Tanks4me05

I know this quote is mad old, but a cute factoid for those who are interested: Newton doesn't have a height or speed limit, so I was actually able to model this. Making a top hat in accordance with the ASTM regulations for g force limits, assuming the default friction coefficient is realistic, a 150 mph coaster can actually make it up a roughly *720* foot top hat. However, that number may be off by I'd say up to 10% (it might not be) because Newton only generates the design of the track regarding to the G's measured in terms of the center of the train and I can't export a coaster that big into NL to evaluate the G's at the ends of the train to see whether or not they would be ASTM compliant (the whole train will go the velocity of the center of gravity, or the center of the train, but if the radius of the track is tighter for the rear or the front of the train as opposed to where the middle of the train is, then the G's will be higher at that spot, if you know the high school physics formula of circular acceleration = velocity^2 / radius then it should be pretty easy understand.)

^And what exactly makes you think that? Sure it desperately needs a paint job, but every time I went, it always had the second longest line in the park, behind RoS.

^^Semi automatic vs fully automatic: If you set the trigger to a hair trigger, I could probably go about 400 rounds per minute with a semi auto. If I designed a trigger which would allow me to put my index and middle finger on the trigger, I could then double my rate of fire to about 800 because I can alternate them. Some full autos can go very far over 1500 rounds per minute, but past 800 RPM IMO is wasting ammo because it's hard to keep the controlled bursts to about five or six like it is for something between 500 and 800 rounds per minute. And most semi automatic weapons can "bump fire" - where if you hold it the right way, you can actually make the weapon go fully automatic (by "pulling the gun forward continuously whilst keeping your trigger finger out only to press the trigger, the trigger will continually reset itself because you are pulling forward and it will be fully automatic; this is perfectly legal by the way.) However, a hair trigger has other legitimate uses of making those individual shots much more accurate because when you try to muscle a heavy trigger pull it can *really* screw up your accuracy. Though I don't hunt, I understand the difficulty of trying to hunt. Try hitting a single target a few times larger than my fist (you should only hit the heart/lung area to make a quick and humane death) from 200 yards away on the first try. Not easy. Now if you miss, those things can run 40 mph and jump nine feet in the air. Try hitting them again at that speed and distance. Or if you want to hunt ducks where you are legally allowed to kill more than one at a time: Those things are incredibly small targets, which is why semi automatic shotguns loaded with birdshot are good for that sort of thing, so that in that giant flock of birds, you'll have a greater chance of actually hitting something and come home to a nice meal of roast duck. Would you be firing 400 rounds a minute to get those ducks or that deer? No. But you can keep your muzzle on the target (meaning continually keep track of it with your eyes at all times) as opposed to a bolt action or a pump action weapon where you have to move the gun around to load in your next shot. Also, if you are out hunting, and you are unlucky enough that a bear comes charging at you: You would definitely want to pump that thing full with lead in a very quick manner so you don't become eviscerated. Are fully automatic weapons necessarily useful for hunting? Not really, because you waste ammo. But are they fun? YES. My methodology is to keep them available for the avid recreational shooters and collectors like me (there are more like me than you'd think) but I agree that since they are deadlier, at least keep them heavily regulated as they are now (well now it's too much; if they remove the Hughes Amendement so I can buy any machine gun I want except for ones made before 1986, and then increase the tax stamp from $200 to $1000 so they will still be too expensive for criminals to care for them, but not too expensive for those who want them for peaceful purposes. However, the current background checks, etc. I'm fine with. Just not on regular semi auto weapons.) ^That's biased information. Please, click this link and do some reading: http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf The relevant facts are that there is no correlation between gun control and homicides rates per capita by country. (You'll find it in there.) And no, I'm not trying to insult you, I'm attempting to enlighten you. This was meant to be an instructional reply.

^I understand where you are coming from, the same thing happened to my mom's best friend's brother, (which is why I am in the paradoxical situation as being a huge supporter of guns whilst not being allowed to own them for the time being) however you needn't be afraid of the device. People lose their parents and children in car accidents, yet you still use a car; even if you are properly trained with driving a car there is still a risk of an accident. Don't let the fear of the unknown shy you away from a device.

