Pages

Thursday, January 2, 2020

A Quick Run Around the Web (1/2/2020)

"A Green Beret and a Navy SEAL Talk CQC High Port VS Low Port"--The FieldCraft Survival Channel (28 min.). The author argues and demonstrates that high-port carry of a firearm is faster and more efficient than carrying low-port.

  • "BREAKING: Colt Brings Back the Python .357 Revolver"--The Truth About Guns. MSRP is  $1,500 and apparently these are already shipping. The Firearm Blog also has a post about it, including a link to a video apparently from Colt going over some of the features of the new handgun. Key points is that the frame has been beefed up over the old Pythons and a stronger steel is being used; the action still retains the leaf spring, but there are fewer parts; the sights have been updated so the front sight is easily replaced and the rear sight is stronger; and the barrel has a recessed target crown.
  • .380 Auto 85-grain Punch JHP, (1,000 fps) – $15.95
  • .38 Special +P, 120 grain Punch JHP, (1,070 fps) – $19.95
  • 9mm Luger, 124 grain Punch JHP, (1,150 fps) – $15.95
  • .40 S&W, 165 grain Punch JHP, (1,130 fps) – $19.95
  • .45 Auto, 230 grain Punch JHP, (890 fps) – $20.95
          “I spent many years in masonry construction. Chimneys and fireplaces were our specialty.
             “Fireplace construction uses firebrick for the firebox and ceramic flueliners to carry the heated air out of your house.
               It would take very intense heat for a concrete block to “explode.” (Think cutting torch temperatures). Over time,they will deteriorate with heat. As mentioned below, the yellow fire brick, or chimney brick, is the only brick to use. They do not absorb heat. Not sure on the cost but it would be money well spent.
               “If you are just occasionally using a rocket stove, you should be OK with regular brick/block.
                  “Also, if you are building a “permanent” rocket stove, don’t use regular brick mortar for the fire brick. You will need a small bag of “fire clay.” You mix with water just like mortar.
                    Kratom is a plant that grows naturally in southeast Asian countries such as Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. A relative of the coffee plant, kratom affects the same brain receptors as opiates. It is typically taken in a powder, pill or liquid form.
                     In low doses, kratom users report feeling increased energy, sociability and alertness, and in higher doses, they claim it acts as a sedative and pain reliever.
                • "MOVE" by Tiger Mckee at American Handgunner. This article is all about movement during an armed encounter, including why:
                        One of your first reactions to a threat, or danger of almost any kind, is usually to move. The threat is trying to strike, cut or shoot you. You move to create distance, putting ground between you and the threat. Putting ground between danger and you creates time. With time you can evaluate and make decisions on what to do next. While backing up you see cover, and move to get the protection it provides. Once behind cover it may be necessary to keep moving, maintaining your position behind cover.
                         If there are family members between you and the threat; it’s almost as if they’re using your family for cover. You move to get a clear angle of attack, repositioning to engage the threat without risking injury to family, bystanders or the possibility of shooting into the neighbor’s house.
                      Read the whole thing.
                      • "World Health Organisation in touch with Beijing after mystery viral pneumonia outbreak"--South China Morning Post. The outbreak of viral pneumonia was in the central city of Wuhan, population 11.08 million. There is concern that the outbreak may be related to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS).
                      • "THE 2020 VIRGINIA SHOWDOWN" by Matt Bracken at American Partisan. He notes that there will be a lot of action in the political and legal arenas before confiscations would start to take place. But if it gets that far, it will probably evolve into a low level guerrilla conflict. And on that point, he discusses how and why things will not go well for government authorities, mentioning Christopher Dorner's shootings and manhunt and how it tied up Los Angeles, the IRA and their eventual victory over UK troops, the Taliban's current conflict. And, he adds:
                      I’m simply not aware of any previous civil war where tens of thousands of aggrieved citizens began the struggle armed with rifles capable of making 500 yard and greater precision shots. This is an equation changer. Gun raids will not be possible for long if law enforcement convoys are taken under accurate fire en-route to and from gun confiscation operations, and roadside car-search checkpoint duty becomes a suicide mission. Never forget what happened to the British redcoats on the famous 1775 gun confiscation raids at Concord and Lexington, and perhaps more importantly, remember what happened to them during their retreat to Boston.


