.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
Dakoth
-
Posts
363 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Dakoth
-
-
Uh, no. It is the consumption of alcohol that leads to many of those situations. But people are still held accountable for their actions.Don't be stupid. If you really believe that alcohol does not cause accidents, you're a tool.
I love it when people argue against personal responsibility. Beer is an inaniment objet unless acted apon it can cause nothing. In other words it can not cause even 1 accident unless you choose to drink it. The problem is most people either don't know or don't care what their limitations are.
-
There are a few reasons I like Farscape. The first being it took the Humans in space concept in a whole new way. Instead of us being a galatic power one lone astronaught is dropped smack dab in the middle of a part of space that humans would not be considered a super power in. One human eeking out an existance in scenarios that he could never train for. It was a fresh look at a tried and true concept. The second is the relationships that developed between the characters over time it was great, not one of the reaccuring characters was really generic or throw away ala Star Trek or Star Wars. Lastly was I thought the writing was great and kept the show interesting.
I also liked Babylon five because it was Star Trek with a more here and now flare. It would be like if what we see happening in the world today was happening in space and instead of different countries it was different species.
-
Since you seemed to miss the whole point of the post. He would have fell under distribution charges with a manditory minimum sentence of 5 yaers. The important word is manditory the only thing that gets a lighter sentence is if you turn informant as pointed out in the earlier quoted article. He did not do that and still git a lighter sentence for his part. Not only that but there were things said that had he not been in the public spotlight would have never been a concern such as.
Prosecutors agreed to drop more serious drug conspiracy and attempted cocaine possession charges.I have yet to see a prosecuter do this for a normal person unless they were turning states witness.
Evans said she was also giving Lewis ``credit for stepping up to the bar'' and admitting his guilt.I have yet to see a judge give an shorter than minimum term to any normal person for those same thing, and a lot of people admit their guilt hoping for that exact thing.
So please tell me how he was treated like everyone else again, and remember in the US there are manditory minimum sentences that must be served if convicted on drug charges.
-
First there was the strange statement that the witness was a criminal so he couldn't be used or trusted when we know this happens all the time. Even a man with money and a good law team would face a hard time if it was levied against them. If you doubt the scrutiny this case would be under and the circus it could turn into just look at the crap going on in the Michael Jackson case. Oh thats right everyone is allowed to moonwalk on the car that brought them to court.
Mandatory Minimum SentencesIn 1986 Congress enacted mandatory minimum sentencing laws, which force judges to deliver fixed sentences to individuals convicted of a crime, regardless of culpability or other mitigating factors. Federal mandatory drug sentences are determined based on three factors: the type of drug, weight of the drug mixture (or alleged weight in conspiracy cases), and the number of prior convictions. Judges are unable to consider other important factors such as the offender's role, motivation, and the likelihood of recidivism. Only by providing the prosecutor with "substantial assistance", (information that aids the government in prosecuting other offenders) may defendants reduce their mandatory sentences. This creates huge incentives for people charged with drug offenses to provide false information in order to receive a shorter sentence.
Although Congress intended mandatory sentences to target "king pins" and managers in drug distribution networks, the U.S. Sentencing Commission reports that only 5.5 percent of all federal crack cocaine defendants and 11 percent of federal drug defendants are high-level drug dealers. This is because the most culpable defendants are also the defendants who are in the best position to provide prosecutors with enough information to obtain sentence reductions - the only way to reduce a mandatory sentence. Low-level offenders, such as drug mules or street dealers, often end up serving longer sentences because they have little or no information to provide the government.
The U.S. Sentencing Commission and the Department of Justice have both concluded that mandatory sentencing fails to deter crime. Furthermore, mandatory minimums have worsened racial and gender disparities and have contributed greatly toward prison overcrowding. Mandatory minimum sentencing is costly and unjust. Mandatory sentencing does not eliminate sentencing disparities; instead it shifts decision-making authority from judges to prosecutors, who operate without accountability. Mandatory minimums fail to punish high-level dealers. Finally, mandatory sentences are responsible for sending record numbers of women and people of color to prison.
Copyright
-
I like how Volo said I know nothing but doesn't understand were I come from. Take your pick Volo of my relatives and they are either police or corrections officers. While there are altenative methods of sentencing, weekend incarceration, house arrest and of course probation they except for probation are rarely given esecially in drug cases. Most normal people facing those odds goes to jail hands down without a say when he goes. As for the judge having said what he did about the informant ha what a crock of **** as most of the cases start with or turn informants to get at bigger fish.(Which they are then used as witnesses, why because they have first the first hand knowledge)
Basically the judge said I don't belive you talked to Lewis on the phone, or delivered to him before, because you sell drugs.