^And that proves another point. As sad as it is, (trust me, I want these tragedies to not occur as much as anyone else) a determined person will find a way to kill a lot of people no matter what is banned. ban guns? he'll use knives. ban knives? He'll use chemicals for bombs. Ban those chemicals? He'll use gasoline as an incendiary device. Ban gasoline? Yeah, like that's gonna go over well. And the media making world news out of every tragedy like this just inspires more and more copycat cases within the next couple of weeks.

Now, I'm bound to rustle some feathers by what I am about to say, but realize that I mean not to insult anyone, only to enlighten. Is this a tragedy? Of course. Should we as a nation, as a species, mourn for this loss? Yes. But, we need to keep our heads level and not act until our heads have cleared. Gun control would not work in this case, in the draconian manner which I fear this guy is advocating for. Connecticut is already the fifth strictest state in the nation when it comes to gun control, behind New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and California. He already committed at least four felonies and three misdemeanors even if he didn't pull a trigger; two counts (technically) of criminal possession of a handgun (gotta be 21 to possess a handgun in CT, he was 20) three counts of criminal theft (though they're his parents' guns, his parents would definitely not have wanted to have let him have the guns for that purpose so I would count those as theft) as well as bringing guns onto a school ground, which is a class D felony in CT, on top of attempted mass murder of the first degree. (I'm not a lawyer, but this is my best guess.) Criminals are called criminals for a reason. They don't follow laws. Enacting more laws in order to try to stop those who don't follow laws in the first place is obviously illogical and only makes the lives of those that do follow laws and are of good moral standing that much more frustrated because they can do that much less in life. Now, would I be in support for trying to find a better way of psychologically evaluating these people and giving them proper treatment? Yes. But, the issue is that involving psychiatrists in applying for gun permits would make the process of getting a gun significantly more byzantine, because I highly doubt that psychiatrists can successfully make such a thorough and proper assessment of one's character in one short thirty minute session. (And you also have to make sure that the psychiatrists involved are able to control their bias enough so that they don't abuse their newly found power.) and in response, I point out that in China yesterday there was an attack on a school as well. a madman attacked 22 students with a knife. ZERO fatalities. ZERO vs 27 dead (with over 100 rounds fired in under 2 minutes). surely you see the difference here: Knife used because the perpetrator had no access to a gun. would the Monster in Conn. have committed something heinous regardless of if he had a gun or not? Very likely. Would we be mourning 20 Kindergarten students today if he had no access to a gun. absolutely not. Strict gun control needs to be addressed ASAP by our President and elected officials. at the VERY LEAST a complete and total ban on anyone other than law enforcement/military have access to automatic or semi-automatic weapons. Easy way to increase the fatalities of a stabbing spree: Stab in the center of the body to hit the central nervous system or the heart, and there you go. This is where more guns was not the issue. First off, from what I have heard the AR-15 was left in the car, so he only had the Glock and the Sig Sauer with him. Actually, if he only had one gun, I would argue that he would have been more deadly because then he would have been able to hold onto the gun with both hands, thus making him a lot more accurate. (And you'd be surprised at how much a 9mm can recoil; with two hands, if you don't keep your wrists tight, your gun will go straight up in the air after pulling the trigger.) Guns that we have don't operate like the Covenant weapons in Halo where once you run out of ammo you throw away the gun; they can be reloaded, so technically you are favoring a limit on ammunition, so the fact that more guns in the house is irrelevant. So the one handgun a month limit that I see in some states is completely invalid, because you can still acquire as many guns as you want, which even if there was a max limit of guns you can have at one time is also irrelevant as I have stated in this paragraph. Even in a practical sense, I would say that you need at least three guns minimum to protect yourself; a small handgun for when you are wearing lighter clothing (harder to conceal-carry full sized pistol when you are in shorts) a larger handgun for when you are wearing thicker clothing, and a rifle or a shotgun for home defense. And what about the people that hunt? There are multiple different calibers and different rifles as well as handguns for small game, medium game, big game. And what about the people like me that want more guns for the sake of collecting them? (I plan to eventually have a stockpile of at least a hundred, and that list keeps growing; mind you I appreciate them for their engineering complexity, I'm not a crazed madman...Okay I am crazy, but in the weird and amusing way, not the malicious way.) Which then, you will likely think that there should be high capacity magazine laws (which are already in place in some states like New York.) The problem with that is that high capacity magazines can get very large and unwieldy, (so you can carry only so many at a time) and they only increase how long you can go until you have to reload, and you can always stuff more magazines in your pockets anyway, and it does not take long to switch between magazines in handguns and rifles. it would probably take me between two and three seconds to switch between magazines, and I have seen some videos of highly trained people successfully switch magazines in less than ONE second. So the only way that any ammunition law would be effective in actually achieving its goal would be to put a limit on how much ammunition you can have on your person at a time. But that would mean a gigantic breach in privacy, because every ammunition box would have to be monitored by the government and every time you go to a shooting range or go hunting or whatever, you have to be monitored by the government to see how much ammunition you have with you at one time. And the government would probably have to do periodic searching of your home to make sure you only have X amount of ammunition, which essentially means that anyone that owns a gun can be searched without a warrant. And there's also another issue with that: If you are a good enough shot, you can kill people in one hit, and since pistol ammunition boxes can come in boxes of 50 or more, the ammunition companies will have to only sell like ten round boxes at a