Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.

RabidWolf

 Moderator
  • Content count

    1,763
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

RabidWolf last won the day on October 22 2016

RabidWolf had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

890 Excellent

6 Followers

About RabidWolf

  • Rank
    Eternal Poster
  1. Well, testing would be rather simple. Walk with a geiger counter down the cut & stacked lumber rows at the mills. When it spikes, mark the stack with spray paint for removal. I certainly wouldn't want to be working at any of the mills they cut that lumber at though.
  2. You could be a "Sandwich Ninja" just like Cinn!
  3. I'd choose thin and wrinkled. At least there is a decent chance of decades together. Fat people have a short life expectancy and high health maintenance cost, so no thanks to that heartache.
  4. Can you make sammiches? If you can hide AND make sandwiches, I'll have a place for you in my village.
  5. I'm a Jack of all trades who spent decades learning and practicing primitive skills. I am not about mere "survival". I will live, enjoy, and teach others what I learned.
  6. 15 minutes is plenty of time, imo. We have enough problems in the present and stretching far off into the future to be wasting time "experiencing" the past for an agenda's sake.
  7. You'd have to prove intent of defamation. The people responsible could easily claim it is meant to be a parody or other such word-salad rubbish the leftist/communists like to use to baffle people with bullshit. Personally, I'd just set up worklights at the entrance and outshine the projector. That message wouldn't make any sense projected on a window or elsewhere.
  8. Okay. It is a privately owned building abutting a public space across which photons are streaming from yet another privately owned space. Now that we cleared that up, still not a criminal act, imo.
  9. If they did it in paint, I could see vandalism charges being pressed. If the light blinds drivers as they pass, then I could see public endangerment charges. Pretty much this is just someone being annoying, not criminal, imo.
  10. Charged with what? "Projecting light onto a stone facade in a public space on a Monday" ? I have read crazier "laws" but that one would be up there on the list if it existed. lol
  11. Ah, that depends on your price range. Just make sure any one you look at has a zoom range of 20-60 (higher than 60 is worth the extra $$, imo) and a minimum of a 60mm objective lens. Also make sure the lenses are made of glass for optimal image quality. (I'd buy a lower powered scope with glass lenses over a higher power one with acrylic/polymer lenses every time.) This one is decent enough for the price, to give you an idea: http://www.opticsplanet.com/nikon-prostaff-5-spotting-scopes-20-60x-82mm-zoom.html (you can attach a camera eye piece to it that they sell as well, but it has no built in camera of its own.) If you ever do get a spotting scope (did I mention they make night vision & thermal versions too? lol I feel like a salesman here) I suggest buying a tripod for it, and ONLY it. Leave it attached to it so you can grab it and go quickly.
  12. hehehehe I try to be a little predictable now and then. If sunset wasn't terribly long ago for you, it could just be a high altitude aircraft (private, commercial, or military) but I am just guessing here. You might consider getting a high magnification spotting scope to better see things like this. (easier to use quickly than setting up a telescope and trying to track things like this) Some even have digital cameras in them now to take photographs.
  13. Lens Flare. Just kidding. lol!!! No clue what it is other than an object that either is emitting or reflecting light.
  14. Try thinking instead of indulging your emotions. You may actually learn something.
  15. Well, I call bullshit on that article. lol From the study they are citing, "Twenty-two of 30 (73%) randomly selected patients in a Cannabis-sensitive subgroup reported respiratory symptoms during the Cannabis pollination season, although all these patients also were found to have additional aeroallergen sensitivities." In other words, in a group that is already allergic to cannabis, 73% of them experience allergies during cannabis pollination season. They sure twisted the hell out of that bit, eh? Annoying when they claim to be citing a scientific study and fail to link to the study. I found it though, for those who are interested: http://www.annallergy.org/article/S1081-1206(15)00035-6/fulltext