R00fles! -
Two questions, I have a vague memory that the original pilot of Blue Lion was not the Princess but someone else....anyone know? Also there was another Voltron too. Not nearly as cool as the Lion Voltron. Is this a Voltron from another time or what? On the other side of the Galaxy Voltron?
1.) Man was this a long time ago. If I remember correctly it was a guy that was hurt or killed or lost early on in the show thus forcing the Princess into action. Remember the mentor was charged with protecting the Princess so he didn't want her to help in any way.
2.) There were actually quite a few Voltrons, but the one you were taling about had futuristic vehicles and yes didn't look as cool. I think he was just in a differen't part of the universe as there was one or 2 episodes were the lion voltron made an appearance.
You want to talk about good shows how about Thundar the Barbarian, Space Ghost, Birdman, Galtar, and Mask man the eighties were a great time to grow up in.
-
This shows how truly pathetic our legal system is. If you are famous you have your own set of rules, and penatlies that normal america doesn't get. It happens with all of them Robert Downy Jr., Michael Irvin, Darryl Strawberry, the list goes on.
-
^ Eldar I think people are quite well aware of that ..
and Dakoth .. yeah that wasn't what I meant .. I wasn't clear sorry about that! :"> we have the same system, like I said that's called A-class .. where you pay a ceartin amount every month or every 3 months or once a year .. and when you get unemployed you get a montly (or weekly) payment, depending on what you paid earlier .. and I apparently didn't know the figures, because you can actually get anything from 1000$ to well .. anything, depending on what you pay!
but social welfare was the 600$ I was referring to .. and no one in Denmark ever get's below that in monthly income .. so that's the absolute minimum!
What else does the country give? I am just curious becasue even though I am not sure what welfare doles out money wise I an tell you here in Illinois the people using it get a link card that will buy all esential food products. (it excludes luxury items like veil, lobster, alcohol) So even though the money might not be exact it might even out because of the fact we are given a food allowence seperate from the check. As I said earlier also this might change from state to state.
-
now this is just a lie .. I'm sorry to say so .. but it is!
Scandinavia has a much higher living standard than the US! .. and the "the US "poverty line" is nearly middle class in most social-democracy countries" is just the other way around .. being poor in Denmark is having an monthly income of about 600$ .. because that's what you get from the goverment for being unemployed (you can even get a bonus of an additional 500$ every once in a while).. and that's something every single person can apply to, as long as they are danish citizens and out of a job (and most people are part of something called an A-Class were they get more like 1000$ a month).. now are you going to tell me that the poor in US are making more than 600 dollars a month?? because I have read the reports I "know" what poor is in your country and in the UK and countries with a similar policy..
Rosbjerg in America ; or maybe it is as lcalised as states; the amount of our unemployment depends on how much money you make on your job. Take me for instance a union laborer in the off season I get 400.00 a weak that translates out to 1600.00 a month. when I was only making 12.65 an hour I got 300.00 thats 1200 a month. You might have been better off comparing to our social program wellfare.
-
But you learned spanish as a second language correct? Could the same be said if a Mexican was talking to a Spaniard? Europe is an interesting place I studied german in school and know there are 2 dialects of german.
-
Understandable if her teacher actually taught Castillian and not 'spanish'. I don't know how it works over there, but we have something called 'Real Academia' which is somewhat of an unifying criteria for Castillian. They decide what words officially 'exist' and which don't. And believe me, a lot of words used by mexicans don't exist. By our book, at least.
Understandable but for all intents and purposes wouldn't mexican spanish and Castillian be the same as American english and Proper english? Only very minor differences kind of like an american talking to a brit we both speak english but don't always understand what the other has said, especially when slang is used. We being somewhat ignorant of other cultures lump it all together people from Mexico and Spain both speak spanish even if there are minor differences.
-
Heh, I'd never imagined I'd take lessons about my mother language on these boards. Now I've seen it all. :D
You are right. Partially right at least. Primero is the ordinal form and it's more of an archaic/highly formal way of putting it, therefore not usually applied to dates. But yes, I've seen it and it certainly is correct. However I didn't think it would have much use outside of logs or official documents, and even then, I think it would be regarded as an archaism.
