nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

I bet you didn't know that this thread would have a part 2

IamMetaldave

BaZmO* wrote: »

This post is the 10,000th post

Pipped.

Mod: Continuation from the old thread, which is here.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

BonnieSituation

Cheensbo wrote: »

I doubt this really fits the thread but:

I hit a wedge tailed eagle with my car in Australia, it was on the verge munching some roadkill kangaroo, saw me coming and went to take flight but flew straight toward the car and into the windscreen, it bounced up into the air, landed on the road behind me - dusted itself off and went back to it's meal. Car was fine bar the "wing dust" you'd see in the kitchen at home if a starling or whatever flew into it

Still have the image burned into my head of the entire windscreen being blocked out by it's wings as I hit it.

On that, I don't know how many times I travelled along the road from Perth to Lancelin and nearly got sideswiped by a kangaroo as they ran towards the lights of the car thinking it was the sun. Terrifying every time.

Evade

mikhail wrote: »

There are also geo-cultural biases about what constitutes an eagle.

The bald eagle cry you hear on TV or in movies is actually a red tailed hawk because the bald eagle cry is pretty lame.

The commonly heard cry: https://soundcloud.com/nwnewsnetwork/red-tailed-hawk-cry

The actual cry: https://soundcloud.com/nwnewsnetwork/bald-eagle-cry

New Home

It's like for the MGM lion, the roar heard was that of a tiger.

Esel

New Home wrote: »

It's like for the MGM lion, the roar heard was that of a tiger.

I hope you're not lion about that!

New Home

That would be cat, altogether!

peasant

mikhail wrote: »

If you'd only ever seen chihuahuas, the prospect of wrestling an Alsatian might not seem so bad. There are dogs, and there are dogs. Likewise, eagles.

I used to think that I might be able to fight a large dog and come out the winner (+ some bleeding bitewounds perhaps).

After living with a large dog (70 kg) for several years, I kid myself no longer

Now he's the sweetest and nicest dog you could ever meet, wouldn't harm a fly, but he tought me a few things about mass and momentum.

We humans are rather unstable creatures, as in we're toppled over quite easily.

He's only ever had a run at me in play or to say hello and he bowled me over a few times. If he came at me in anger, you could forget about all your well laid plans about where to hit, kick or gauge him...not a chance. He'd have you on your back with a thump and his big jaws at your throat before you could blink. (those jaws make the finest sawdust out of arm-thick coffeewood chews in minutes

)

Even if he missed his first opportunity...how would you kill him with your bare hands? He ran his thick head into a closed door once (by accident) at full speed..just shook his head and went on as if nothing happend. (the door wasn't so lucky)

The notion of fighting an animal of near equal or bigger weight with your bare hands and coming out the winner is laughable...without at least a big stick you're prey, nothing else.

Evade wrote: »

A lot of the bigger animals wouldn't be stopped quick enough, if at all, by that calibre.

EDIT: To expand on this a bit. It is illegal in a lot of places to hunt anything bigger than a very small deer or fox with that calibre because it takes far too long to kill something and it's considered cruel. Which is kind of the reason it was adopted for military use. In conventional army vs army warfare it is thought to be more effective to wound the enemy soldiers and have them tie up medical resources and personnel that to kill them outright.

There would also be the small matter of logistics.
Nato 5.56 mm ammunition weighs about half as much as 7.62 mm (the old size).
So from right down with your rifleman to all the way up the chain to the ammunitions transporter you can literally carry twice the bang for your buck.

Capt'n Midnight

New Home wrote: »

It's like for the MGM lion, the roar heard was that of a tiger.

But it sounds good that's the mane thing.

silliussoddius

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

But it sounds good that's the mane thing.

There is some pride at stake.

mookishboy

I cat believe you have stooped so low. have you no pride ?

Evade

peasant wrote: »

There would also be the small matter of logistics.
Nato 5.56 mm ammunition weighs about half as much as 7.62 mm (the old size).
So from right down with your rifleman to all the way up the chain to the ammunitions transporter you can literally carry twice the bang for your buck.

Yeah definitely a factor in, America at least, going from .30-06 -> 7.62mm -> 5.56mm.

The M1 Garand was originally chambered in a smaller calibre but there was so much .30-06 left over from the First World War it was change to use the surplus ammunition for logistics too.

castletownman

From today, Kurt Cobain will be dead longer than he was alive.

February 20 1967 to April 5, 1994= 9906 days

April 5,1994 to today= 9907 days.

