Random News Stories

[Junkenstein]

Long time, no HAHAHAHAAAAAIEEEE:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-24108311

A Middlesbrough man who pretended to be pop singer Justin Bieber to trick children into sending him sex act videos has been jailed for 14 years.

Robert Hunter, 35, was caught after a girl from Tasmania informed police.

Officers found 800 videos from all over the world - some from boys as young as nine - at his home at Brough Court.

Hunter pleaded guilty to 15 charges of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity and 14 of making indecent photos at Teesside Crown Court.

The court heard Hunter spent years targeting hundreds of girls and boys across the UK, France, Spain, Italy, Serbia, Asia and Canada.

Mr Bennett said: "He was able to persuade some of them that he was the music artist Justin Bieber and he encouraged them to perform sex acts on camera and he recorded many of them."

[Cramulus]

This is why we don't have a philosophy subforum

Discussion of Kant's philosophy in Russia ends in gunfire

[Junkenstein]

Something's not right here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-24108657

Five men have been jailed over the theft of 40 anti-tank mines from a Ministry of Defence freight train.

The court heard the mines are used to blow up enemy compounds in Afghanistan.

Now I'm no arms expert, but I didn't think a mine was much use against a building. Feel free to explain this to me, the situations I'm imagining to make this work are amusing but likely wrong.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Something's not right here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-24108657

Five men have been jailed over the theft of 40 anti-tank mines from a Ministry of Defence freight train.

The court heard the mines are used to blow up enemy compounds in Afghanistan.

Now I'm no arms expert, but I didn't think a mine was much use against a building. Feel free to explain this to me, the situations I'm imagining to make this work are amusing but likely wrong.

Mines do okay against buildings.  Depends how you position them, really.  It's just a massive shaped charge.

[Cainad (dec.)]

This is why we don't have a philosophy subforum

Discussion of Kant's philosophy in Russia ends in gunfire

[AFK]

This is why we don't have a philosophy subforum

Discussion of Kant's philosophy in Russia ends in gunfire

Are you saying this is why we Kant have nice things?

[Junkenstein]

Something's not right here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-24108657

Five men have been jailed over the theft of 40 anti-tank mines from a Ministry of Defence freight train.

The court heard the mines are used to blow up enemy compounds in Afghanistan.

Now I'm no arms expert, but I didn't think a mine was much use against a building. Feel free to explain this to me, the situations I'm imagining to make this work are amusing but likely wrong.

Mines do okay against buildings.  Depends how you position them, really.  It's just a massive shaped charge.

I think this is confusing me due to my idea that an anti-tank mine would work because a tank (or other suitable weight) went over it. I've not come across mines being used as an appropriate method of demolition.

That said, "Gang steals building destroying bombs" isn't really a suitable BBC headline.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Something's not right here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-24108657

Five men have been jailed over the theft of 40 anti-tank mines from a Ministry of Defence freight train.

The court heard the mines are used to blow up enemy compounds in Afghanistan.

Now I'm no arms expert, but I didn't think a mine was much use against a building. Feel free to explain this to me, the situations I'm imagining to make this work are amusing but likely wrong.

Mines do okay against buildings.  Depends how you position them, really.  It's just a massive shaped charge.

I think this is confusing me due to my idea that an anti-tank mine would work because a tank (or other suitable weight) went over it. I've not come across mines being used as an appropriate method of demolition.

That said, "Gang steals building destroying bombs" isn't really a suitable BBC headline.

There are multiple different ways of setting off mines, with most mines having one or more triggers designed into them.  Pressure is one way.  A "wand" sticking out of the top is more reliable, because it doesn't require the tank's treads to strike the mine, just that the tank pass over the mine.  The switch for the wand can be activated with some fishing line or string, from any distance you choose.

[Junkenstein]

As always, info appreciated. Still seems odd that you would use this level of tech for something like compound breaching though. I figured C4 or the relevant military equivalent would have been the better option. Or, you know, just throw drones at the problem.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

As always, info appreciated. Still seems odd that you would use this level of tech for something like compound breaching though. I figured C4 or the relevant military equivalent would have been the better option. Or, you know, just throw drones at the problem.