You wan to know whats really sad my sister in law's parents ar from mexico and speak very little english she translated for them most of her life. She took spanish in school and the teacher continuallytold her she was wrong that words she used didn't exist and that she used them wrong. Pretty bold considering she was second generation Mexican.
-
The questions are too simplified for the test to yield an accurate result. From what I've seen you would have to be authoritarian by nazi standards to be portrayed as 'righty' by the test. Feh.
I concur with this having the Nazis as your cieling for Authoritairan is a little harsh.
-
Which is 100% true. Shrapnel and low caliber ammunitions are the two top hazards the soldiers are exposed to. Incidentally, that's what ballistic body armor is designed to protect from. Sorry, every time your arguments are defeated you cling to minor, technical or outright irrelevant details such as 'the variety of colors of the vests would offset the fact that they are bought in bulk'.
You have proven to be one of the many people on these boards who are totally impervious to reason, logic and facts. Congratulations. I am done with this thread.
Since it took you so long to post I came up with some numbers from the military and some intersting facts.
Taken from olivedrab.com
In the late 1990s, an Army and Marine Corps team produced the Interceptor Multi-Threat Body Armor System that provided improved protection while weighing about ten pounds less than its predecessor, the Personal Armor Systems, Ground Troops (PASGT) flak vest. The Interceptor system was put into quantity production for troops serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Interceptor Multi-Threat Body Armor System is made up of two main modular components: the outer tactical vest (OTV) and the small-arms protective inserts (SAPI). The unisex Kevlar OTV is also equipped with removable throat and groin protectors. With the front and back SAPI ceramic plates inserted, the vest can stop 7.62 mm rounds.
Origins of the Interceptor Flak Vest
Interceptor Body Armor stems from the 1994-vintage 24-pound Ranger Body Armor (RBA) designed by the U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center (Natick, MA) at the request of the 75th Ranger Regiment. The 9-pound RBA vest gives the wearer high quality handgun ballistic and fragmentation protection. With the addition of 7.5-pound aluminum oxide ceramic armor plates placed in the front and back chest pockets, the RBA wearer is further protected from armor piercing rifle ammunition. The success of RBA led to a materials research program to achieve the same performance with less weight. The RBA vests continued in Army inventory through the early phase of the Iraq War, until replaced by Interceptor.
The Interceptor Flak Vest Goes to War
The Interceptor Multi-Threat Body Armor System went into production in 1999 under a five-year contract awarded by U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center to Point Blank Body Armor of Oakland Park, FL.
The new Interceptor body armor is being worn by soldiers and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army and Marines rushed to get enough body armor into Iraq and Afghanistan by December 2003 for everyone who needed it, as fast as it came off the assembly line. For many Marines, the PASGT flak vest is giving way to the new Interceptor body armor-an effective and highly valued piece of gear in the global war on terrorism. Because the Interceptor body armor was in relative short supply, deploying service members got priority at their points of issue. Accounting for two armor plates for each Marine in the ground combat element, the Marines fielded 94,056 plates for active forces and 39,284 for reserve forces.
Interceptor Flak Vest Ballistic Protection
The Interceptor's inter-changeable components give troops the ability to dress to the level of a particular threat.
By itself, the Interceptor vest insulates a soldier from shrapnel and 9-mm pistol rounds. When the protective Small Arms Protective Inserts (SAPI) are added, the system acts as a ballistic barrier to 7.62-mm rifle ammunition. The PASGT flak vest only offered protection against fragmentation.
The Interceptor outer tactical vest consists of a very fine Kevlar weave that will stop 9mm pistol rounds. Webbing on the front and back of the vest permits attaching such equipment as grenades, walkie-talkies and pistols. The Small Arms Protective Insert (SAPI) is made of a boron carbide ceramic with a spectra shield backing, an extremely hard material. It stops, shatters and catches any fragments up to a 7.62 mm round with a muzzle velocity of 2,750 feet per second. It's harder than Kevlar. The four pound high-technology plates cost approximately $350 each to produce, a considerable cost reduction achieved by Army-industry cooperation.
The vest comes with neck and crotch protection attachments. It will work with all current and anticipated load carrying equipment. With the fasteners along the right side, the vest still protects the front of the body even when open. The vest also has a quick release feature, so if the soldier needs to drop the plates, one tug and they
-
Don't really know how accurate it is as I seem to have come out near Ghandi as well.
