Don’t be evil

Posted on by

Interesting. At least, i suppose that’s one word to describe it.

This morning before I went to work I was at home looking through the news and such, and I came across a video that I though might be interesting to one of my students. I watched a few minutes of it to make sure it was what I thought it was, then paused it and went to work. There I searched for it, found it, and clicked the vid to que it up for my student. I hit play, and it picked up at the exact same spot I’d paused it… back at home.

Different machine. Different network and ISP. Different browser. Different OS.

It knew exactly where I’d paused.

Nah, nothing there to be creeped the fuck out about, nothing at all.

The ONLY connection that I could identify was that for work we use Chrome machines, and are given all things Chrome to use, including (of course) GMail. To look at work emails and schedule at home I’d opened up my gmail account and a shared spreadsheet. It was opened in the browsers in both places.

Different machine. Different network and ISP. Different browser. Different OS.Both had an email account opened in one tab, it tracked what was going on in other tabs and browsers when I don’t use Google search at home.

Like I said, nah, nothing to be bothered by, right?

I will not now, nor ever, buy or use any Google product that is not provided by work, and I’ll never again open their applications on my home machine if I can possibly help it.

Quote of the day—Rob Morse

Posted on by

The antipathy towards gun owners is not based upon stopping violence, but upon reducing the discomfort felt by idealists.  For the idealist, letting society take the burden removes both the duty and the emotional cost of facing an imperfect world. For the idealist, protecting the fantasy narrative is more important than respecting the facts.

Rob Morse
March 27, 2017
Violence and Utopia- Realism and Idealism in the age of Gun Control
[This is probably fair to the majority of the anti-gun people. But, I wouldn’t use the word “idealist” to describe a large minority of them.

“Idealist” is far, far too generous to those in power who know and understand the facts. They want a monopoly on power and the existence of a large number of gun owners are an obstacle to them.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ted Nugent

Posted on by

In this world turned upside down, where certain lunatic-fringe Americans are against secure borders, don’t believe in earning their own way, won’t care about their health but demand others pay for their health care, where crazy politicians rant how bills must be signed to find out what’s in them, and where everybody knows that the most innocent lives are always lost in gun-free zones, dangerous people actually want more gun-free slaughter zones.

Ted Nugent
February 23, 2017
TED NUGENT: INSANITY IS AN ASSAULT WEAPON—BAN IT
[The motives of knowledgeable people advocating for more “gun-free” zones cannot be more clear. It is evil.—Joe]

All is not as it appears

Posted on by

Very funny short vid.

Cheers!

Quote of the day—Rachel Dolezal

Posted on by

People didn’t seem able to consider that maybe both were true. OK, I was born to white parents, but maybe I had an authentic black identity.

Rachel Dolezal
March 24, 2017
Rachel Dolezal struggling after racial-identity scandal in Spokane
[And maybe I’m standing upright and on my head at the same time.

It’s not surprising that she changed her legal name in hopes it would help her get a job. But, “Nkechi Amare Diallo”? And then she tells the AP her new name?

The political left not only is the party of criminals it’s the party of the mentally ill (see also my post on Peterson Syndrome)..—Joe]

When does recoil start?

Posted on by

Cool posting on “when does recoil start?”

When Does the Pistol Slide Start to Move?

It has some pretty good gif/animation and explanations.

Short version: once the bullet starts moving, Newton’s laws kick in. I think one of the most fascinating part of the animations is the smoke spurts; the 1911 has some at the breech, too, but they all have smoke exiting the barrel before the bullet. Cool stuff.

Quote of the day—Rasputin2112

Posted on by

BTW I’m very content with my “size”. I don’t need a gun to make me feel “bigger”.

Rasputin2112
June 14, 2016
Comment to Poll: Would assault-weapon ban help prevent mass shootings?
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

Posted on by

Armed evil beats unarmed innocence every time.

Alan Gottlieb
March 25, 2017
‘Armed Evil Always Beats Unarmed Innocence,’ Warns SAF Founder
[Well, perhaps not every time, but close enough.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Andrew Heaton

Posted on by

We threw the baby out with the bathwater when we kicked the monarchy out of America, and we ought to bring it back.

…

In America we’ve combined power and reverence in the office of the presidency, but legal authority and veneration compliment each other about as well as Scotch and back pain medication. It’s safer to ingest them separately.

Andrew Heaton
March 18, 2017
Why America Needs A Monarchy
[I find it hard to disagree with this point. There many be some interesting psychology going on here that could be affecting politics adversely.—Joe]

QOTD – Frederick Douglas

Posted on by

It is easier to build strong children than repair broken men.
– Frederick Douglas

Make sure yours grow up strong. And beware of those who aim to denigrate, tear down, demonize, marginalize, minimize, or coerce the males in your family.

