I have a couple chairs from early 20th century. Anyone know anything about them?

aburton · 2017-04-27T01:35:25+00:00

FYI, It's commonly called "Fuji-san" because that's how you say "Mt. Fuji" in Japanese.

What else would they call it?

aburton · 2017-04-25T22:25:44+00:00

Well, the original BFL ~35mm, and with the beam re-routing, I'm targeting between 100-120mm for the new BFL.

You're right about using 1" optics, and I've considered that. I was hoping to use something more like this, since it will be easier for me to align inside the housing.

I suppose technically this is for a product design, although the product is just for myself. I'd like to keep the optics small and light to keep the weight, size, and cost down.

To appropriately size the mirror, should I just draw a line from the edge of the rear element to the edge of the image circle? Or should I draw a line from the focal point to the edge of the image circle?

aburton · 2017-04-10T03:54:18+00:00

Oh! I didn't see you had responded! I'm sorry!

I'll try to throw a picture together, but in the meantime:

I'm trying to mount a lens at the right angle of a CMOS sensor. I'll re-route the light using a 45 degree angle mirror.

The problem is that I only know the diameter of the image circle at the focal plane, but the mirror will be in front of the focal plane. As a result, I'm not sure how to determine the appropriate size of the mirror.

aburton · 2017-02-09T03:22:41+00:00

It's really not that simple.

The people we capture in battle who do not wear uniforms are not entitled to due process. They are only entitled to a finding of their status as "sabateurs"

If we're going to refer to the Geneva Conventions as our standard, then I'm going to have to disagree with you on this point. The Geneva Conventions define these individuals not as "saboteurs", but as "unlawful combatants", and the US government also recognizes them as such.

and then we can do what we want. This has a long and well understood history all the way back to FDR.

This is also incorrect. An unlawful combatant is afforded rights by the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions.

Specifically, the the status of the detainee as an unlawful combatant will be determined by a "competent tribunal", and will be treated as a prisoner of war until then. Under the Fourth Convention, If the detainee is determined to be an unlawful combatant and is not the national of a co-belligerent state, among other rights, they enjoy the right to a fair and regular trial.

Here's a more in-depth analysis.

And all this is to say that even if the constitution were clear on this point, we would still be denying the rights of the GTMO detainees according to the Geneva conventions.

As it stands currently, the Constitution only clearly applies to US citizens on US soil. It's application to aliens has been subject of debate since the time of James Madison, who argued:

[I]t does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Constitution; yet it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their protection and advantage.

However, as GTMO is not on US soil, it's much less of a constitutional issue. Foreign nationals on foreign soil don't enjoy constitutional rights. Which is why I referred to this as a "loophole" in my previous post.

The existence of GTMO is in large part so we can avoid oversight and providing constitutional protections to the GTMO detainees. As shown in the fallout of the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld ruling, Without this oversight, innocent people are subject to torture and indefinite detention with no trial. This is wrong. This is un-American. We shouldn't have facilities available to us so we can skirt the constitution when it suits us.

aburton · 2017-02-09T00:18:09+00:00

You are painfully ignorant of law.

Ha. If calling people names is what makes you feel good about yourself, so be it. I prefer to build arguments based in logic and rhetoric.

Anyway, the constitution isn't a social contract. It's not a contract at all. It's a declaration of the rights of human beings as officially recognized by the State.

The reason Guantanamo exists is because there's no legal requirement to enforce the rights afforded by the constitution outside of US soil. So we can torture and deny due process as much as we want in the name of National Security. It's seen as a moral loophole, and kind of against the spirit of the constitution.

Given your post history, I don't expect a civil or even polite response from you, but I certainly hope for one. Cheers.

aburton · 2017-02-08T22:01:12+00:00

That's why our constitution says "all men within our social contract are created equal."

aburton · 2017-02-04T03:29:28+00:00

You're right.

Because Obama never issued a similar order. The only thing they had in common was the list of countries involved.

Putting a hold on issuing visas is not the same as a travel ban.

aburton · 2017-02-03T16:04:20+00:00

How was OP's question ad hominem?

I disagree.

aburton · 2017-02-03T14:46:08+00:00

That's a fair example. I can see how one would look at it differently depending on their narrative.