-
Em, doen't wanna get too involved in this discussion, but how many lives have those vests saved? It might not be that comparable to the death toll, but that's still a life saved...
Not at issue here I don't deny they save lives we see it here in the states just with the vests police officers use. My whole arguement is that the death toll will still rise so blaing the death toll on the unavailibilty of vests is a little off.
i don't think anyone is blaming the death yoll on the lack of vests; i guess most people just think that vests could reduce the number of killed soldiers. it may not save a lot of lives, but maybe a few...?
The thing is no one brings these things up when talking about the armor all you here is how the armor would save lives; no adjectives attached just lives; leading people to believe the death tool would have been significantly lower if they all would have had the body armor our government denied them. While I believe the death toll would have been smaller I don't nescessarily believe it would have been significantly smaller with the addition of body armor.
As I said I don't dissagree with that. In the case of firefights with the insurgents I see them being of great benefit as they are not regular army and can not field many more powerful weapons than an AK-47. The problem is the normal attacks, at least the ones the news reports on are usually some kind of bombing, mortar attack, or RPG attack those are something that even the body armor would have trouble defending against.
-
Em, doen't wanna get too involved in this discussion, but how many lives have those vests saved? It might not be that comparable to the death toll, but that's still a life saved...
Not at issue here I don't deny they save lives we see it here in the states just with the vests police officers use. My whole arguement is that the death toll will still rise so blaing the death toll on the unavailibilty of vests is a little off.
-
That would be funny if it weren't people we're talking about. I guess you would just go to war in sweatpants and a t-shirt because armor vests are only good for providing a false sense of security.
Funny as in odd but anything to argue right. <_<
8 entries found for funny.
To select an entry, click on it.
funny[1,adjective]funny[2,noun]funny bonefunny bookfunny carfunny farmfunny moneyfunny paper
Main Entry: 1fun
-
No. That example isn't applicable to body armor because your reasoning is based on that the different configurations of humvees (due to different functions) raise the price. I don't know about that but I'm willing to accept it. However, there are no different armor configurations because those things only do one thing - protect against fire. Basic logic, you lose.
Really so the fact they can configure them to with stand different calliber bullets, what can be harnessed or carried by them, wieght restrictions, the abillity to take them on and off quickly, different collors for different fighting environments would have nothing to do with the cost (I mean heck an infantryman wearing arctic camo body armor would kind of stick out in the desert wouldn't he?)? Remeber those are things that really do not effect civilian armor. The thing you also must remeber is the armor that is being talked about is worn over the uniform because it is so bulky thick padding, thick plate, lots of kevlar =hard to put under your shirt.
I don't need to put words into your mouth. You said it yourself:So you don't agree with that so all troops in a war zone a safe as long as they wear their armor? That armor would have a hard time protecting the driver of a humvee if his door was hit by an RPG don't you think? I feel that what I said;
the armor will not keep our troops from dieing in a war zone plain and simple; holds true. While what you said earlier also is true some will be saved by the body armor.
So, when proven wrong by evidence, you just deny what you said earlier, eh? What will be next, deleting your own old posts?Don't need to for one that was to see who actually understands what they are talking about. While you understand about armor you just can't seem to understand that there are people out there that lobby for it because they believe it is actually bullet proof and not just bullet resistant. As I said it gives a false sense of security to the loved ones at home. Oh my boy/girl is safe because he wears his/her body armor. That statement couldn't be farther from the truth when in a war zone.
-
I thought a standard military body armour only protects against ricochets and indirect grenade fragments?
When the vest is hit by an FMJ bullet the speed of the bullet will be decreased by the vest from 100's of metres p/s to 10's of metres p/s and the potential energy becomes kinetic energy, wich in turn will be realesed on your body. Power equals mass times speed square, so your body will take a huge hit from the bullet. This can lead to shattered bones and severe internal trauma. Its the speed of the bullet which is the problem.
To make things even worse, a bullet can get fragmented or distorted by the vest which, when it penetrates the vest, will lead to very severe wounds. It's better when a bullet enters the body whithout losing speed or becoming distorted and exit in one piece, because the wound will be much "cleaner".
Depends on the armor. There are quite a few links about body armor in this thread, I suggest you read them.100% true as shown in the link I gave there is body armor that will keep up to a 30 cal armor piercing round from penetrating it although yes I can't imagine it would fel good when it hits you. Also I am sure if encumbrance wasn't an issue they could do even better but remember our guys need to be able to move out there.
