damoncali

16 ms·

91.
by damoncali 12y ago
I agree 100%. We are all idiots now and then, even when we're not purposefully trying to be by adding ducks.
92.
by damoncali 12y ago
I think that the point is more that everyone has bouts of incompetence now and then. Sure, some more than others, but it happens to the best of us. Doing something intentionally stupid and manipulative in the name of competence seems counte
93.
by damoncali 12y ago
Put more simply, sometimes you are the idiot. Don't make it worse for everyone by acting like it. Edit: that's a generic 'you', in case it's not obvious, not a reference to the parent.
94.
by damoncali 12y ago
AKA the Gunny Hartman doctrine: "If it wasn't for dickheads like you, there wouldn't be any thievery in this world, would there?"
95.
by damoncali 12y ago
Well, I guess they'd have to ask. But the point is that they are very much aware that they currently ship large quantities of guns, gun parts, and ammunition to unlicensed people (legally) every single day.
96.
by damoncali 12y ago
It's overkill. Completing a lower is doable with normal shop tools. DD is making a point, not a product.
97.
by damoncali 12y ago
Sort of irrelevant if it is inevitable and can't be controlled, no? It's an interesting topic, and again, goes well beyond arms. I'm not saying what I think of it one way or the other, just describing the philosophy of the gu
98.
by damoncali 12y ago
But that just says that it is legal according to the BATFE - you can't use a tool to manufacture firearms unlicensed (or in this grey area, to complete someone's 80% receiver for them). That's a legitimate interpretation of
99.
by damoncali 12y ago
But I can point to a law that allows them to regulate M855, or at least gives them the wiggle room. I'm aware of no such law that even hints at their ability to regulate machine technology.
100.
by damoncali 12y ago
Think bigger and longer-term. He's not talking about guns, but removing the ability of governments to regulate anything physical. Could you print or cast propellants and make caseless ammo? I bet with some effort you could. Could you
101.
by damoncali 12y ago
It is within the power of the ATF to rule that a CNC mill that is pre-loaded with the ability to convert an partially finished receiver into a finished receiver, is a controlled item. Are you sure about that? Under what law?
102.
by damoncali 12y ago
Wilson is in it for the PR, not the guns. He's an interesting fellow. It would defeat his stated purpose if he didn't tell anyone.
103.
by damoncali 12y ago
If you read up on the guy, that's not what he wants. He doesn't care about guns. He just wants to put manufacturing technology beyond the reach of the law. He's got a bit of an anarchist bent. Guns are just the means to his e
104.
by damoncali 12y ago
They absolutely know. You have to pay a hazmat fee on the gunpoweder/ammo, for example, and when you're shipping boxes out of a gun parts retailer, guess what? Those boxes contain gun parts. The PR flunky is either lying or totall
105.
by damoncali 12y ago
True, but lets not pretend this is a legal question. Given that UPS will ship 8 pound jugs of gunpowder to unlicensed individuals every day of the week and twice on Sunday, I have a hard time believing they have some sort of philosophical o
106.
by damoncali 12y ago
Except firearm construction is totally legal.
107.
by damoncali 12y ago
The UPS guy has no idea what he's talking about. Literally millions of gun parts are shipped to non-FFL holders (aka consumers) by UPS. As are live ammunition, powder and primers. They'll also ship actual guns both to and from non
108.
by damoncali 12y ago
Anyone who thinks Americans drive poorly/without care ought to take a trip to somewhere like Vietnam. Holy crap, that's a free for all.
109.
by damoncali 12y ago
It works with competitors, but it's really easy to find products with keywords dominated by expensive enterprise versions who overspend on AdWords, rendering it ineffective for smaller competitors. Just the way it is.
110.
by damoncali 12y ago
unless you put huge amounts of effort into maintaining precise tolerances
111.
by damoncali 12y ago
1911's are by modern standards sloppy, inaccurate and unreliable unless you put huge amounts of effort into maintaining precise tolerances. Modern designs (Glock, et al.) have far fewer components, and much less trouble with the tolera
112.
by damoncali 12y ago
I never understood that either (and I love guns). However, they are different things, and you do run into situations where imprecise language is confusing. If you want to load you clip with your clip, for example. Loading you magazine wit
113.
by damoncali 12y ago
Yeah - I take it back - I spoke too quickly. You can certainly launch large satellites with rockets. I was too focused on Hubble specifically. That said, I remain deeply skeptical of the idea of being able to do so cost effectively or in a
114.
by damoncali 12y ago
Whatever the contract says. But if you have a long term deal, I would recommend quarterly, or preferably annual billing. Dealing with checks is a pain. In my experience, big co's are no more or less likely to pay on time than anyone el
115.
by damoncali 12y ago
You bring up an interesting point regarding astronaut safety. It's interesting to me because I have the polar opposite opinion. This will sound cold, but astronauts are basically expendable. We can expect a small percentage of them to
116.
by damoncali 12y ago
What you're saying isn't crazy. I guess I don't have a lot of faith in their estimates. NICMOS was supposed to last something like 4 years if I remember correctly. It died in about two. A whole slew of gyros failed, degrading
117.
by damoncali 12y ago
Fair point on launching big stuff - I suppose that a Hubble derivative could have been designed to work with one of the bigger rockets. But a hoped for lifespan of 10 years is not even close to what you get out of Hubble servicing missions.
118.
by damoncali 12y ago
Every decision at NASA is political - it's a government entity (look up Triana - that's another one I worked on. It's laughably ridiculous). But you're grossly oversimplifying. There isn't a prayer in heaven that wo
119.
by damoncali 12y ago
How would you have gotten even one HST sized telescope into orbit without a manned mission? Do you know what life span of a Hubble would have been if it were not serviceable? Your approach would have cost more, not less. More manned fights,
120.
by damoncali 12y ago
This is just not true. I worked on three of those servicing missions as an engineer. They were required to keep HST running and to enhance it's capability. Adding COSTAR to fix the mirror fuckup was one tiny piece of the servicing miss

More ›