Upload
Login or register

Fgner

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:11/24/2010
Last Login:7/25/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#1314
Highest Content Rank:#153
Highest Comment Rank:#1060
Content Thumbs: 27843 total,  30350 ,  2507
Comment Thumbs: 12365 total,  16231 ,  3866
Content Level Progress: 74.9% (749/1000)
Level 223 Content: Mind Blower → Level 224 Content: Mind Blower
Comment Level Progress: 0.2% (1/500)
Level 310 Comments: Wizard → Level 311 Comments: Wizard
Subscribers:168
Content Views:1529778
Times Content Favorited:4101 times
Total Comments Made:6221
FJ Points:34893
Favorite Tags: Headline (24) | funny (8) | Emo (4) | fisting (4) | punk (4) | eyes (3) | fucking (3) | grill (3) | High (3) | Knee (3) | on (3) | pregnant (3) | socks (3) | stockings (3) | the (3) | Thigh (3) | a (2) | Anal (2) | bj (2) | blowjob (2)
Here's where I'll archive all the images and gifs (no videos sadly) of my headlines:
http://fjguy.imgur.com

Feel free to make requests!

Text Posts

HD Gifs / WebMs

First2[ 7 ]

latest user's comments

#73 - One for each hole. 07/23/2016 on All the rebels want is Chaos 0
#72 - I hate that attitude, villains who are evil for the sake of be…  [+] (8 new replies) 07/23/2016 on All the rebels want is Chaos +6
#84 - emperorwatergate (07/23/2016) [-]
I see it as more of light gray/dark grey thing with the Rebels and the Empire than the traditional white/black thing:

While the Rebellion are, essentially, the good guys, they can do some bad things, and while the Empire are, essentially, the bad guys, they can do some good things.
User avatar
#83 - silversea (07/23/2016) [-]
its like saying the third reich is better than the weimar republic because hitler created a stronger economy and unified the people.
User avatar
#76 - trollmobile (07/23/2016) [-]
if by "better" you mean more peacefull? then yes.
because anyone that dares openly disagree, is immediately snuffed out.
no freedom of speech, no freedom of movement, no freedom at all.
User avatar
#74 - trollmobile (07/23/2016) [-]
i literally just stated they're the bad guys, i did not mention any of their motivation.

they're inspired by nazi germany.
palpatine's rise to power is practically a carbon-copy of Hitler's rise.

they create order, at the cost of freedom.
that's what they do.
curfews to decrease crime.
group punishment to deter defection.
militarized secret police to snub out any rising political resistance.
assassination of political opponents.
it's literally just "submit or die"
once it has reached such a stage, it takes nothing short of a full scale rebellion, or a declaration of war from the outside, to stop it.
because the regime has their citizens by the balls.
rather unappealing to rebel against the government, if the second you do, your parent, sibling, close friend gets tortured to death in a dark interrogation room by people selected specifically because of their lack of empathy, in order to find you.
#79 - crimsonrexgavmo (07/23/2016) [-]
Looking bad at the pointless wars and conflicts in the history of Star Wars, I'd say peace at the cost of freedom was worth it. The galaxy never knew true stability since the Infinite Empire with the Rakata, and that was like 30,000+ years before Yavin.
User avatar
#82 - trollmobile (07/23/2016) [-]
the republic ruled peacefully for 1000 years.
it didn't even need a standing army, that's how peacefull and stable the rule of the republic was.
it wasn't until the Sith came back and manipulated the CIS into going to war with the republic, that instability took over.
the ones you praise for creating order from chaos, were the ones that intentionally created the chaos to begin with, for the sake of siezing power.
palpatine was behind the CIS.
and he did it for the sake of exterminating the jedi through Order 66, which he needed the clones for.
the clones that were conveniently being created before the conflict with the CIS began.