Mad

seamus

Wibbs wrote: »

I love how 17% reckon they could take a chimp. A chimp would rip off your arms and beat you to death with the soggy ends for sport.

I think some people regard a chimp as a slightly shorter and hairier human. So you could probably wrestle them to the ground, right? Punch in the face, get in a few kicks?

Then you read up on chimp attacks - on humans and other primates - and it's nightmare fuel.

They're like humans alright, but imagine a human with twice the strength and absolutely zero inhibitions about what damage they might cause and no concept of any "rules" in fighting. They won't punch you or kick or try to knock you out. The chimp wants to end the battle as quickly as possible. The go for the soft targets; anything that might be "sticking out" like ears, noses, lips, fingers, toes, arms and ... genitals. And they go at them ferociously with teeth and vice like hands, pulling, ripping and tearing.

If the chimp doesn't kill you, you'll wish you were dead.

ohnonotgmail

seamus wrote: »

I think some people regard a chimp as a slightly shorter and hairier human. So you could probably wrestle them to the ground, right? Punch in the face, get in a few kicks?

Then you read up on chimp attacks - on humans and other primates - and it's nightmare fuel.

They're like humans alright, but imagine a human with twice the strength and absolutely zero inhibitions about what damage they might cause and no concept of any "rules" in fighting. They won't punch you or kick or try to knock you out. The chimp wants to end the battle as quickly as possible. The go for the soft targets; anything that might be "sticking out" like ears, noses, lips, fingers, toes, arms and ... genitals. And they go at them ferociously with teeth and vice like hands, pulling, ripping and tearing.

If the chimp doesn't kill you, you'll wish you were dead.

Case in point. Do not click on link if in any way squeamish. her pet chimp ripped off her face and hands

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/horrifying-injuries-woman-who-face-22045752

ohnonotgmail

I'm sure we have all looked at a map of the the world and thought that south america and africa fit pretty well together. We now know that there was once only one continent that split apart over time to form the continents. And you probably thought that this has been an accepted idea for quite some time even if scientists couldn't explain how the continents moved. Except the idea wasn't first proposed until 1920 by a german scientist called Alfred Wegener. Alfred Wegener was soundly ridiculed by the entire scientific community. he was soundly ridiculed every time he brought it up. It wasn't until 1968 that the paper proving tectonics and continental drift proved that it was true. When I was a child in primary school this was relatively new science. Mind blown.

Allinall

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

But it sounds good that's the mane thing.

silliussoddius wrote: »

There is some pride at stake.

mookishboy wrote: »

I cat believe you have stooped so low. have you no pride ?

Give it up, or Elsa......

seagull

peasant wrote: »

There would also be the small matter of logistics.
Nato 5.56 mm ammunition weighs about half as much as 7.62 mm (the old size).
So from right down with your rifleman to all the way up the chain to the ammunitions transporter you can literally carry twice the bang for your buck.

It's not only the ammunition. The rifle itself is significantly lighter.

The other thing is that 5.56 rounds very often actually cause more damage than 7.62. They tend to break up on entry, and so transfer the entire force into the target while ripping up your insides. If they do exit, it leaves a massive hole. 7.62 rounds would quite often punch straight through.

Evade

seagull wrote: »

The other thing is that 5.56 rounds very often actually cause more damage than 7.62..

Depends on the specific round. There's anecdotes from Somalia in the early 90s of US soldiers shooting three Somali militia only for two of them to get back up and carry the third guy away. The reason is the ammunition they were using was designed with fighting the USSR in mind so they were supposed to penetrate body armour first and without the armour they went in and out pretty cleanly a lot of the time.

New Home

Capt'n Midnight

Allinall wrote: »

Give it up, or Elsa......

I can't. The urge to do it is just a whim away.

New Home

[Deleted User]

I better get this typed out before I die of wrist fevers.

Friday night saw the 21st hour
of the 21st day
of the 21st week
of the 21st year
of the 21st century.

Awaits mention of time zones

Capt'n Midnight

Candie wrote: »

I better get this typed out before I die of wrist fevers.

Friday night saw the 21st second
of the 21st minute
of the 21st hour
of the 21st day
of the 21st week
of the 21st year
of the 21st century.

Awaits mention of time zones

FYP

Capt'n Midnight

New Home wrote: »

https://i.imgur.com/5KcNGNU.jpg

Spending more than a month in London is what got Beatrix Potter's beau.

And millions of others through the ages

New Home

He probably also had beautiful chestnut hair. He really didn't stand a chance.