Quote of the day—Dianne Feinstein

Posted on by

Justice Scalia also wrote that, ‘Weapons that are most useful in military service, M-16 rifles and the like, may be banned’ without infringing on the Second Amendment. Do you agree with that statement that under the Second Amendment weapons that are most useful in military service … may be banned?

Dianne Feinstein
U.S. Senator
March 21, 2017
FEINSTEIN QUOTED SCALIA OUT OF CONTEXT TO PUSH AGENDA
[What Scalia actually wrote was:

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

I was pleased with Gorsuch response. He handled the deceitful tactics well:

“It is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, senator, respectfully, it’s a matter of it being the law and my job is to apply and enforce the law.”

Sebastian has video of the exchange.

As is usual, anti-gun politicians knowingly lie in their attempt to infringe upon our specific enumerated right. It’s all they have to work with. And we will have their lies to work with at their trials.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John D. Clark

Posted on by

If your propellants flow into the chamber and ignite immediately, you’re in business. But if they flow in, collect in a puddle, and then ignite, you have an explosion which generally demolishes the engine and its immediate surroundings. The accepted euphemism for this sequence of events is a “hard start.”

John D. Clark
1972
I G N I T I O N !: An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants
[As I told Barb after she asked me why I was laughing, “The research of rocket propellants was a risky business. Sometimes the author doesn’t treat the subject entirely seriously.”—Joe]

Expendable men

Posted on by

Times change.
But it ain’t all progress.

There has been a lot of social upheaval in recent years on the topics of equality, “equality,” women’s rights, men’s rights, patriarchy, the wage gap, marriage, MGTOW, misogyny versus misandry (I note the spell-checker has the previous but not the latter word), marginalizing men, etc. websites like Men of the West, videos like this Continue reading →

Quote of the day—Ralphdog

Posted on by

Sound suppressors as public health measure; I still can’t quite get my head around the lunacy of it. That’s like recommending sunglasses for arsonists so the flash from the exploding gasoline doesn’t harm their vision. Or airbags for suicide car bombers.

Ralphdog
November 5, 2007
A Democrat’s guide to why firearm sound suppressors (“silencers”) should be made easier to obtain.
[This is what they think of you. If you exercise your specific enumerate right to keep and bear arms you are the equivalent of an arsonist or suicide car bomber.

When they have this attitude it should be easy to see why it is extremely foolish to even discuss any sort of “compromise” with them.—Joe]

Group size

Posted on by

On Sunday Barb and went to the range and used the “Training Bay”. Barb practiced drawing from the holster. I set up my chronograph and tested 17 different .40 S&W loads with four different powders and two different bullet types (both 180 grain). I ended up firing 170 rounds of .40 S&W and 20 rounds of .22 into the same target. All the .40 S&W was from about 28 yards. It made for, what I thought was, an interesting target:

WP_20170321_08_14_30_Pro

I wasn’t doing my best with each shot but I was reasonably careful. My primary goal was to not shoot the chronograph screens and having a constant point of aim helped.

But after pulling the target I wondered, “What would be the equivalent five shot group size made from the same sample of ammo?”

“Group size” has always bugged me. A better measure would be standard deviation. But that’s not what the shooting world uses. I understand why. Standard deviation is much more difficult to compute in our situation. Group size is extremely easy and as long as you are honest with yourself (don’t find excuses to throw away a bad group and always use the same number of shots when comparing) it can give you a fairly decent indication of the accuracy of your system (gun, ammo, and shooter).

One of the problems with group size is that you can’t easily compare a three shot group to a five shot, seven, or ten shot group. I spent a lot of time manipulating equations and running simulations and built a solution into Modern Ballistics. If you edit a cartridge and have it calculate the “5-shot Group Size” via “Calculate via group” you can input a set of one or more groups at various ranges and various shots per group and it will compute the equivalent 5-shot group size in minutes of angle.

Sooo… I put in the group size 13” from the target above for a 170 shot group and it immediately complained. I had programmed in error checking which said, basically, that if you are shooting a group with more than 100 shots you don’t know what you are doing. Heavy sigh.

So I went with a 100 shot group with 13 inches and came up with a 20.84 MOA five shot group. Okay. Not too bad considering the variations in the ammo (the mean velocity on any given loading varied from 907 fps to 1033 fps), iron sights, with a pistol, and not originally intending to shoot for a good group. And it would have been better had my program allowed for 170 shot groups. Converting back to inches and rounding down a bit to compensate for the 170 versus 100 shot group it comes out to 5.75 inches.