to praise Palpatine and the empire for creating peace and order, is incredibly hypocritical. there was peace and order, until palpatine set in motion his plans to kill anyone that stood in his way, and take personal control over the galaxy.
#97 - crimsonrexgavmo (07/23/2016) [-]
I don't praise Sidious and Plaguis for creating just the empire and bringing peace. I praise them for placing a more effective system than the Republic ever did in their entire existence, economically stable, less conflict, etc. Or would you prefer if the galaxy went back to being a literal ping pong game between the Sith and Jedi, and everyone else caught in between? The Republic (and by extension the Jedi) try to be too goddamn nice to everyone, and are fucked consistently in the end.
User avatar
#99 - trollmobile (07/23/2016) [-]
"the day we stop believing democracy works, is the day we lose it"
effectiveness at what cost?
the free will of every being in the galaxy?
too nice? you don't rule for 1000 years by being "too nice". they resolved issues, rather than stomping them out.
if two senators are bickering, it's faster to shoot one in the head, than to solve their dispute.
but what did you really gain?
the conflict of interest is still there, one side just lost its spokes-person, and will now hate you for it.
the empire collapsed near immediately after its founding, because it tried to subjugate its citizens to such a degree that they revolted in open rebellion.
the rebel alliance didn't create itself.
it was created out of necessity.
the rebel leaders weren't war-mongering power-grabbers.
they didn't fight for personal glory or to see themselves at the head of a new empire.
they fought because the empire was subjugating the entire galaxy, to the point where they were choking out anyone with a desire for any freedom at all.
#5606 - Ah, go for the solid states, then. In my uni SSE was 300-level…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/21/2016 on /science/ board +1
User avatar
#5607 - effort (07/21/2016) [-]
Thanks for your advice, I probably already knew the answer to this question, but just wanted some reassurance.
#5603 - Honestly can't tell you without knowing the school and the tea…  [+] (5 new replies) 07/21/2016 on /science/ board +1
User avatar
#5604 - effort (07/21/2016) [-]
Thanks for the suggestions. There is an option to take the theoretical part of solid state, but it requires higher prereqs. As for the other solid state, it's practical, and requires only the first two levels of calc based physics (100 courses). However, quantum mechanics requires a 200 and 300 level physics course (introductory to modern physics and electromagnetism 2). Wouldn't solid state electronics (practical) sound easier?

Also the professors for both courses are equally terrible, which means it'll come down to home studying...
User avatar
#5608 - mublerking (07/22/2016) [-]
It honestly kind of depends on how comfortable you are with calculus and stats. I'm a particle physicist, but in my undergrad I studied engineering science (major in engineering physics, minor in computer engineering) and I had to take courses like SSE. SSE the math wasn't as difficult, but it was longer and significantly more tedious, in QM as long as you were good on things like continuous probabilities and fast at integration you could do amazingly.
User avatar
#5606 - Fgner (07/21/2016) [-]
Ah, go for the solid states, then. In my uni SSE was 300-level and required diff-Q and all that non-sense. My sister took QM as part of her liberal arts degree and it was shit easy, but liberal arts.
User avatar
#5607 - effort (07/21/2016) [-]
Thanks for your advice, I probably already knew the answer to this question, but just wanted some reassurance.
User avatar
#5605 - effort (07/21/2016) [-]
Oh I should also mention, the theoretical part of solid state requires quantum theory as a co-req.
#88 - People who don't have much interaction with others don't know … 07/21/2016 on Anon tries to have sex with... +3
#96 - You have no idea how this works. 0) Not in a civil wa…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/21/2016 on Chinese lawyer's clothes... 0
#100 - cabbagemayhem (07/22/2016) [-]
I'll try to address your psychobabble as short as possible. First, some basic facts. This isn't about Turkey, this is about any revolt. In a civil war, both sides would have the same types of assets, this is just about revolts where the civilians try to take the government.

- The RPG-30 is an example of how modern tanks are matched by modern weapons. And, the RPG costs only a few thousand dollars -- you could afford that if you got a job. Tanks cost five million or more.

- MANPADS (man-portable air-defense systems) can be acquired for the price of a new car. That list you posted is for full-fledged SAM systems designed to deny air power for an entire region. That's overkill for a revolt, and in a civil war, both sides would have them.