[Deleted User]

At the height of the Black Death that took around 30% of European lives, a ship that wanted to dock in Italy was subjected to isolation for “quaranta giorni” - forty days - before they were allowed offload and come ashore in an effort to halt the spread.

At some point this was reduced to thirty days, called “trentine” but it was considered too little time. and eventually the compromise of thirty five days led to the formation of a portmanteau word we're all too familiar with these days - quarantine.

LarryGraham

Candie wrote: »

I better get this typed out before I die of wrist fevers.

Friday night saw the 21st hour
of the 21st day
of the 21st week
of the 21st year
of the 21st century.

Awaits mention of time zones

21st day of the 5th month

Sorry

[Deleted User]

LarryGraham wrote: »

21st day of the 5th month

Sorry

We're leaving out the month. It's the 21st week. And if that's not good enough for you I just don't know what to say.

This is why we can't have nice things.

I HOPE YOU'RE HAPPY!

/flounce

Capt'n Midnight

Actual unethical experiment story here, complete with results:

My dad was a skydiver back in the sixties. There was a guy in his club that was a nut. He had the idea that he could test the axiom that "cats always land on their feet" from free fall altitude, where he would fall with them and observe their self-righting behavior. He had no interest in aiding their descent, just wanted to see how they behaved in free fall. In his plan, landing was the cats' problem, not his. Scientific impartiality, or some such thing.

He took four stray cats up in a pillowcase for the jump. After exiting the plane, he turned the pillowcase inside out, releasing the cats. To his great surprise, all four cats attached themselves to his body immediately. With their claws. Given that cats have 18 claws each, he was punctured at least 72 times. More, probably, because he struggled vainly to remove the cats as he fell, but they were having none of it, and would reattach with even more conviction with every effort he made to pull them off.

Presently, he was out of altitude, and had to turn his attention to opening the chute. Let's pause to do some math. A chute opening can generate as much as 3 Gs of force. The average cat weighs 8 lbs at 1 G. At three Gs, this becomes 24 lbs per cat. So when the chute opened, for a moment this guy had 72 razor sharp claws in his skin, each one being pulled down with a force of about one and a third pounds. That's 96 pounds of cat. He was sliced to ribbons, basically.

All four cats hung on through the chute opening, although the skydiver's shredded flesh allowed each one to slip several inches. Bleeding and in misery, the skydiver managed to make a safe, if rather rough, landing in a farm field.
As soon as he hit the earth, all four cats ran off across the field, leaving him to lie there bleeding from his hundred or so wounds. He was the only member of the skydiving club that was displeased with the results of his experiment.

[Deleted User]

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Actual unethical experiment story here, complete with results:

My dad was a skydiver back in the sixties. There was a guy in his club that was a nut. He had the idea that he could test the axiom that "cats always land on their feet" from free fall altitude, where he would fall with them and observe their self-righting behavior. He had no interest in aiding their descent, just wanted to see how they behaved in free fall. In his plan, landing was the cats' problem, not his. Scientific impartiality, or some such thing.

He took four stray cats up in a pillowcase for the jump. After exiting the plane, he turned the pillowcase inside out, releasing the cats. To his great surprise, all four cats attached themselves to his body immediately. With their claws. Given that cats have 18 claws each, he was punctured at least 72 times. More, probably, because he struggled vainly to remove the cats as he fell, but they were having none of it, and would reattach with even more conviction with every effort he made to pull them off.

Presently, he was out of altitude, and had to turn his attention to opening the chute. Let's pause to do some math. A chute opening can generate as much as 3 Gs of force. The average cat weighs 8 lbs at 1 G. At three Gs, this becomes 24 lbs per cat. So when the chute opened, for a moment this guy had 72 razor sharp claws in his skin, each one being pulled down with a force of about one and a third pounds. That's 96 pounds of cat. He was sliced to ribbons, basically.

All four cats hung on through the chute opening, although the skydiver's shredded flesh allowed each one to slip several inches. Bleeding and in misery, the skydiver managed to make a safe, if rather rough, landing in a farm field.
As soon as he hit the earth, all four cats ran off across the field, leaving him to lie there bleeding from his hundred or so wounds. He was the only member of the skydiving club that was displeased with the results of his experiment.

I so hope this is true, a perfect example of the punishment fitting the crime.

I hope he was scarred for life and traumatized forever.

KevRossi

Cat 1: I'm slipping!!!!
Cat 2: There's a couple of inches of some kind of rope there between his legs, grab on to that with your claws!