thecoffman

Drywall penetration depends on which tests you're looking at but generally speaking it penetrates walls less than or at least not more than any standard pistol or shotgun round and its more likely to fragment on impact.

As a sibling pointed out, the overall length of an AR is actually less than that of the commonly recommended shotgun, making it easier to handle in tight hallways. (Though its arguable that you shouldn't be doing much moving at all in such a scenario).

I would also add that the recoil on an AR-15 is vastly more manageable than a pistol or shotgun making you less likely to hit things you don't intend.

I'm in 100% agreement with the other stuff however. The "tacticool" segment of the market is basically adult dress-up.

As recently as a couple of months ago on Marc Maron's podcast he advocated for Australian style gun control laws which included mandatory registration and confiscation as well as the banning of semi-automatic rifles.

Maybe that doesn't seem like "he wants to take your guns" to you, but it certainly does to many people.

Obviously, like most things, there's a spectrum and this falls somewhere between "he wants to take all your guns" and "free guns for everyone!" But to claim that there is zero evidence that he'd come and take (at least some of) people's guns if he had the political capital to do so is being just as disingenuous as the right-wingers.

Also, as a sibling post has indicated "military grade rifles" "submachine guns" and all sorts of other scary sounding things are regulated to hell and back and nearly impossible to obtain for your average citizen. They're also used in crime approximately none of the time. People who would like stronger regulation routinely and intentionally conflate real military (automatic or select fire) rifles with the semi-automatic civilian lookalikes.

It also is probably worth noting that, while Apple is plenty evil in its own ways, if you're looking to avoid the rampant data collection of Google, Apple is significantly better in that regard.

[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2010/10/how-pbr-co...

Wired Writeup: "The $1200 machine that lets anyone make a metal gun at home." http://www.wired.com/2014/10/cody-wilson-ghost-gunner/

If that's the case, isn't the logical conclusion of this no audio on twitch at all?

I don't quite understand what Google is doing here. This sort of policing is one thing on a general video site like YouTube, but why would you buy a site who's entire raison d'etre is streaming copyrighted material and then start policing it in this manner?

Why buy it at all if you just intend to ruin it?

When I ask for nardi's public key, they can give me theirs, I encrypt it with that key and send it. They use their private key to decrypt it, store it, and then encrypt it with your actual public key and forward it along, neither of us any the wiser.

Additionally, vastly superior technology doesn't necessarily outweigh other factors. It certainly makes a huge difference but history is littered with counterexamples.

No. I can't possibly disagree with this any more strongly.

I'm probably on the wrong side of history here, but Javascript absolutely should _not_ be a requirement for using a website. If your website doesn't work with NoScript turned on, I won't utilize it. Full stop.

In my mind Javascript should be used for progressive enhancement for those users that opt to enable it (or I suppose more correctly: choose not to disable it). Building a thick client web app is the fastest route to ensuring I won't use it.

I'm always skeptical of browser/JS based crypto, but it is nice to see that they're at least upfront with the risks involved in doing such a thing.

They probably downplay the risk of a MITM attack a little much, but otherwise I'm glad to see they're realistic about possible weaknesses of the platform.