Now to address your psychobabble, you can't just "blow up" the rebels. You have to find them first. Then you have to order the military to "blow up" their fellow countrymen. And then, it would only slow down a revolt of any significant size. Like I said, advanced weaponry is still only useful as support. There is not enough advanced weaponry in the world to "blow up" revolting citizens faster than they can recruit more. You would know this if you based your position on reality. These things happen continuously around the world. It's almost axiomatic that if a small minimum percentage of the population revolts, the government cannot simply "stomp" them out.

In conclusion, no matter if it's a revolt, or a full-fledged war, infantrymen have always been and continue to be the sole force behind any conflict. Without them, there is no war. Government can only resist a revolt with the support of its citizens, and even then it can only resist, not dominate. Advanced technology can only support, alone it is useless.
#86 - Turkey is a horrible example. Those soldiers were told it was …  [+] (3 new replies) 07/21/2016 on Chinese lawyer's clothes... 0
#92 - cabbagemayhem (07/21/2016) [-]
Actually, infantry are still the single most important unit in a military conflict, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Let me correct a few points you made.

1. You can't compare the latest in tank technology to 70 year old RPGs. The Russian's have already developed RPGs designed to overcome the Trophy defense system.

2. The same applies to jets. No matter how fast jets are, it will always be cheaper to build a missile that can go faster, and the price tag will be much less than a million dollars.

3. Tanks, jets, and drones sound so badass that they're like the bread and butter to war. Air power has been acclaimed to be what won WWII, and they deserve credit for helping the infantry out-grapple the enemy. However, all of these units were never anything more than mere support units to help the infantryman do what he does a little better. Without men with rifles, there is no war, no matter how many armored vehicles and drones you can afford.
User avatar
#96 - Fgner (07/21/2016) [-]
You have no idea how this works.

0) Not in a civil war. The idea is to squash the rebellion, you don't have any conquering to do. And you're a tyrannical government anyway, just blow the fuck out of them. There's 0 reason for a government to use actual troops to go close quarters. The government could then lie and say it was a rebel headquarters, no civilians were harmed (how can you prove otherwise), and the clean up the rubble. Even if more people revolted, they have a surplus of bodies to replace them and the "blow them the fuck up" tactics work.

And the few times you need ground troops in, say, important hostage situations, security, etc. They'll have them. Their army is a few million strong, their culture has a distinct lack of concern for the lives of other people, they have plenty of manpower to fight a sticks and stones rebellion.

1) The RPG-30 has already been defeated by the "Trench Coat" Israeli countermeasure. It's also not available for purchase for foreign entities, and even if it was costs several thousand dollars per missile. And on the huge gap of reasoning that the civilians had enough money to buy them as well as Russia having the bright idea to sell them, Russia would never sell them. Would you risk WW3 for chump change?

2) This is absolutely and 100% completely bullshit. A single sidewinder, which is *really* basic tech is half a fucking million. Here's some actual numbers: www.defencebd.com/2010/11/missile-price-list.html. Notice how fucking crazy those prices are? It's because they aren't just dumb missiles. They have to be able to identify and track a target miles away, several thousand feet in the sky, moving the speed of fucking sound, then manage to catch up to it and actually HIT it despite manoeuvres and countermeasures deployed by the pilot. And it needs an accompanying high-power radar system, likely a custom low-wavelength one to even have a chance at detecting anything with a stealth coating. And who the fuck is making these things for the civilians? It's not some basic factory, these aren't toys, they need guidance systems accurate to the fucking millimeter, high-grade explosives you can't just get on craigslist, rocket fuel, precision machined control surfaces, special alloys for the casing. Despite all that, modern SAMs only have a fucking 30-50% kill rate.

And sure, your total expense will be lower than the expense of the plane. But let's see who can hold out longer: the poor rebels buying 2 million dollar missiles on piss salaries (if they even still have jobs), or the government that's been hoarding weapons and money and still rakes in virtually all the money from their economy buying 30 million dollar jets.

3) War changed a long-ass time ago, you don't seem to have caught up. Pray tell, what exactly makes an infantryman absolutely vital in killing rebels? Why can't an armored unit siege a building? Why can't a drone level a building? Why can't a helicopter gun down anyone at any time?

