bbk

40 minutes have elapsed, so, happy belated bday, J!

The story is really quite interesting. The fact that the death rite predates known cultural practices shows that there is still quite a bit too learn. I doubt it was an illness. My guess is that maybe it was because of the feud between north and south medieval Ireland at the time, or had something to do with being undesirables-- and were treated so after death. I wonder if there are any other markings on the bones that would indicate cause of death, as that could explain a lot. From the cultural standpoint, it's hard to say. Celtic polytheism does stretch back to the early days of the region, and how these two males were buried does point to that fact. Thing is that Christianity really decimated a lot of that culture around the 7th century. Basically, with all of the given facts, unless a forensic anthropologist can find physical evidence or more burials like this pop up, their burial will remain a mystery. For the time being, to err on the side of caution, I'll believe it was zombies , haha

1. Holy dead-thread 2. I still think you're wrong. First, the definition of telescope. Boldfaced being the most relative. tel·e·scope    [tel-uh-skohp] Show IPA noun, adjective, verb, -scoped, -scop·ing. noun 1. an optical instrument for making distant objects appear larger and therefore nearer. One of the two principal forms (refracting telescope) consists essentially of an objective lens set into one end of a tube and an adjustable eyepiece or combination of lenses set into the other end of a tube that slides into the first and through which the enlarged object is viewed directly; the other form (reflecting telescope) has a concave mirror that gathers light from the object and focuses it into an adjustable eyepiece or combination of lenses through which the reflection of the object is enlarged and viewed. Compare radio telescope. 2. ( initial capital letter ) Astronomy . the constellation Telescopium. adjective 3. consisting of parts that fit and slide one within another. verb (used with object) 4. to force together, one into another, or force into something else, in the manner of the sliding tubes of a jointed telescope. 5. to shorten or condense; compress: to telescope the events of five hundred years into one history lecture. verb (used without object) 6. to slide together, or into something else, in the manner of the tubes of a jointed telescope. 7. to be driven one into another, as railroad cars in a collision. 8. to be or become shortened or condensed. [Source] The official Magpul UBR installation and usage manual then states under the "Stock Mission and Information" section (p.1): "Seven-position length-of-pull (LOP) adjustment is quickly executed with gross motor movement while the integral preset system allows direct access to a preferred position" Under the "Usage Instructions" section (p. 7): "Fully depress the Release Latch and pull the stock rearward to extend, or push stock forward to collapse." The word telescoping isn't used officially, of course, but from what I can tell according to the official Magpul UBR manual, the operation of the UBR indeed functions in a telescoping motion, as the action of the stock does indeed become "shortened [and]or condensed." Further, the UBR does in fact use a [buffer] tube, similar to a telescope, and, in the adjective/describing sense, the UBR consists of sliding parts similar to how a telescope functions. Add in that with manual motion the parts can shorten or condense, it seems pretty obvious that the UBR does indeed have a telescoping function. [Source for Magpul UBR] I'm not saying I like the rule, but if you want to hang yourself with it, go for it. I won't take my chances, and I can't in good faith say that this stock is completely safe-- instead I would side with safety. If you want to argue semantics, argue with a lawyer or the state, IMO. Arguing this on a forum, as proven, gets this no where. If you're just pursuing general discourse, then be weary of what you say because some poor soul might go out and slap this on their rifle. And even if it's proven in court that they're not guilty, they'll be in a bad spot all because of one ideology found on some forum. Mind you, I'm not saying to not argue this topic-- it's good discourse for all of us, newbies, and, if they're reading, the antis because it takes discourse to actually learn and progress from stupid and archaic legislation that doesn't make sense. I'm simply saying that doling out advice is not the right step. Of course, I'm not completely blaming you if the theoretical situation were to happen because anybody who takes advice on any forum or from any one source is kind of asking for "IT".

I'm another fan of WileyX. I got a pair in a swag bag awhile back when they were doing base tours, and they've done their job for years now. In the same vein, I'm considering prescription ballistic glasses, any suggestions?

I'm not an technical expert on feed ramps, though it is a big debate. Here is a technical discussion on them from M4C forums. Personally, even if they provide the slightest boost to reliability, I would prefer to have them. In this day and age, you don't really pay anymore for them (as noted, they are pretty common place). As for mid-lengths, the whole idea is that it causes less wear and tear on the internals of the rifle, and, less subtlety, provides a softer shooting rifle. Of course there goes a lot into a softer shooting rifle (buffer, brake, ammo, etc), but it is a definite plus from what I've heard of those who own one, and from the rifles I've shot myself.