time. What the mom should have done was that she should have actually used the locks that came with her handguns and put them and her rifle in a gun safe (external locks are sold with all handguns in Connecticut) where only she knew the combinations. For those that are bringing assault weapons bans back into the picture, there are multiple issues with that: 1: Assault weapons are not an actual class of weapons. It is just a term invented by politicians that were unreasonably scared by certain features which don't make a rifle that much more deadly, if at all. (I'll go into detail in a second) 2: Connecticut already has an assault weapons ban, (as does NY state, which I will use their rules because since I live in NY I know them better; my guess is that the laws are almost exactly the same) so it is completely irrelevant in this case because none of the weapons were classified as assault weapons. The specifics of the law is as follows: Rifles can only have one of the following: -A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. (The only reason these exist is shooter preference, which feels more comfortable in their hand.) -A folding or telescoping stock (These primarily only exist to adjust the pull length, meaning the distance between the stock and the trigger, meaning how far the user has to extend their arm, and is primarily for comfort.) -A threaded barrel capable of mounting a flash suppressor or silencer. (Most guns don't make THAT big of a flash. I'd argue that MAG lights are brighter. They were invented around WWII to preserve the soldier's night vision. And silencers are nowhere near as effective as you might think: Except for a few very rare rifles where the silencer was built into the gun, most silencers only reduce the noise levels by about 30 - 40 dB, and since most guns range between 140 and 170 dB, you'd decrease the level of loudness from "severe hearing damage without hearing protection even after short term exposure" to about as loud as a power saw or a rock concert. And silencers are already regulated by the National Firearms Act, where you have to go through many more hoops and background checks to get the stuff that is on the NFA list, as well as paying a $200 tax stamp per purchase. -A grenade launcher. (Though I agree that these should be more heavily controlled, this law is redundant because they are already covered by the NFA. And it is disgustingly expensive to fire a grenade launcher when you are a civilian. Grenades on their own already cost $40 - $60 or more, and you have to pay the $200 tax stamp on every grenade you buy. With $250, I can buy over a thousand rounds of 9mm handgun ammo.) -A Bayonet mount. (Really? Who uses a bayonet in crimes? Sure, they are still very effective in the military when you are highly trained, but they are little more than a knife; technically they would be classified as swords because you can increase the length of your reach by about two or three feet instead of five or six inches. But you can always duct tape a kitchen knife to the end of your gun and it will have the same effect.) Semiautomatic shotguns cannot have more than one of the following: -A folding or telescoping stock (already covered this.) -A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. (already covered this.) -A fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds. (Similar to high capacity magazines, except for the fact that unless you have some specially made speed loading devices, you have to load each shell into the gun at a time, which comparatively takes FOREVER to do.) -An ability to accept a detachable magazine. (Same reasons as high capacity magazines, except for the fact that since shotguns rounds are so wide, most magazines are between five and ten rounds. Anything larger just gets gigantic and impractical to carry if you don't have proper ways to secure them.)[\i] Semiautomatic pistols that can accept detachable magazines cannot have more than one of the following: -An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip. (I don't understand this. You can use high capacity magazines with pistols that store the magazines inside a pistol grip. And again, they become very unwieldy.) -A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, forward handgrip, silencer, or flash suppressor. (I already covered these. And it completely defeats the purpose of a handgun's ability to be concealable, so all you have is a low power rifle.) -A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non trigger hand without being burned. (You can already hold handguns with both hands, in fact that's the proper way to hold a handgun--hand over hand. I'm actually going to argue that this would violate product safety laws because it becomes more dangerous for the person to operate, because barrels can get VERY hot after only a few rounds.) -A manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded. (I don't understand this at all. These guns that are of this size are just gigantic and are practically rifles in and of themselves.) Weapons specifically banned (company & model), even semi auto versions: (By the way, automatic weapons are also classified as NFA weapons, and because only automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 can be legally purchased, which is only a couple hundred thousand of them, their market values are literally as expensive as cars because of their availability.) -AK variants made by Norinco, Mitchell, or Poly Technologies. (You can buy AK variants from various other companies perfectly legally, which are exactly the same. This is pointless. Most don't even have more than one of the "evil features.") -the Uzi and the Galil, made by Israeli Military Industries. (There is nothing bad about these weapons. They both have a total of two "evil features", but you can get them customized to remove one, and I already discounted all of the "evil features" anyway.) -Beretta AR-70 and SC-70 (Same reasons as the UZI and Galil.) -Colt AR-15 (I don't get this at all. The AR-15 model is one of the most popular types of semi auto rifles in the country. Why?) -Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/FNC, FN/LAR (Same reasons as the UZI and Galil.) -Ingram MAC-10, MAC-11, MAC-11/9, and MAC-12 (Same reasons as the UZI and Galil) -Steyr AUG (These only have one "evil feature" and you can already get models that are exactly the same made by other companies.) -Intratec TEC 9, TEC DC-9, and TEC-22 (They may have more than one evil feature, and yes only criminals really use them because they are very large, very cheap, incredibly inaccurate and horridly unreliable, but just because the guns sucks doesn't mean that it should be banned.) -Revolving Cylinder shotguns such as the Streetsweeper or Striker 12. (You can only carry about a dozen rounds in these things, they cannot accept detachable magazines, and they can't be used with speedloaders as far as I know, so once you run out of ammo, it takes FOREVER to reload them.)