4) You conveniently ignored how they know literally every detail about the lives of these people as well. The Great Firewall is one hell of a tool, their spying is invaluable. Just like Erdogen they probably have a databse of all "potential rebels". The greatest weapon is that they don't even need a war, just a secret police to kill anyone who starts too much dissent. Hell, they don't even need to kill them, just plant drugs at the house and arrest them forever. You make this seem like it's an actual war, but it's not. It's not the fucking 50s, everything is completely different and the vectors for battle are radically different.
#100 - cabbagemayhem (07/22/2016) [-]
I'll try to address your psychobabble as short as possible. First, some basic facts. This isn't about Turkey, this is about any revolt. In a civil war, both sides would have the same types of assets, this is just about revolts where the civilians try to take the government.

- The RPG-30 is an example of how modern tanks are matched by modern weapons. And, the RPG costs only a few thousand dollars -- you could afford that if you got a job. Tanks cost five million or more.

- MANPADS (man-portable air-defense systems) can be acquired for the price of a new car. That list you posted is for full-fledged SAM systems designed to deny air power for an entire region. That's overkill for a revolt, and in a civil war, both sides would have them.

Now to address your psychobabble, you can't just "blow up" the rebels. You have to find them first. Then you have to order the military to "blow up" their fellow countrymen. And then, it would only slow down a revolt of any significant size. Like I said, advanced weaponry is still only useful as support. There is not enough advanced weaponry in the world to "blow up" revolting citizens faster than they can recruit more. You would know this if you based your position on reality. These things happen continuously around the world. It's almost axiomatic that if a small minimum percentage of the population revolts, the government cannot simply "stomp" them out.

In conclusion, no matter if it's a revolt, or a full-fledged war, infantrymen have always been and continue to be the sole force behind any conflict. Without them, there is no war. Government can only resist a revolt with the support of its citizens, and even then it can only resist, not dominate. Advanced technology can only support, alone it is useless.
#30 - That worked great up until governments had access to 24/7 surv…  [+] (8 new replies) 07/21/2016 on Chinese lawyer's clothes... +27
User avatar
#45 - yunch (07/21/2016) [-]
You'd be surprised, my friend. They're only human and are prone to making mistakes, especially underestimating the people, who are far larger in number than the government and military.

If simply 20% of the population were to protest, stop working and rally, it'll crumble the economy so fast the government has to respond.

#36 - anon (07/21/2016) [-]
Soldiers don't like shooting their neighbors. Turkey might not be the perfect example, but it is a recent case were soldiers did surrender to crowds of civilians.

Also, you can basically kiss your economy goodbye when your entire working force is now fleeing from bayonets. Fighting your own country is insanely risky, which is why very few countries do it. You don't fear the civilians, you fear the ramifications of destabilizing your country.
User avatar
#86 - Fgner (07/21/2016) [-]
Turkey is a horrible example. Those soldiers were told it was a training exercise and had no idea it was a coup until they were being murdered in the streets and having Erdogen reinstate the death penalty. Further, many soldiers that did know it was a coup killed quite a few civilians by either shooting or running them over.

Even worse, the more advanced tech the military gets means the less soldiers are necessary. There is a critical point where enough will comply and it's fairly easy to see that point has been reached. The latest tanks have counter-measures against RPGs and mines, jets move far too fast to shoot down without several million dollar missles, drones are untouchable from miles away, power armor is right around the horizon with advancements in tech like rheopectry.

It's not a matter of having more manpower than the military or of most soldiers surrendering, it's the matter that there's almost nothing the civilians can ever do to actually defeat those that remain. And that power gap grows larger every day.

But I agree with your point of economy. China is largely skirting the border of Western acceptance and they know not to step over that line, just like with Tiananmen. I'm actually impressed with China in that regard, they've been assigning more and more rights to their people despite the government's growing power.

