenHorizons wrote: The main problem with the CNN video is that they screw up an important distinction. He says "allowing the shooter to fire the weapon repeatedly without having to release the trigger."
If that was true they would be illegal. It's the most important aspect of the ban on automatic weapons. The fundamental difference is whether you have to release the trigger between rounds or not.
Additionally, the most important feature of a bump stock is that it has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic mechanical function when installed.
Danglars has a point (you know it hurts my soul to say that), he doesn't know much more than the CNN people, but he's right that not knowing the parts of the gun and how they work makes regulations pretty ineffective.
EDIT: I love how someone like Danglars thinks we're supposed to take seriously his whining about people pointing out racist stuff as "racist" and also his "If Milo bothers you, you're too sensitive". Incorrect. The the bump fire modifications are stocks. Only the receiver portion of a gun is legally labeled as a firearm. As such, it doesn't fall under the regulatory domain of the ATF. Even if they wanted to ban the bump fire stocks, they'd need to expand their ability to regulate the other parts of the gun. Good luck with getting that to happen. lol. I know what they are, one of few here who's actually used one. I was pointing out that the CNN video got a critical part wrong by suggesting it was a modification that allowed the user to fire continuously without releasing the trigger. If it did that, it would already be illegal. Also the NRA basically gave the ATF a pass to "reinterpret" their ability to regulate them so they could probably do that without much resistance (save maybe from companies that basically only sell bump stocks). Congress will need to pass a law to give the ATF the ability to regulate stocks. Right now it is the receiver and that is it. Not exactly. They are basically constrained by what the NRA approves. If the NRA says they can regulate something about guns, there's not really anyone left on the opposing side (save specialist producers of that particular item). But legislation would certainly be a preferable solution. But yeah, the political dynamic and balance of seats means that there's no way legislation gets passed. So if you want this to stay the only time a bump stock was used in an attack like this, your only hope is that the ATF takes the NRA up and does something. That isn't how laws or regulations work. The ATF doesn't make decisions or work with the NRA. They do what congress tells them. You can't honestly think I don't know that? You know what I'm talking about, please don't be dense. So for the sake of the discussion, are we safe to assume that because the NRA has taken their grip off of congress' balls, that the ATF will get permission to expand their jurisdiction so they actually can deal with the topic? Because that's what I'm have to infer from your post because, like you are talking about with detail picky gun nuts, you aren't being clear.
|
On October 07 2017 09:47 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2017 09:27 Plansix wrote:On October 07 2017 09:20 Sermokala wrote:On October 07 2017 08:36 Nevuk wrote: That buzzfeed article from yesterday pretty clearly outlines that Milo's rise was due to a well oiled machine funded by the mercers, Bannon as the brains, and racists as the idea makers. Leftist reactions were the smallest part of it. Leftists reactions are.what have him and.breitbart legitimacy above.other.far right news sources. Its what differentiates them from.their.competition. Saying thats.the smallest part is like saying the euro club scene was tye smallest thing to redbulls success. Why is it the left's fault when people buy into this shit? Why is this left vs right? White supremacist are making a push into main stream discourse, that is an everyone problem. Its not their.fault for white supremacists from buying into him its.their.fault for.engaging with him like he was legitimate and not just another troll. Campus groups did aot of really dumb shit that fed into his manufactured image as a gay jew that the left hated. I'm going full personal responsibility on this one. It's not the left's fault they told the truth about Milo at the top of their lungs and people still got coned. There were endless reasonable people happy to detail exactly why Milo is human garbage. People who bought into his poorly packaged bullshit have no one to blame but themselves.
|
On October 07 2017 07:28 Jockmcplop wrote:Another interesting article about a forum favourite (Coates): https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/opinion/ta-nehisi-coates-whiteness-power.htmlShow nested quote +In the study of German history, there is the notion of sonderweg, literally the “special path,” down which the German people are fated to wander. In different eras, and depending on who employed it, the term could imply different things. It began as a positive myth during the imperial period that some German scholars told themselves about their political system and culture. During and after World War II it turned distinctly negative, a way for outsiders to make sense of the singularity of Germany’s crimes.
Yet whether viewed from within or without, left or right, the Germans could be seen through such a lens to possess some collective essence — a specialness — capable of explaining everything. In this way, one could speak of a trajectory “from Luther to Hitler” and interpret history not as some chaotic jumble but as a crisp, linear process.
There is something both terrifying and oddly soothing about such a formulation. For better or worse, it leaves many very important matters beyond the scope of choice or action. It imagines Germans as having been either glorious or terrible puppets, the powerful agents of forces nonetheless beyond their control.
A similar unifying theory has been taking hold in America. Its roots lie in the national triple sin of slavery, land theft and genocide. In this view, the conditions at the core of the country’s founding don’t just reverberate through the ages — they determine the present. No matter what we might hope, that original sin — white supremacy — explains everything, an all-American sonderweg.