                      An American pogrom is going on in the New York metropolitan area. I use the word deliberately. A pogrom — the word comes from Russian — is a murderous assault on Jews, either incited by or connived at by the authorities. The machete attack that wounded five people in a rabbi’s home in Monsey, New York on Saturday night follows eight reported attacks in the week of Chanukah, the massacre at a kosher store in Jersey City earlier this month, a stabbing in Monsey, and a rising tide of assaults over the last three years.
                      He also notes that "to the enormous embarrassment of white liberals, the Democratic party, the mayor of New York City and much of the American media, CCTV footage and police reports attest that the majority of attacks over the last three years have been carried out by African Americans or Hispanics." Despite his obvious hatred of Republicans, Green lays the blame for these incidents at the feet of the Democratic party and its deal to buy black votes.
                      • The Religion of Peace in action:
                       According to Perry, the data in the table show that based on a large number of measures, "boys and men are faring much worse than girls and women." Perry explains, "Despite the fact that boys and men are at so much greater risk than girls and women on so many different measures, those significant gender disparities that disproportionately and adversely affect men get almost no attention." He added, "It’s girls and women who get a disproportionate amount of attention, resources, and financial support." He cited some examples of the wide availability of women's centers and commissions on college campuses, and the lack of men's equivalents; the disproportionately high number of women-only scholarships, fellowships, awards and initiatives for female students and faculty; girls-only STEM programs and organizations, many of which, interestingly enough, are being challenged for violating Title IX.
                      • Related: "Racism: Top UK Schools Reject Scholarship Funding for Poor White Boys"--Breitbart. Professor Sir Bryan Thwaites, to donate £1 million towards the education of impoverished white boys, but the offer was turned down because the schools worried it would be racist. "Sir Bryan said that he wanted to donate the money because white boys from underprivileged areas are falling behind boys from other ethnicities."
                            In our new book, published today, the social psychologist Roy Baumeister and I argue that the greatest problem in public life is what we call the Crisis Crisis: the never-ending series of hyped threats that needlessly alarm and anger the public. It’s a consequence of the negativity effect, also called the negativity bias, which is the universal tendency for bad events and emotions to affect us more strongly than good ones. This effect continually skews our thinking and the decisions we make in our personal relationships, education, religion, business, sports, media and politics.
                               Why does government keep growing? Drawing on Mancur Olson’s Rise and Decline of Nations and Robert Higgs’ Crisis and Leviathan, we show how the negativity effect is exploited by journalists, politicians, academics, lobbyists  and activists — the merchants of bad, as we call these doomsayers —  to scare people into adopting policies that benefit politicians, bureaucrats and special interests while hurting everyone else. Whether you’re absorbing today’s bad news or contemplating the future of humanity, we suggest starting with three assumptions:
                        1. The world will always seem to be in crisis.
                        2. The crisis is never as bad it sounds.
                        3. The solution could easily make things worse.
                               What legitimacy the Communist Party possessed was based on the decades of economic growth inaugurated by Deng Xiaoping in 1978. But growth has slowed to its lowest level in decades as the Chinese workforce ages, low-hanging investment opportunities disappear, and the trade war with the United States reduces manufacturing output and sends supply lines to Vietnam and Mexico. Capital is fleeing China at a record pace as the bourgeoisie hedge against stagnation and turmoil.
                                For all of the Chinese government's much publicized investments in research and development and defense, and despite the size of its economy, per capita gross domestic product is $10,000, slightly less than that of the Russia Federation ($11,000) and a fraction of that of the United States ($65,000). Recent weeks have brought an uptick in bank runs. The government's response to slowdown has been to tighten state control. "Between 2012 and 2018, assets of state companies grew at more than 15 percent annually, well over twice the pace of expansion of China's GDP and double the pace of growth of gross domestic capital formation," writes Nicholas R. Lardy of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. This is not state capitalism. It's statism.
                                  In this article, I’ll show you why hard work is required if you want to be a full-fledged hacker. I’ll tell you what different hackers are called and why they are called by that. I’ll give tongue to stories of some hackers so that you won’t end up spending some time in prison.
                                    I’ll also talk on how some hackers make money with their hacking skills in ways cops don’t arrest them. I’ll also tell you not to become a script kiddy because I heard it in class and I read it on blogs, although it is a piece of advice I still find unlikely because in truth everyone seems to be script kiddies as I see it.
                                      I’ll reveal to you how to set up your hacking lab too (it’s but for a beginner, an expert hacking lab is different from what I’ve here). I’ll end it all by providing a textbook’s name that teaches ethical hacking from scratch with some links to books that could make up your hacking library. 
                                • The truth of the matter: "Pluck versus luck" by David Labaree at Aeon. The author writes:
                                        Occupants of the American meritocracy are accustomed to telling stirring stories about their lives. The standard one is a comforting tale about grit in the face of adversity – overcoming obstacles, honing skills, working hard – which then inevitably affords entry to the Promised Land. Once you have established yourself in the upper reaches of the occupational pyramid, this story of virtue rewarded rolls easily off the tongue. It makes you feel good (I got what I deserved) and it reassures others (the system really works).
                                          But you can also tell a different story, which is more about luck than pluck, and whose driving forces are less your own skill and motivation, and more the happy circumstances you emerged from and the accommodating structure you traversed.
                                           As an example, here I’ll tell my own story about my career negotiating the hierarchy in the highly stratified system of higher education in the United States. I ended up in a cushy job as a professor at Stanford University. How did I get there? I tell the story both ways: one about pluck, the other about luck. One has the advantage of making me more comfortable. The other has the advantage of being more true.
                                        The "pluck" version is the standard "grew up middle-class" but did well in high school, went to an Ivy League college, and then worked hard to become a tenured professor at Stanford. But then the author relates the "luck" version:
                                               The short story is that I’m in the family business. In the 1920s, my parents grew up as next-door neighbours on a university campus where their fathers were both professors. ...
                                            ... Two of my father’s cousins were professors; my brother is a professor. It’s the family business.