They just added a page for the wave times here, but it's an empty page. They must have just added it because they were probably getting nagged with the same question. Keep an eye on it, or just send them an email. They've also added a bunch of new locations, though none really close to NJ.

Very interesting, I wouldn't mind seeing the Excel worksheet if you don't mind. I'm seriously considering pursuing an early career in risk management/OEM as I find it quite pertinent in this day and age (and interesting). Question posed though, how about self-sustainability? Would the biggest risk then shift to a different paradigm, such as INFOSEC & OPSEC (in that instead of worrying about essential/non-essential goods, a group is concerned with not broadcasting it)? I think self-sustainability is quite possible, even in a major city (given the size of their group... individual, family, etc). To be specific though, my area is built on former farmland (as is a very high number of NJ residents), so the soil had been taken care of for decades (possibly centuries before, thanks to the Natives). We can grow pretty much anything seasonally, plus we have the space. However, as I can foresee, the problem is that while certain areas might have a relatively low population density, they are oft surrounded by major urban sprawl-- and, I could imagine, that in a major emergency situation, there could be run-off. Obviously agriculture is something that cannot really be easily hidden from view, plus who knows how the townspeople across the street (let alone from the major city 20-25 miles away) feel. I know, it's a complicated question with a whole set of new parameters from what you had mentioned, mcbethr. I read what you had to say, and it resonated with me because I've really made an effort to stop using "supermarkets" and instead have been focused on self-sustainability and local farmer's markets. And while I do think going back to those two would solve a lot of problems in this country (economical/institutionally and health-wise), I do understand the threats that would rise would greatly differ from that of things related to supermarkets (like the JIT concept). Was just curious what you thought.

As the catch title says, "Nothing spreads like fear" I liked the film. Most of the criticism is people nitpicking certain details, but I think the larger picture is very well done. What I got out of the film wasn't even fear of any type, but the idea that I should stop putting things aside because I'm so driven and focused towards other goals. I definitely recommend this film.

I believe when you register, there are different start times. I can be mistaken though.

Yea, Anthony Bourdain shares the same sentiment. He actually loves shooting, but is all for gun control. I asked him in person about it briefly last semester when I went to one of his book talks; surprisingly I thought he would be annoyed by me asking that, but he was concise, and that was all the time I had, haha. Hickok45? That wouldn't even be fair, ha. Unless they have to do 30 minutes of cardio before every event, he would have it in the bag. Now what would be amusing, and add that much needed drama, would be Nutnfancy. Easy cast member to dislike, might have the skills to back up his annoying habits, and would (as pointed out) annoy everybody. I'd be interested, for real, in seeing athletes of different backgrounds. Athletes (not including competitive shooters obviously) tend to have sharpened their fine motor skills, and can quickly pick up minute details to redundant actions (aka pulling a trigger in the same fashion, repeatedly). I'm actually all for seeing normal people given an opportunity to see what they can do. I think there is definitely an appeal to seeing professionals and very skilled shooters compete. But I think there would be a lot of people who would surprise themselves if they gave shooting a chance. My sister who never picked up a firearm until I took her and her husband out was able to consistently knock down clays (this was at Range 14, for reference) that were placed at 100 and 150 yards after about 50 rounds of warming up. This was from an MP15-22 and a standing, unsupported position. Still, I too would rather see highly skilled shooters, whether pro/semi-pro/amateur. ETA: By "normal people" I meant anybody (celebrities, you, me, etc) that aren't known professional shooters, or anybody who isn't necessarily publicly known for their proficiency with marksmanship.

My best advice came a good few years after I went through BCT when my unit's "BRM/ARM instructor" (of course not an official position, hence the quotations, but he was a combat-exp sniper as well as former member of the Army marksmanship team who was assigned by the BCO to re-train the whole unit in marksmanship) basically told us to throw out everything we knew about marksmanship taught to us prior. When it came to man-sized targets, the most basic and sound advice that still reverberates with me today was "aim small, miss small", which I've noticed is a cliche saying in the shooting community. He would also share that we, as professional Soldiers, should know the weak points in an opponent, similar to certain martial arts (pressure points, etc), and to focus our conditioning with that mindset. As for the article, it is redundant, but good information. One thing that really stood out for me is when he discussed dynamic training. It's something I know I've said, but for those who depend on a firearm to defend them self, whether concealed or in the home, training should mimic reality. It's neither enough to just have a firearm for your protection, nor is it enough to just shoot at a static target in a static position.