No one today has done more to push this theory in the mainstream than the 42-year-old author Ta-Nehisi Coates. Anyone interested in the durability of racism in American life is probably still discussing his breakout 2015 memoir “Between the World and Me,” a moving and despairing letter to his then-15-year-old son that warned: “You have been cast into a race in which the wind is always at your face and the hounds are always at your heels ... The plunder of black life was drilled into this country in its infancy and reinforced across its history, so that plunder has become an heirloom, an intelligence, a sentience, a default setting to which, likely to the end of our days, we must invariably return.” The book won Mr. Coates millions of readers and fans, many of whom are white.
For having the temerity to defend himself, Mr. Packer was accused on social media of “excusing racism” and “whitesplaining.” Such logic extends a disturbing trend in left-of-center public thinking: identity epistemology, or knowing-through-being, somewhere along the line became identity ethics, or morality-through-being. Accordingly, whiteness and wrongness have become interchangeable — the high ground is now accessible only by way of “allyship,” which is to say silence and total repentance. The upside to this new white burden, of course, is that whichever way they may choose, those deemed white remain this nation’s primary actors.
Given the genuine severity of the Trump threat, some readers of this essay may wonder, why devote energy to picking over the virtue and solidarity signaling of the left? Quite simply because getting this kind of thinking wrong exacerbates the very inequality it seeks to counteract. In the most memorable sentence in “The First White President,” Mr. Coates declares, “Whereas his forebears carried whiteness like an ancestral talisman, Trump cracked the glowing amulet open, releasing its eldritch energies.” xDaunt is that you?
|
On October 07 2017 09:31 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2017 08:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The country's real economy. WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. State Department has approved the possible sale of a THAAD anti-missile defense system to Saudi Arabia at an estimated cost of $15 billion, the Pentagon said on Friday, citing Iran among regional threats.
The approval opens the way for Saudi Arabia to purchase 44 Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) launchers and 360 missiles, as well as fire control stations and radars.
“This sale furthers U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, and supports the long-term security of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region in the face of Iranian and other regional threats,” the Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation agency said in a statement.
Saudi Arabia and the United States are highly critical of what they consider Iran’s aggressive behavior in the Middle East.
Iran also has one of the biggest ballistic missile programs in the Middle East, viewing it as an essential precautionary defense against the United States and other adversaries, primarily Gulf Arab states and Israel.
THAAD missile systems are deployed to defend against ballistic missile attacks.
Saudi-owned al Arabiya television reported on Thursday that the kingdom had agreed to buy Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile systems, an announcement that came as Saudi King Salman made during his visit to Russia, the first by a Saudi monarch.
U.S. military sales to Saudi Arabia have come under increased scrutiny over the Saudi-led coalition’s war in Yemen.
Riyadh and its allies have been bombing the Iran-aligned Houthis in Yemen since the Houthis seized much of the country’s north in 2015. Riyadh says the coalition is fighting terrorists and supporting Yemen’s legitimate government but the office of the U.N. human rights chief has said Saudi-led air strikes cause the majority of civilian casualties.
Lockheed Martin Co (LMT.N) is the prime contractor for the THAAD system, with Raytheon Co (RTN.N) playing an important role in the system’s deployment.
The United States deployed THAAD to South Korea this year to guard against North Korea’s shorter-range missiles. That has drawn fierce criticism from China, which says the system’s powerful radar can probe deep into its territory. Source I would really prefer Saudi Arabia not be well armed. Why are we friends with Saudi Arabia and not Iran? Iran reflects our values a lot better right? I imagine Israel and Saudi Arabia don't like each other any more than Iran and Israel. iran does indeed reflect our values a lot better; that we're aligned as we are is an artifact of how history turned out, nothing more. do you need a run-down of that history in more detail?
|
On October 07 2017 09:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2017 09:20 Sermokala wrote:On October 07 2017 08:36 Nevuk wrote: That buzzfeed article from yesterday pretty clearly outlines that Milo's rise was due to a well oiled machine funded by the mercers, Bannon as the brains, and racists as the idea makers. Leftist reactions were the smallest part of it. Leftists reactions are.what have him and.breitbart legitimacy above.other.far right news sources. Its what differentiates them from.their.competition. Saying thats.the smallest part is like saying the euro club scene was tye smallest thing to redbulls success. Why is it the left's fault when people buy into this shit? Why is this left vs right? White supremacist are making a push into main stream discourse, that is an everyone problem.
Because when Leftiests pushes for "patriarchy" that causes the wage gap myth, fear mongers about campus rape, refuse to call out/support BLM/antifa's violent behaviors; these guys are served as the antidote to the awful Leftiests.
|
On October 07 2017 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2017 08:44 Simberto wrote:On October 07 2017 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2017 08:35 Gahlo wrote:On October 07 2017 08:10 GreenHorizons wrote: The main problem with the CNN video is that they screw up an important distinction. He says "allowing the shooter to fire the weapon repeatedly without having to release the trigger."
If that was true they would be illegal. It's the most important aspect of the ban on automatic weapons. The fundamental difference is whether you have to release the trigger between rounds or not.