I’m okay with that.

Quote of the day—Glenn Kessler

Posted on by

Foes of the law such as Gillibrand should not use misleading terms such as “quiet” to describe the sound made by a high-powered weapon with a suppressor attached. We wavered between Two and Three Pinocchios, but finally tipped to Three. There is little that’s quiet about a firearm with a silencer, unless one also thinks a jackhammer is quiet.

Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Fact Checker
Are firearms with a silencer ‘quiet’?
[H/T Bob Owens.

One should not be surprised an anti-gun organization and their people are lying. It is in their nature and it is the best they have to work with.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Lisa Stingel Mifsud‏@sportslawyerlis

Posted on by

@Duck_Hunter7 @Rickmayhem @DCHomos @johnrtworld and you think the gun does what exactly make up for your tiny penis

Lisa Stingel Mifsud‏@sportslawyerlis
Tweeted on June 12, 2016
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

Via a tweet from Proud Hunter ‏@Duck_Hunter7.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bad Idea T-Shirts

Posted on by

PS_1304_FUTURE_BAD

Bad Idea T-Shirts
[Boomershoot 2017 is coming up and no one from the future has stopped me yet. I’ll bet no one stops you either. Sign up here.—Joe]

Is she clueless, or hoping we’re clueless?

Posted on by

Or both?

The bizarre assertion is that feminism is being bogged down by its association with leftist causes.

Sisters; the one and only purpose for the “feminist movement” is to advance what are essentially Marxist principles and goals. That of course includes the defamation and de-emphasis of men, especially Jewish and Christian men, along with them the very concept of morality, and the de-emphasis of the nuclear family as a cornerstone of civilization.

Calling for outreach to Christian women who embrace the American Principles then, is like the PLO and the other jihadists reaching out to Jews for assistance in destroying Israel.

It could work in some cases I suppose, if you find enough dumb “conservative” women who’re only pretending to be conservative or pretending to be Christian but don’t really know what any of it means. You get them irritated and agitated enough, and they’ll be open to your propaganda.

Agitprop.

Truly strong, American women have no use for the “feminist” movement. They’re already doing what they want to do, and the “feminists” (communists, essentially) have been verbally attacking them for it all along.

Constantly viewing oneself as a victim of this or that, or a victim of everything, is detrimental to one’s success, whether you’re a truly strong woman or anyone else (we have to be careful with definitions here though; to “The Sisterhood” of pissed off leftist women, the term “strong woman” means “nasty, dumb bitch”).

That’s the whole point really; the Marxist/Progressive/authoritarian movement needs as many people as possible thinking of themselves as victims and thus being pissed off, otherwise the movement has nothing. It’s the Grievance Culture, and so it doesn’t matter whether it’s women, men, black women and men, gay, trans, or any and all of the rest of Humanity; if we can get people pissed off and feeling like they’re powerless without Big Daddy Government stepping in to intervene in their personal lives, then the American Principles have been defeated right there.

It’s never been about protecting anyone’s rights or advancing anyone’s quality of life. The Original American Principles do that already. The Grievance Movement is purely about keeping the grievances alive and growing, as a political weapon against the American Principles.

And you in the “movement”, at least those few calling the shots, you know all this perfectly well. Nice try, keep it up and all, but your premise here is just ridiculous.

Quote of the day—Bob Evans

Posted on by

You’ve never had a better administration for the gun industry than Obama, and now never a worse one for the gun industry than Trump.

Bob Evans
Pennington Capital Management – Analyst
February 23, 2017
RGR – Q4 2016 Sturm Ruger & Company Inc Earnings Call
[Despite this obvious fact known to anyone that cares to do any research (investors dump gun company stocks the day after Trump won the election) we constantly read and hear things like:

Because much of Congress takes its cues (and money) from the National Rifle Association, our nation’s firearms legislation is tilted toward the financial gains of weapons and ammunition manufacturers, and our gun-violence research has largely been suppressed.

Obviously, if the NRA were actually looking after the financial gain of the firearms industry they would have endorsed Hillary Clinton rather than Donald Trump. The NRA, as they claim, represent the interests of firearm owners.

I believe the reason people continue to make such crap for brains claims is because they have a deep seated hatred of capitalism and people making a profit. They believe that if they frame the debate in terms of someone making a profit “everyone” will recognize the “evil” just as easily as they do.

What these people can’t understand is that profit and capitalism are not inherently evil. Free markets and free minds don’t always make the best choices. But they do make far better choices than than coerced markets and minds–the type of markets and minds the anti-gun people insist on creating. Gun control is about control.—Joe]