(Courtesy of AMC. Source) 90 minute series premiere coming up in about a month, October 16th! Admittedly, I'm a bit disappointed it's not premiering on Halloween like last year

DI is definitely a fun game, though I wouldn't say it is unique. General mechanics are similar to any western RPG, though DI definitely falls under the new "action RPG" genre, like the similar Borderlands. Combat feels like a mix between Borderlands, Dead Rising, and the Left 4 Dead series. The way the game environment works, and how you interact with said environment, reminds me of Far Cry 2, and the co-op is very similar to the system that Microsoft used for Fable 2 and Fable 3 (though the scaling of levels with more party members is practically identical to Borderlands). What is remotely unique to me is the combination of the HUD (head's up display)-- or lack thereof-- with the game play style. For the most part, you feel isolated and like any ordinary human. It gives it a raw and yet exhilarating feeling when dealing with a lot of situations. So, to me, still an exciting and fun game even if most every aspect of the game was ripped off of some other game. Hopefully things will improve for Dead Island 2 (if it is greenlighted).

+1 NickJC. I PMed you. I too am done with the public discussion of the subject matter I discussed. If you wish to comment further, contact me personally.

I am aware of your loss, and I do know what that feels like personally, NickJC. With that said, there is no sitting on a high horse of any type. I have seen the classified images of the destruction and mayhem caused by Muslim extremists here and abroad. I've seen the devastation caused by coalition forces, to both intended targets and collateral. I do think it is easy to neglect the fact that tens of thousands... hundreds [of thousands], if not millions, have been affected by the events of 9/11 (and many more to come). While I do mourn the lives lost of my fellow citizens, I cannot simply forget the ones who might not share the same nation as me-- but are equally human. I have never, ever agreed or said the actions of those who choose to inflict harm are justified-- in fact I have said, repeatedly, in this post and in the past, that I have been involved with, and advocate, the utter destruction of those who are involved in such heinous acts. HOWEVER, that does not mean every individual of a background is an enemy. I'm not saying it is wrong to *think* it-- I'm simply saying that it is wrong to think it, want to act upon it, and then justify that it is the patriotic thing to do. As far as I'm concerned, the American ideal is about equal rights for all-- and that starts at understanding and respecting a culture. With your loss, I can understand why you would be hostile, NickJC, and I respect that. I do. Those are not empty words. I can't say I advocate them though. In the big picture, long after you and I are gone and just memories of this world, these arguments will persist. And regardless of what you and I think, the problems will have to be addressed. To simply believe that the eradication of a broad group of people (who simply fly under a banner) is justified is... well, mortifying. Truth is this is a touchy subject for all people, Americans, Muslims, Saudis, etc, etc. I understand and respect that every individual has the choice to deal with their emotions at their personal level-- in fact that is one of the beauty's of being an American. And because of that, how a person feels is how they will feel [as it's been proven that people are rarely moved unless they wish to be]. What I cannot stand for is the public announcement of distasteful and blatant bigotry on a public space that I co-inhabit. To *think* that you wish for the absolute eradication of a group of people is none of my business-- and that is, in fact, your right. However, in a public space, *saying* and sharing it is a different story. It is a slap in the face of what I have personally sacrificed for, and only continues to paint a certain picture of what the firearms community is considered.

Just got back from watching ' ' and I honestly can't get it off of my mind. Going into the movie, I was intrigued as movies having to do with epidemics rarely are thrust into the spotlight. I also feared that Contagion would be a fear-mongering type film, as is the case most of the time with that genre of films. However, I was truly surprised [in a good way] with how visceral and blunt the film portrayed the subject matter (which is obvious if anybody has seen the first ten minutes). Beyond that though, the film, I feel, almost examined and dissected every aspect having to do with a major, catastrophic incident (operative word being 'incident' as I feel that the epidemic portion could have been replaced with really any type of catastrophic incident and, generally, told the same story). The fact that the writers broke down the story from the international to the national, and then to the state and local levels-- and then even the micro-perspective was refreshing and well-organized. I always say in discussions regarding large scale incidents that the problem for us, as individuals, are at the local level. Yet, people get caught up in the macro-perspective, as does Hollywood [when discussing this subject matter], and they fail to realize it is a broken way of examining said issues (the question is posed, "why worry about something that we can't control?"). This film really examines this very well, and the story-telling is fluid (and it doesn't hurt that the excellent, ensemble cast does a great job too). I really don't want to go into specifics because I would rather not ruin sections of the film. But if you haven't watched, and will, you'll notice small bits that while are only brief moments on the screen, hold the weight of the world in their actions. I wouldn't say it's moving stuff, ha, but the details were very well thought out and executed. I really say watch this film because, IMO, it is the film that has best shown how society and individuals deal with such an incident. It's real, no "heroes" really, and it tells a story that is truly believable (which is quite frightening when considered). For those who have watched it, I called the ending right at the get-go