Additionally, the most important feature of a bump stock is that it has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic mechanical function when installed.
Danglars has a point (you know it hurts my soul to say that), he doesn't know much more than the CNN people, but he's right that not knowing the parts of the gun and how they work makes regulations pretty ineffective.
EDIT: I love how someone like Danglars thinks we're supposed to take seriously his whining about people pointing out racist stuff as "racist" and also his "If Milo bothers you, you're too sensitive". Incorrect. The the bump fire modifications are stocks. Only the receiver portion of a gun is legally labeled as a firearm. As such, it doesn't fall under the regulatory domain of the ATF. Even if they wanted to ban the bump fire stocks, they'd need to expand their ability to regulate the other parts of the gun. Good luck with getting that to happen. lol. I know what they are, one of few here who's actually used one. I was pointing out that the CNN video got a critical part wrong by suggesting it was a modification that allowed the user to fire continuously without releasing the trigger. If it did that, it would already be illegal. Also the NRA basically gave the ATF a pass to "reinterpret" their ability to regulate them so they could probably do that without much resistance (save maybe from companies that basically only sell bump stocks). This is the kind of detail that is only relevant to gun nuts. The rest of the people don't really care about the nitpicky details of how you managed to be smart and have an automatic rifle without it being an automatic rifle by law. They just don't want to be shot at with automatic rifles. (Probably they would prefer to be shot at with no guns at all, but that is apparently impossible in the US) No, it's the kind of detail that is relevant to anyone who wants to legislate against automatic weapons, or modifications that imitate the feature or to understand what it is they are discussing. Show nested quote +On October 07 2017 08:45 Plansix wrote:On October 07 2017 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2017 08:35 Gahlo wrote:On October 07 2017 08:10 GreenHorizons wrote: The main problem with the CNN video is that they screw up an important distinction. He says "allowing the shooter to fire the weapon repeatedly without having to release the trigger."
If that was true they would be illegal. It's the most important aspect of the ban on automatic weapons. The fundamental difference is whether you have to release the trigger between rounds or not.
Additionally, the most important feature of a bump stock is that it has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic mechanical function when installed.
Danglars has a point (you know it hurts my soul to say that), he doesn't know much more than the CNN people, but he's right that not knowing the parts of the gun and how they work makes regulations pretty ineffective.
EDIT: I love how someone like Danglars thinks we're supposed to take seriously his whining about people pointing out racist stuff as "racist" and also his "If Milo bothers you, you're too sensitive". Incorrect. The the bump fire modifications are stocks. Only the receiver portion of a gun is legally labeled as a firearm. As such, it doesn't fall under the regulatory domain of the ATF. Even if they wanted to ban the bump fire stocks, they'd need to expand their ability to regulate the other parts of the gun. Good luck with getting that to happen. lol. I know what they are, one of few here who's actually used one. I was pointing out that the CNN video got a critical part wrong by suggesting it was a modification that allowed the user to fire continuously without releasing the trigger. If it did that, it would already be illegal. Also the NRA basically gave the ATF a pass to "reinterpret" their ability to regulate them so they could probably do that without much resistance (save maybe from companies that basically only sell bump stocks). Congress will need to pass a law to give the ATF the ability to regulate stocks. Right now it is the receiver and that is it. Not exactly. They are basically constrained by what the NRA approves. If the NRA says they can regulate something about guns, there's not really anyone left on the opposing side (save specialist producers of that particular item). But legislation would certainly be a preferable solution. But yeah, the political dynamic and balance of seats means that there's no way legislation gets passed. So if you want this to stay the only time a bump stock was used in an attack like this, your only hope is that the ATF takes the NRA up and does something. I find it somewhat amusing that GH and me are two of the people saying that danglars/conservatives have a point on the idea that precise language does matter when it comes to matters of gun control debate, because we are two of the furthest left (especially american) active posters right now by most metrics.
On October 07 2017 09:47 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2017 09:27 Plansix wrote:On October 07 2017 09:20 Sermokala wrote:On October 07 2017 08:36 Nevuk wrote: That buzzfeed article from yesterday pretty clearly outlines that Milo's rise was due to a well oiled machine funded by the mercers, Bannon as the brains, and racists as the idea makers. Leftist reactions were the smallest part of it. Leftists reactions are.what have him and.breitbart legitimacy above.other.far right news sources. Its what differentiates them from.their.competition. Saying thats.the smallest part is like saying the euro club scene was tye smallest thing to redbulls success. Why is it the left's fault when people buy into this shit? Why is this left vs right? White supremacist are making a push into main stream discourse, that is an everyone problem. Its not their.fault for white supremacists from buying into him its.their.fault for.engaging with him like he was legitimate and not just another troll. Campus groups did aot of really dumb shit that fed into his manufactured image as a gay jew that the left hated. I didn't say they were blameless, mistakes were made. But if someone is being bankrolled by a billionaire in politics then I would credit the billionaire more than most other things for catapulting them to relevance (money and connections)
|
|
|
|