C4 - which is our military's principle demolitions compound, blows away from the object, usually, and most of it usually doesn't detonate.

Mines are already in one piece, no rigging or expertise required, and are contained by their case, so that they both consume all of their explosives, and send the explosion in the desired direction.  Also, anti tank mines send a white hot jet of magnesium as the leading edge of the explosion, which makes life really interesting with respect to buildings, and the subsequent condition of the corpses.

Anti personnel mines are designed to mutilate.  In both cases, they are terror weapons, and their primary purpose is to route the enemy away from them, into the area you WANT them in...Which is one of two reasons you always mark a minefield.

[Junkenstein]

Mines are already in one piece, no rigging or expertise required, and are contained by their case, so that they both consume all of their explosives, and send the explosion in the desired direction.  Also, anti tank mines send a white hot jet of magnesium as the leading edge of the explosion, which makes life really interesting with respect to buildings, and the subsequent condition of the corpses.

I assume utterly unidentifiable would be the norm here? Allows you to claim that everyone was a legit target at least.

My military thinking needs an improvement. I'd do something like mark random areas as minefields and not mark the actual place I put them. I'd rather route my enemy into the mines than away from them. What are they going to do, run into the marked minefield?

I really should do a "Junkie doesn't understand weapons or the military properly thread" someday.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Mines are already in one piece, no rigging or expertise required, and are contained by their case, so that they both consume all of their explosives, and send the explosion in the desired direction.  Also, anti tank mines send a white hot jet of magnesium as the leading edge of the explosion, which makes life really interesting with respect to buildings, and the subsequent condition of the corpses.

I assume utterly unidentifiable would be the norm here? Allows you to claim that everyone was a legit target at least.

My military thinking needs an improvement. I'd do something like mark random areas as minefields and not mark the actual place I put them. I'd rather route my enemy into the mines than away from them. What are they going to do, run into the marked minefield?

I really should do a "Junkie doesn't understand weapons or the military properly thread" someday.

Naw.  An antitank mine will sear away everything in the path of the plasma, often leaving the rest of the body completely untouched.

And marking false minefields is in fact a common practice.  Not marking minefields happens, but it's risky, because your own troops will run over the fucking things 6 months later.

Rules of Warfare #8:  Mines are equal opportunity weapons.

[Junkenstein]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24112067

A Muslim woman can stand trial wearing a full-face veil but must remove it to give evidence, a judge has ruled.

Judge Peter Murphy made the ruling at Blackfriars Crown Court in London where the woman is due to stand trial accused of intimidating a witness.

The 22-year-old woman, from Hackney, has refused to remove her niqab and reveal her face in front of any man.

The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, pleaded not guilty at an earlier hearing.

Cue bigotry from all the usual places. For examples, see the top rated comments here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24106142

It's apparently acceptable to discriminate as long as you do it according to your cultural norms, apparently.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24112067

A Muslim woman can stand trial wearing a full-face veil but must remove it to give evidence, a judge has ruled.

Judge Peter Murphy made the ruling at Blackfriars Crown Court in London where the woman is due to stand trial accused of intimidating a witness.

The 22-year-old woman, from Hackney, has refused to remove her niqab and reveal her face in front of any man.

The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, pleaded not guilty at an earlier hearing.

Cue bigotry from all the usual places. For examples, see the top rated comments here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24106142

It's apparently acceptable to discriminate as long as you do it according to your cultural norms, apparently.

If she was testifying against someone, I'd side with the court on this one.

As the defendant, I think she should be able to wear it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24112067

A Muslim woman can stand trial wearing a full-face veil but must remove it to give evidence, a judge has ruled.

Judge Peter Murphy made the ruling at Blackfriars Crown Court in London where the woman is due to stand trial accused of intimidating a witness.

The 22-year-old woman, from Hackney, has refused to remove her niqab and reveal her face in front of any man.

The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, pleaded not guilty at an earlier hearing.

Cue bigotry from all the usual places. For examples, see the top rated comments here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24106142

It's apparently acceptable to discriminate as long as you do it according to your cultural norms, apparently.

If she was testifying against someone, I'd side with the court on this one.

As the defendant, I think she should be able to wear it.

In my opinion it should be either or none.

I don't know why she isn't simply reassigned to a female judge.