I don't know. However, I have seen some slow-mo videos and pics of fruits being shot with pistols, and every time the fruit is blown to dust/tiny pieces, literally. I guess getting shot in the liver is bad news. Much worse than getting shot in a knee or the hip, vest or not.Thats because a bullet doesn't cut when going through something it tears. Remember a bullet is basically a blunt projectile, one of the reasons kevlar is effective so many times stronger than steel in a tight weave.
-
Can you provide figures about how much each Humvee costs to the Army? I didn't think so. However, and if indeed they are more expensive in comparison to the civilian versions, perhaps it has something to do with the military equipment they bring, namely light/heavy armor, TOW launchers, whatever?
Uh your point was that the military gets cheap because of quantity, the humvee disproves that. I can play your game also it is your word against mine prove to me that the vests will cost significantly less thab 1000.00 dollars a piece. Buying in bulk will lower the price, but I have yet to see cutting it in half or less so please if you require it of me show hard numbers from the government on how "cheap" this armor is.
First you claim that body armor is next to worthless. Then you state it would cost too much to equip every soldier with it. That's arguing that it's not cost-effective, even if you don't say that explicitly.Glad to see you're putting words in my mouth. What I said was the armor will not keep our troops from dieing in a war zone plain and simple. If you truly read my posts and looked at the link provided you would see I gave all the people the information they need to know. From the ballistics chart used to rate the vests to a cost estimate. Even if the troops would have had body armor how many of them would it have saved when the suicide bomber bombed the messhall? Thats right none because they would have not been wearing it.
Again, leave politics out of this. I'm just discussing facts here. You are trying to turn this into an argument about how the democrats f*cked up the military budgets. I don't know nor do I care about that. You want to whine about it? Don't let me stop you. However it is rather cruel to have soldiers dying just to make a freaking point.Clinton cut the budget yes my point exactly. The question now is why the hell can't republicans and the democrats hasten their movements to get it rectified. The answer is simple politics. This is why politics are involved.
Sgt. Gary Frisbee, of Chattanooga, Tenn., suits up in his body armor before going out to stand guard at the District Advisory Council building in Baghdad. He credits the armor with saving his life in a recent firefight.Body armor saves U.S. lives in Iraq
Pentagon criticized for
shortage of protective vests
By Vernon Loeb and Theola Labb
-
Yeah, that's nice and all. But there are two important facts about that you are ignoring. Purposefully or not, I can't say.
1) That's not the body armor issued to US soldiers. The standard-issue armor is called 'Interceptor OTV', you can find details about it in the link I provided, if you actually bothered to check.
2) The prices listed there are for sale to the open public, and NOT the price at which they would be sold to the US Army in case they were a Defense contractor.
You say the militeary gets things cheap because they buy in bulk and that isn't true. While they buy a lot because they usually have very specific specs that offsets the price. A perfect example of this is the Humvee while it is expensive for the public to buy it is more so for the military because of the options and the different roles it must fill.
While that armor is not exactly what the army would get, all armor is made the same and if you would have looked at the links random evil guy gave costs are roughly the same. So since I can not give you exact cost for the military I gave you the cost for the general public so you could get a round about Idea.
And you accuse me of bad reading comprehension? Oh well, it can't hurt to clear it up, again.Do I need to post the Ballistics chart again or how about I quote from the article you posted. I understnd the military issue will stop aa 7.62 round some people don't understand the
Obviously it won't save everyone. Nothing will. However that's not reason enough not to provide adequate protection for the troops.Once again something I am not arguing.
Politics have nothing to do with you claiming that it's not cost-effective to adequately equip US troops.No cost effective has nothing to do with it. Have you ever heard the saiyng **** or get off the pot? Thats what both sides need to do, if both Dems and reps think its such a good thing then damnit give them the funding and get the armor over there.
As usual because of our typical government they bauk and we die.
What an argument.. because ballistic armour doesn't protect against all types of calibers it's somehow an excuse for the government to not buy armour to their troops? Uh.. ok.Most armour won't protect you if you're hit spot on from close range. But most shot wounds aren't that clean (unless you somehow find yourself on an open field, the wind stops blowing and a sniper gets his sights on you). Most often the shooter has to fire from the side or misses his aim a little or even misses completely but the ricochet hits the target instead. That's when ballistic armour is a lifesaver.
Against high velocity weapons, there's not an armour in the world that will save you, since even being hit in the hand means your intestants come flying out of your groin.