                                              * * * 
                                                     My parents both attended elite colleges, Princeton University and Wilson College (on ministerial scholarships), and they invested heavily in their children’s education. They sent us to a private high school and private colleges. It was a sacrifice to do this, but they thought it was worth it. ...
                                                       This background gave me a huge edge in cultural and social capital. In my high school’s small and high-quality classrooms, I got a great education and learned how to write. The school traditionally sent its top five students every year to Princeton but I decided on Harvard instead. At the time, I was the model Harvard student – a white, upper-middle-class male from an elite school. ...
                                                         At Harvard, I distinguished myself in political activity rather than scholarship. ... When I graduated, I had an underwhelming manuscript, with a 2.5 grade-point average (B-/C+). Not exactly an ideal candidate for graduate study, one would think.
                                                           And then there was that job at the bank, which got me out of the house and kept me fed and clothed until I finally recognised my family calling by going to grad school. After beating the bushes looking for work up and down the west coast, how did I get this job? Turned out that my father used to play in a string quartet with a guy who later became the vice-president for personnel at the Federal Reserve Bank. My father called, the friend said come down for an interview. I did and I got the job.
                                                             When I finally decided to pursue grad school, I took the Graduate Record Examinations and scored high. Great. The trouble is that an applicant with high scores and low grades is problematic, since this combination suggests high ability and bad attitude. But somehow I got into an elite graduate programme (though Princeton turned me down). Why? Because I went to Harvard, so who cares about the grades? It’s a brand that opens doors. Take my application to teach at the community college. Why hire someone with no graduate degree and a mediocre undergraduate transcript to teach college students? It turns out that the department chair who hired me also went to Harvard. Members of the club take care of each other.
                                                                If you have the right academic credentials, you get the benefit of the doubt. The meritocracy is quite forgiving toward its own. You get plenty of second and third chances where others would not. Picture if I had applied to Penn with the same grades and scores but with a degree from West Chester (state) University instead of Harvard. Would I really have had a chance? You can blow off your studies without consequence if you do it at the right school. Would I have been hired to teach at the community college with an off-brand BA? I think not.