I understand and respect what Mark has contributed. To a certain degree, I agree. For me, the problem lies in that it is not a complete picture/thought, which can prove to be hindering to everybody. In the end, this anniversary marks respect for those who are not with us anymore. Perspectives on everything else is just perspectives, and there is no trying to fight over it as these perspectives will persist as talking points for a very long time-- far after any of us are around anymore.

Congratulations, Jon!

I haven't forgotten. I fought these recent wars, and those scars will be with me forever. I'm not ashamed with what I've done because that's not a healthy way of looking at life. I have come to accept that what I did was right and just, but the truth is inescapable. The truth that actions have consequences, and while some bring those who wish to do us harm to justice, others ruin and destroy innocents. Even with biological and cultural differences, most civilizations are not far from each other in their truest essence. And I feel that while I am absolutely grateful for being a born and bred citizen of the United States of America, who willingly volunteered to enlist during a time of war knowing full-well what was to come, to hold an attitude that because I can simply walk on someone does not allow me too. If someone holds this as a truth (that it is our duty to subjugate) and calls them self a patriot, it disgusts me and they hold no purpose in this republic except to be a bad example. Further, there are plenty of examples in history where people of any culture have been a pure menace-- and simply because certain cultures rose to the top, they have been given the opportunity to write history as they wish. Does this change history itself? If a tree were to fall in the woods, we could argue if anybody heard it, what type of tree, and why it fell. But in the end, a tree fell. Beyond that, our interpretations are simply our own, but do not change the truth. I won't waste my time going into specific examples in history because I think it is blatantly obvious the transgressions of the west in the past. Ignoring those is in fact ignorance; dismissing them under the pretense of patriotism is arrogance. Again, I'm not saying we have to force ourselves to befriend and merrily live side by side with anybody of any background-- that is a personal choice. However, in the manner of post-9/11, to simply dislike someone because individuals bastardized a belief system does in fact, as noted by a poster, give in to the whims of terrorist-- who have indeed achieved what they intended. To cause fracture and discourse amongst groups, alienating innocents ends up doing what in the long run? To me, paying tribute to those who were lost on 9/11 and since involves that I remember their memory of who they were. To lose myself in the lost potential is masochistic because I believe I do not hold that knowledge of what could have been. Instead, grounded in my reality, I celebrate the lost as who they were-- and that's a beautiful thing to me.

And yet it is easier to subjugate a classification of people to create targets of opportunity. To dehumanize a category allows justification of waging conflict and war (and the terrible things associated with such actions), while in many cases distracting the masses from the actual issues. Maybe it's just me, but I find the rhetoric that it's all the "towel head"'s faults a bit vicious and hypocritical, especially when people complain that "white, conservatives" being targeted is grounds for an uproar and reason to march on the capital. To me it appears that people have some deep seated issues that they haven't resolved, and/or are smitten with what is passed from the talking head's that supposedly lead this country (which is ironic because some of these people call others "sheep"). I'm not saying how to live your life, but, gosh, listen to yourselves. You're willing to make somebody less than human so you can simply blame someone, without even taking the time to understand. Not to appreciate or care-for, but to at least understand-- otherwise it is just ignorance that powers you. Are there bad people who deserve nothing but swift justice? Of course. Anybody-- white, black, yellow, purple, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc-- who threatens me and my family with violence, and, further, acts upon that threat will receive swift justice. However, to alienate a fellow human because they simply have a beard, are brown, and have a different faith makes me what? A bigot? A bastard? A hero? We wonder why the world is so screwed up, when in fact we choose to put up walls around ourselves-- calling it "insulation" or "protection", and then demand answers when we fail to be successful. People are so damn short sighted, and it's irritating and frustrating because they're good people, if they could just go beyond their sphere of influence. Alas, history of the world, and in fact I am :thsmiley_deadhorse:...