Wow you came full circle Mkreku you went from not having a clue what I am arguing to hitting it spot on. I said in an earlie post that the reason I have brought up what I have is because some proponants of the armor think if they had it our soliders would miraculously quit dieing and as you and I and others have pointed out the addition of armor will save some but not all. The killing devices we made are too effective during a time of war, especially against people who want to kill and don't care how, our soliders are going to die.
i don't see your point. wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle is uncomfortable; but it saves lives. what are you really saying here? soldiers should wear whatever they feel comfortable in? like sweatpants and a t-shirt...?The motorcycle helmet is a perfect example while it does save lives there are those people that don't wear them aren't there. The typical thought line is aw that will never happen to me. What I tried to say is on routine patrol in an area not active with insugents all the time in 90+ degree heat I am pretty sure there will be some that don't wear it unless forced to, thus making them easier targets. As I said it is human nature look at the motorcycle helmet, and police officers in the states they are good examples as I said before.
In short for all of you that don't seem to understand I want our troops to have body armor. I unlike some understand that with the tactics used and some of the weapons availible to the insurgents this will not stop the body count from rising. Also because this is something I think is important why can congress and the President not move the funding appropriations to the front of the line, get rid of the partisanship and get the stuff over there. It is a wonderful thing to talk about but how bout we see some action.
-
Well since your reading comprehension is a little bad.
http://www.blackarmor.com/Vest/Tactical.htm
http://www.blackarmor.com/Vest/Plates_Inserts.htm
Now as far as the links random evil guy gave let me give you the ballisrics chart again.
A 9mm pistol round differes from a 7.62mm rifle round notive 9mm pistol round falls under IIIA protection while the &.62mm falls under type III.
Will body armor prevent all soldiers from dying? No.Will body armor save lives? Yes.
You lose.
Wrong you are claiming victory over something I am not arguing as a matter of fact it seems you understand quite well what I am arguing. The addition of armor will naot save everyone wich is unfortunately what a some proponents believe.
While I was wrong on the coating you are also somewhat wrong. Here are some importent excerpts from the article.
As police officers know, the vests that they wear are "bullet-resistant," not "bullet-proof." The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives explains that "armor protection is rated in accordance with a specific threat. There is no such thing as 'bullet-proof' armor."Manufactured from Kevlar (a synthetic fiber that is five times stronger than steel), body armor comes in a variety of grades. The higher the grade, the bulkier and less comfortable the armor is to wear, but the more ammunition it can stop. The highest grades of armor are often called "tactical armor" or "hard armor," and may contain steel or titanium. At the top of the scale is Threat Level IV armor, which can stop even a high-powered rifle bullet. It takes a very strong vest to stop a big-game hunting-rifle bullet: The bullet travels at a high velocity, due to the long length of the rifle barrel; and has a large mass, since a hunting-rifle bullet must be large enough to bring down a moose, elk, or other large mammal.
Almost the only people who wear hard armor are SWAT team members on high-risk missions. Far more common for ordinary police use is "soft" body armor, made from Kevlar, and rated at Threat Levels IIA through IIIA. Level IIA armor can stop most handgun ammunition, while Level IIIA can stop almost any handgun bullet. Handgun ammunition is much easier to stop than rifle ammunition, since the handgun barrel is much shorter (less velocity) and handgun bullets are smaller (less mass).
So even your own article states that the standard armor issued is not protected against 7.62mm rounds the standard round for the AK-47 and the SKS assault rifle.
Don't give me all that politics crap man, I'm just discussing facts here. I'm not interested in politics. And so far, you haven't posted any figures about the prices of body armor, so I'm just not going to take your word for it. Usually Defense contracts reduce the price of the acquired product due to the large numbers bought, so I don't think the same price you can get an armor vest for is the same price the US government is getting.Politics play a huge roll in it because unless the funding is aproved by both congress and the president this is all a pipe dream.
-
have you ever been in the army? you don't wear the mask all the time; you have it with you. it takes about 10 seconds to put it on.
Uh I knew you were going to say that it was bait. Now how do you apply that to a bullet proof vest. AS I said it has been proven here in the states not even police officers will wear them unless made to.
Is a gig enough?
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
"you can never have too much ram". This is a popular misconception. Every Os that microsft has put out has had ram liitations and I belive at least before the miriad of patches was 2GB for XP, so anything above what the OS can adress is a waste.