                                                            * * *
                                                                     Oh yes, and what about that first book, the one that won awards, gained me tenure, and launched my career? Well, my advisor at Penn, Michael Katz, had published a book with an editor at Praeger, Gladys Topkis, who then ended up at Yale University Press. With his endorsement, I sent her a proposal for a book based on my dissertation. She gave me a contract. When I submitted the manuscript, a reviewer recommended against publication, but she convinced the editorial board to approve it anyway. Without my advisor, no editor. And without the editor, no book, no awards, no tenure, and no career. It’s as simple as that. In order to make it in academe, you need friends in high places. I had them.
                                                                      All of this, plus two more books at Yale, helped me make the move up to Stanford. Never would have happened otherwise. By then, on paper I began to look like a golden boy, checking all the right boxes for an elite institution. And when I announced that I was making the move to Stanford in the spring of 2003, before I even assumed the role, things started changing in my life. Suddenly, it seemed, I got a lot smarter. People wanted me to come give a lecture, join an editorial board, contribute to a book, chair a committee. An old friend, a professor in Sweden, invited me to become a visiting professor in his university. Slightly embarrassed, he admitted that this was because of my new label as a Stanford professor. Swedes know only a few universities in the US, he said, and Stanford is one of them. Like others who find a spot near the top of the meritocracy, I was quite willing to accept this honour, without worrying too much about whether it was justified. Like the pay and perks, it just seemed exactly what I deserved. Special people get special benefits; it only makes sense.
                                                                A recently published study, completed by researchers from the University of Helsinki together with Dr Katerina Machacova, a visiting scholar, demonstrates that boreal forests of the Northern Hemisphere are sources of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N2O). The study provides new information on the significance of trees as sinks and sources of greenhouse gases, proving that forests have relevance not only in the absorption of carbon, but also as a source of other greenhouse gases.
                                                                       "We took four different types of cancer cells from different parts of the body — breast, ovary, lungs and nose — and put them in a microgravity condition. And what we found was that in 24 hours, 80 to 90% of these cancer cells actually died," Chou said.
                                                                        Together with one of his students, Anthony Kirollos, Chou plans to send cancer cells to the International Space Station (ISS) in 2020.

                                                                  8 comments:

                                                                  1. I always knew that Colt would eventually cave in to popular demand and resurrect the Python. IMHO the problem is that the silver screen and the hype has inflated the legend well beyond the reality of the Python's quality and capabilities. Aesthetics, rarity and collector value/demand do not necessarily a good shooter make. There is one possible side benefit that I eagerly hope for. Perhaps now that Colt is getting back into the game with their "Snake Gun" product line...and Kimber is designing and marketing new revolvers...and Ruger has recently updated/enhanced existing products...perhaps Smith & Wesson will be inspired to up their game and at least...and I mean at the least...ditch the internal lock aka "Hillary Hole." If S&W wishes to remain competitive, they had better start listening to the consumers...as they no longer have cornered the market and there are now many other options for wheelgunners.

                                                                    ReplyDelete
                                                                    Replies
                                                                    1. Colt seems determined to enter the revolver market in a big way, and the Python was a natural progression. But this doesn't sound like a mere reproduction of the earlier Python but an upgraded version, similar to Ruger's progression from the Security Six to the GP100. But I agree, it is time for S&W to get rid of the internal locking safety. But since that was part of a legal settlement with Gun Control Inc. (or whatever it was callings itself at the time), I don't know if S&W really has much of a choice.

                                                                      Delete
                                                                  2. I hadn't know that they were bound by any legal agreement. I always thought it was the more simple explanation that Saf-T Hammer...the company that designed and manufactures the internal lock mechanism...purchased S&W holdings and now owns the company. If Goodyear, for example buys Toyota...then you can be bloody certain that all new Toyota's coming off the line will be wearing Goodyear tires. So it is at Saf-T Hammer/ S&W and I'm afraid that, until a new owner comes along, we're stuck with the lock.

                                                                    ReplyDelete
                                                                    Replies
                                                                    1. I could be wrong, but I vaguely remember back in the 1990's that the lock was part of an agreement to settle some lawsuits. But your explanation would explain why S&W has changed hands so many times but still uses the lock.

                                                                      Delete
                                                                    2. Okay, not a settlement agreement, but they did originally develop the internal locking mechanism per an agreement with the Clinton Administration. (https://clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov/WH/New/html/20000317_2.html)

                                                                      Delete
                                                                  3. Cancer in space. Want Event Horizon? This is how you get Event Horizon.

                                                                    ReplyDelete
                                                                    Replies
                                                                    1. On the other hand, if microgravity can kill cancer, maybe we will see health insurance being used to finance cheap launch technology.

                                                                      Delete
                                                                    2. (Imagines people with cancer turning into vassals of the Great Old Ones in orbit.)

                                                                      Delete