"Song for Athene, for Chorus" - John Tavener.

Now, I'm bound to rustle some feathers by what I am about to say, but realize that I mean not to insult anyone, only to enlighten. Is this a tragedy? Of course. Should we as a nation, as a species, mourn for this loss? Yes. But, we need to keep our heads level and not act until our heads have cleared. Gun control would not work in this case, in the draconian manner which I fear this guy is advocating for. Connecticut is already the fifth strictest state in the nation when it comes to gun control, behind New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and California. He already committed at least four felonies and three misdemeanors even if he didn't pull a trigger; two counts (technically) of criminal possession of a handgun (gotta be 21 to possess a handgun in CT, he was 20) three counts of criminal theft (though they're his parents' guns, his parents would definitely not have wanted to have let him have the guns for that purpose so I would count those as theft) as well as bringing guns onto a school ground, which is a class D felony in CT, on top of attempted mass murder of the first degree. (I'm not a lawyer, but this is my best guess.) Criminals are called criminals for a reason. They don't follow laws. Enacting more laws in order to try to stop those who don't follow laws in the first place is obviously illogical and only makes the lives of those that do follow laws and are of good moral standing that much more frustrated because they can do that much less in life. Now, would I be in support for trying to find a better way of psychologically evaluating these people and giving them proper treatment? Yes. But, the issue is that involving psychiatrists in applying for gun permits would make the process of getting a gun significantly more byzantine, because I highly doubt that psychiatrists can successfully make such a thorough and proper assessment of one's character in one short thirty minute session. (And you also have to make sure that the psychiatrists involved are able to control their bias enough so that they don't abuse their newly found power.)

^We all know it, and the management knows it, but I'm in full agreement with what HFE's apparent ideology is: Take baby steps. As much as the park needs a new coaster, the park needs everything else as well. It was in a pretty crappy shape before they came in. When PARC was in charge, the family coaster was a desperately needed ride, and Motocoaster fit the bill very well. Then the water park needed upgrading, because the slide count was disgustingly small. DL's kiddie section was pretty dilapidated, and that part of the park that was recently upgraded for this year's new additions really needed a facelift. Now it looks a lot better and a sense of theme is actually appearing throughout the park (and IMO has a little bit of Dollywood spirit in it, I very much approve.) Now for 2013 we are getting the drop tower, and another section of the park is rethemed and renovated so it doesn't look old and busted (as well as laser show upgrades and apparently a new restaurant or two.) As much as the park needs a new coaster, what the park has in the meantime is actually pretty good. But you guys also have to realize, coasters can take up to two years to develop, so I'm not expecting a coaster until either 2014 or 2015. Also:

*Casually browses thread, expecting some person's boring, crappy, blurry, colorless photos.* HOLY CRAP. The one of HRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR at night was my favorite. I enjoyed utilizing the same effect on Windseekers. I just wish some more coasters had lighting packages that I could photograph.