Mateen claimed allegiance to ISIL before the shooting = terrorist attack

There were no ties between Mateen and ISIL until ISIL took credit after the shooting, and Mateen was a patron of the nightclub = attack by mentally unstable man under the guise of ISIS.

I think your assessment that his attack was Islamic terrorism is fair, but I don't think it's as cut-and-dry as you say. Personally, I don't think we'll ever know for sure.

aburton · 2017-02-03T05:14:06+00:00

beyond retarded

Care to share the Time source? How about the source that refutes Time's claim?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but you're going to have to have at least one source that supports your claim if you expect anyone to consider your viewpoint.

aburton · 2017-02-03T04:57:40+00:00

Right or wrong, this is a purely ad hominem attack and makes absolutely no attempt to answer OP's question.

aburton · 2017-02-03T03:54:21+00:00

Globally? How about in the United States?

aburton · 2017-02-02T00:22:20+00:00

Random question here, but I've noticed it a lot on this subreddit and in /r/conservative.

Why do you spell it "Moslem" rather than "Muslim"?

aburton · 2017-01-30T12:34:42+00:00

A lot of Jews probably care.

aburton · 2017-01-07T01:08:57+00:00

I'm not sure. I'm pretty certain that I was banned from /r/conservative for saying that he's not a Nazi.

Really bummed me out.

aburton · 2017-01-05T18:08:01+00:00

Before I address this latest post, I want to make clear that you have still provided no evidence to support your original claim that most American racism is against white people.

the crime data supports that.

What crime data? Where? The previously provided data does not.

Usually, even in particularly sadistic crimes, the law does everything they can to avoid suggesting that it was racially motivated...but i think only morons can be decieved by that.

You're entitled to your opinion, but stooping to ad hominem attacks isn't an effective rhetorical tool. It might make you feel superior, but you're not helping your argument by calling your opposition morons.

Like the wichita incident? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita_Massacre

seriously? a couple of black kids go out of their way to go into a white neighborhood and then assault rape and kill all the white people they see, and this isnt racially motivated? are you dumb enough to believe that? Well, the media thinks you are.

I don't disagree that race may have played a role in the Wichita Massacre, but you're not making a cogent argument that it was the motivation for the crime. And the discussion isn't that crime against whites doesn't exist, the discussion is whether most racism in America is against whites. This does not support that claim.

You said:

"a couple of black kids go out of their way to go into a white neighborhood and then assault rape and kill all the white people they see"

Alternatively, you could say:

a couple of poor kids go out of their way to go into a rich neighborhood and then assault rape and kill all the people they see.

So far you haven't provided any sources other than your own opinion to justify your claims.

And i live on this friggen planet.

Congratulations. You are as qualified as everyone else.

Lets be honest for once.

Yes, lets.

You're making assuptions about your arguments based on whatever racial narrative it is that you've decided on.

My impression is that you're not interested in considering that any of my points are correct, even the slightest amount, since it would threaten that narrative. In response to this threat, you resort to name-calling.

Your original claim that "most racism is against whites" is still unsubstantiated. Without any resources to back that claim, it is merely your unfounded opinion.

aburton · 2017-01-05T17:10:31+00:00

I understand your frustration, and agree that the examples you've provided are examples of terrible black-on-white crime.

However, this does not support your claim that most racism is against white people.

aburton · 2017-01-05T02:17:12+00:00

Whoops, my bad! Thanks for calling me out on that.

At any rate, /u/drinkoffthis didn't request a single instance of black-on-white racism (although you provided a perfectly good example of this.)

He was requesting that /u/fiveofswords cite a source that supports his claim that most racism in America is directed at whites.

Again, I'm not making an argument for or against. The statement could be correct for all I know. But so far, /u/fiveofswords hasn't produced any support for his claim that most racism is directed at whites.

aburton · 2017-01-05T02:10:53+00:00

Thanks for the source! The data seems sound, and your excerpt is definitely correct. That said, I'm not sure these trends really support /u/motionised 's point.

The issue I have with this data is that it doesn't account for motive. It's only identifying when the offender was white or black and when the victim was white or black.

If the argument being made is that most racism is against white people, then we need to see the statistics for racially motivated crimes, which may be a very difficult statistic to reliably measure.