You give me far too much credit, Maks, ha, but thanks. While I'm not a design/development guy, I have put iterations of the system through rigorous use. Understanding the culture of the rifle is as important as the technical aspects when considering an AR, IMO. You'll often hear things like, "what is your intended use?" or "I want a SHTF gun that can shoot sub-MOA while flexible enough to be use in competition, that can have an octo-rail so I can attach all of swag." Honestly, I don't hold prejudices, and however frankengun an AR ends up, if the user has a concept of what their expectations of their rifle are, and they prepare for it-- that's all they need. In short I'm saying that even though trial-and-error oft leads to the best results, you should have an idea of what type of rifle you are prepared for, or will be-- and you should expand on that. With that said, the technical aspect is important, and while there is a wealth of information found on this forum through it's members, I would highly recommend scouring the internet. There are people with far more experience than me (both on this forum and elsewhere), and it would be a disservice to yourself if you didn't "look before you jumped." As much as you would learn assembling a lower, you can learn equally as much (if not more) by finding and researching a lot of the information for yourself. I'm not saying to not be lazy, haha, no. I'm simply saying that personal discovery often leads to the greatest understanding of knowledge.

I caved and bought this before I would change my mind again (and again and again until I finally bought it), and been playing it on/off today. I have the PC version, and haven't experienced any catastrophic bugs... actually, no real bugs aside from some graphic bugs (which is expected). When I tested this game out, I played mostly co-op, and now that I'm playing this game primarily by myself, it has been such a different experience. I enjoy the horror genre, like any other red blooded individual, but I'll admit I have to mostly be in the mood for it. Add in that the fact that I personally find a zombie apocalypse to be quite terrifying. Those two together with going through this game by myself results in my stress levels going up, haha. With that said, I totally forgot how much damn kicking was involved. I guess I'm not far off in my response of "shoes" when people ask me what my biggest tool is in my zombie slaying arsenal. Question for those who are playing. Aside from firearms (as I haven't progressed that far yet-- only level 11 last I checked), how do you deal with the "Thugs"... the moaning dudes who are significantly more powerful? I just run up, dodge back when they swing, and do some McStabs to the face until they're down. Anything more efficient? And for those who are playing on PC and Steam, NJGF has a group-- just search NJGF.

I want to say this is relatively significant because the Obama administration has been known for playing down anything having to do with the ongoing operations overseas and anything having to do with terrorism. The fact that they would go as far as to make it public knowledge is not necessarily worrisome, but it is a surprise move. You could say they have been producing the image that the biggest threats are lone wolves (who most people parallel with white people [though I think this is more due to the fact that the biggest incidents occurring lone wolves were people like McVeigh, Kaczynski, etc, and not necessarily by facts]). I would agree though that lone wolves at this stage are more of a threat then an asymmetrical, synchronized attack. I do not agree that this is due to "super patriots", but anybody who wants to take a swipe at the US. This is proved evident by the recent attacks against uniformed servicemen (both military and LE); even going as far as to tell military folk in Germany to not wear their uniform off base (while this is a familiar notion for most services, the Army has been allowed to wear the work uniform (ACU/BDU) off base for years now, and not just dress unis). The concept of a lone wolf as the biggest threat holds merit because it has been proven to be, unfortunately, effective, and the rise really is a negative of the growing global community (or at least the technology behind said community). They are virtually untraceable, have no creed or religion or race, and hold no beliefs but their own-- which is probably the most dangerous of them all. As a former intelligence analyst, I will admit that the solution isn't making the IC more active, and, in turn, creating more legislation. While I am not one of the smart guys and can provide a solution, I do think it comes down to creating a different mindset (one that isn't fear-based, as that has been proven to not work throughout history). I've seen good intelligence wasted by the government who were more concerned about other aspects, and instead of creating a solution, just slap on a band-aid (and then who is blamed in the end? ). Unfortunately, I don't see this trend ending any time soon. In the end, all incidents are local, and so preventing any type of incident comes down to me, and you, and everybody else. So, be weary and prudent.

Ah, if it was just a power outage that shut them down, then I'm assuming it'll be fine. I guess it will be boot weather out there tomorrow though, as it will be one big muddy sand pit. And I only asked because I was planning on being there when the gates open (or so my friend insists).

I was thinking of going to Range 14 @ Dix tomorrow (FRI, 9/8). I had heard that in the aftermath of Irene, the range was shut down for a portion of time-- and with the rain from the last few days, I was wondering if that is the case currently. Even if nobody knows for sure, how is the local area around there? Flooded bad or doing alright? Thanks for any input. It would be nice to save myself the 40-45 minute drive if need be