^HP is definitely looking into trying to expand into the golf course, as was said during the New Hotness behind the scenes tour. The main problem is that they have to reroute Park Boulevard (the road that goes behind Skyrush, Comet and SDL) or make a pedestrian bridge around the existing road. It's definitely possible, but it won't exactly be cheap. My solution would be to widen the path between the chocolate shop and Skyrush a bit, move the Creekside Catering to the golf course, and use that newly freed up space to make a pedestrian bridge over Park Avenue with helical ramps which would be covered with giant Hershey's Kiss shaped roofs. Since the ramp wouldn't take up all of Creekside Catering's current land plot, we could also use the remaining area to put in either a couple of shops or a small flat ride or two.

I would have loved to do the TX/Midwest trip but I don't have the money for that. I am instead trying to do a trip that would consist of La Ronde, Funtown/Palace Playland, Canobie, TGE, SFNE, Quassy, Lake Compounce, and Hershey, but again I'm not sure if I'll have money for that either (it will be a good deal cheaper than the TX/Midwest trip though.) If I don't have money for that, I will at the very least get to Hershey again next summer, and maybe I'll try the western half of PA (Del Grosso's, Lakemont, Idlewild, Kennywood and Waldameer) as I have never done any of those but Waldameer before.

I'm going to put more confidence in the ride than that. It's obvious from the geometry that they are looking into making it a zero g roll, which will mean minimal stress being put on the track at that point. I would assume that they might raise the minimum temperature required to run the ride in the slim case that it would stall right at the top, thus putting the full weight of a train on a place with relatively little supporting for several hours, thus weakening the structure at that point and increasing the frequency of maintenance.

JC walked up to it (during the trip) and noticed that there were construction permits plastered over the whole thing when we went. Here's hoping.

Premier: What programs do you use in designing your rides?

^^^Fixed.

Premier: What is your least favorite part of building a new ride? (Not just when you are working on the proposal; the entire process from start to finish.)

Premier: I see that you built Superman: Ultimate Flight for SFDK, and now Full Throttle is being open at SFMM only one year later. Were they completely separate proposals that you entered? Did SFMM contact you soon after Superman Ultimate Flight's press release that they wanted something from you guys, or did you get to make a deal with Six Flags that you would make multiple coasters for their parks throughout the chain? EDIT: Haha, nice filter of F.u.l.l...T.h.r.o.t.t.l.e.

Premier: Could you go into some details of the design challenges you had to face when you were making Maximum RPM/Round About's Ferris Wheel Lift?

Premier: What was your inspiration when you originally came up with the Linear Induction Motors?

I'm not sure I understand this question. Doesn't the Mr. Feezes, Speed, Chiller, Flight of Fears, Stunt Coasters, Jokers Jinx, Poltergeist, etc, all run two row cars? I thought only a couple of their newer coasters have the three car train. Do you mean more like "Why did you switch from two to three rows?" I really don't know what you're getting at here. I was referring to their newer models. They haven't made those since... *checks RCDB* counting the Italian Job/Backlot triplets, 2005, excluding the Backlot/Italian Job triplets, since 2000, so yes, I do mean more like as you restated the question as to why they switched to a seemingly less flexible train.

Premier: For what reasons have you not yet branched out into different coaster types, like inverted coasters or hyper coasters for example?

Premier: Why did you choose to do three row cars as your standard car size? Wouldn't those have a more difficult time navigating tight track radii as opposed to a one or two row car, even with today's modern train and wheel assemblies?

GG: What is your least favorite part of the design process when trying to design and construct a new ride?

Intamin: For what reason do your LSM launches not meet the average acceleration values of your hydraulic launches? (Layman's terms: Why are your hydraulic launches more intense than your LSM launches?)