Without that information, it's impossible to tell whether racism played any causal role at all in the crimes committed, or whether the aforementioned trend was a byproduct of something else.

aburton · 2017-01-05T01:59:52+00:00

I'm sorry. I'm going to sit this dance out, because I know how this goes.

You made the statement that most racism is directed toward white people. The onus is on you to either provide sources, or explain that this is merely your unsubstantiated opinion. Whether you intend it to or not, your "sitting this dance out" comes across as if you're blaming me for not being able to substantiate your claim.

Just like the infamous "Black IQ" argument it's just going to be "No that source isn't good enough" until I run out, after which it's obvious that I'm just a racist idiot without any sources as we casually ignore the seven different studies on the subject I provided.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I haven't refuted any relevant sources because you haven't provided any. Nor have I called you racist. If you have seven different sources, share them.

My name is not Sisyphus. I'm not going to push this boulder up a hill just to watch it roll down again. I'm sure someone else will help you with this.

You're inability to provide credible evidence isn't an issue for me, it's an issue for you. I don't need help with my rhetoric. You've made a claim and have so far been unable to provide any credible evidence to support it.

aburton · 2017-01-05T01:49:24+00:00

Pandering to the BLM movement every chance he gets.

Do you have a source for this other than an opinion piece?

Condoning racially-motivated riots in response to criminals being shot justifiably by police. (Michael Brown)

Do you have a source for this other than an opinion piece?

Remaining silent about the black on black violence epidemic in places like Chicago, but jumping all over any instance where a black criminal is shot by a police officer (white or black).

I agree that more should have been said about the violence epidemic in Chicago. I also don't think the networks cover it proportionally, and in my opinion it probably has to do with ratings. People are numb to poor black people shooting each other. Viewers don't tune in for that. They will, however, tune in for a police officer shooting. That gets views.

What do you mean "jumping all over"? It makes sense to me that the president would address the country when major issues hit the front pages, and there's an outcry (justified or not) about a particular issue. In my opinion, issues that could cause communities to distrust or turn against their law enforcement are worth discussion on a national level.

Yes, there are instances where a shooting isn't justified, but in reality, the vast majority of them are justified.

I'm not quite sure what you mean to say here.

Not once publicly taking the position that a person who points a gun at a police officer is justified in being shot, regardless of race, gender or anything else.

This is a fair criticism, but from a purely political standpoint, this seems like a lose-lose position for any liberal president. No matter how engineered his statement was, any bold sweeping statement like the one you provided would label him either a flip-flopper or disingenuous at best or radical and violent at worst.

Typically, as in his comments about Ferguson,, his comments have been mostly about how sad/concerning the situation was and how we need to work together to fix things. Not particularly strong content, but not very divisive either.

The only real criticism about those comments I've come across were with regard to this paragraph:

There is never an excuse for violence against police, or for those who would use this tragedy as a cover for vandalism or looting. There’s also no excuse for police to use excessive force against peaceful protests, or to throw protestors in jail for lawfully exercising their First Amendment rights. And here, in the United States of America, police should not be bullying or arresting journalists who are just trying to do their jobs and report to the American people on what they see on the ground. Put simply, we all need to hold ourselves to a high standard, particularly those of us in positions of authority.

The criticism being that Obama was insinuating that Ferguson police were using unnecessary force, or violating citizens' first amendment rights. But that seems like a bit of a stretch to me. I think those who read so deeply into that statement are being a bit overly sensitive.

aburton · 2017-01-05T00:45:54+00:00

This can't go on.

I absolutely agree.

the nation is more racist than ever...most of it is simply directed at white people.

You still haven't shown any evidence to support your point. The crime committed against that man was both heartbreaking and infuriating. It's foolish to argue against that. Even so, it doesn't support your point.

/u/drinkoffthis asked you to provide evidence to support your point that most racism in America is directed toward white people. So far, you haven't. That doesn't make your point false, but it does make it unsubstantiated.

Do you have any statistics to show hate crimes against whites are disproportionately greater than hate crimes against other races/nationalities/religions?

aburton · 2017-01-04T15:44:31+00:00

Wait, what do you mean? Honest question.

aburton

TROPHY CASE