Probably being leaders of a superpower is far better than leaders of the isolated shithole they used to be.

yunch
#92 - cabbagemayhem (07/21/2016) [-]
Actually, infantry are still the single most important unit in a military conflict, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Let me correct a few points you made.

1. You can't compare the latest in tank technology to 70 year old RPGs. The Russian's have already developed RPGs designed to overcome the Trophy defense system.

2. The same applies to jets. No matter how fast jets are, it will always be cheaper to build a missile that can go faster, and the price tag will be much less than a million dollars.

3. Tanks, jets, and drones sound so badass that they're like the bread and butter to war. Air power has been acclaimed to be what won WWII, and they deserve credit for helping the infantry out-grapple the enemy. However, all of these units were never anything more than mere support units to help the infantryman do what he does a little better. Without men with rifles, there is no war, no matter how many armored vehicles and drones you can afford.
User avatar
#96 - Fgner (07/21/2016) [-]
You have no idea how this works.

0) Not in a civil war. The idea is to squash the rebellion, you don't have any conquering to do. And you're a tyrannical government anyway, just blow the fuck out of them. There's 0 reason for a government to use actual troops to go close quarters. The government could then lie and say it was a rebel headquarters, no civilians were harmed (how can you prove otherwise), and the clean up the rubble. Even if more people revolted, they have a surplus of bodies to replace them and the "blow them the fuck up" tactics work.

And the few times you need ground troops in, say, important hostage situations, security, etc. They'll have them. Their army is a few million strong, their culture has a distinct lack of concern for the lives of other people, they have plenty of manpower to fight a sticks and stones rebellion.

1) The RPG-30 has already been defeated by the "Trench Coat" Israeli countermeasure. It's also not available for purchase for foreign entities, and even if it was costs several thousand dollars per missile. And on the huge gap of reasoning that the civilians had enough money to buy them as well as Russia having the bright idea to sell them, Russia would never sell them. Would you risk WW3 for chump change?

2) This is absolutely and 100% completely bullshit. A single sidewinder, which is *really* basic tech is half a fucking million. Here's some actual numbers: www.defencebd.com/2010/11/missile-price-list.html. Notice how fucking crazy those prices are? It's because they aren't just dumb missiles. They have to be able to identify and track a target miles away, several thousand feet in the sky, moving the speed of fucking sound, then manage to catch up to it and actually HIT it despite manoeuvres and countermeasures deployed by the pilot. And it needs an accompanying high-power radar system, likely a custom low-wavelength one to even have a chance at detecting anything with a stealth coating. And who the fuck is making these things for the civilians? It's not some basic factory, these aren't toys, they need guidance systems accurate to the fucking millimeter, high-grade explosives you can't just get on craigslist, rocket fuel, precision machined control surfaces, special alloys for the casing. Despite all that, modern SAMs only have a fucking 30-50% kill rate.

And sure, your total expense will be lower than the expense of the plane. But let's see who can hold out longer: the poor rebels buying 2 million dollar missiles on piss salaries (if they even still have jobs), or the government that's been hoarding weapons and money and still rakes in virtually all the money from their economy buying 30 million dollar jets.

3) War changed a long-ass time ago, you don't seem to have caught up. Pray tell, what exactly makes an infantryman absolutely vital in killing rebels? Why can't an armored unit siege a building? Why can't a drone level a building? Why can't a helicopter gun down anyone at any time?

4) You conveniently ignored how they know literally every detail about the lives of these people as well. The Great Firewall is one hell of a tool, their spying is invaluable. Just like Erdogen they probably have a databse of all "potential rebels". The greatest weapon is that they don't even need a war, just a secret police to kill anyone who starts too much dissent. Hell, they don't even need to kill them, just plant drugs at the house and arrest them forever. You make this seem like it's an actual war, but it's not. It's not the fucking 50s, everything is completely different and the vectors for battle are radically different.
#100 - cabbagemayhem (07/22/2016) [-]
I'll try to address your psychobabble as short as possible. First, some basic facts. This isn't about Turkey, this is about any revolt. In a civil war, both sides would have the same types of assets, this is just about revolts where the civilians try to take the government.

- The RPG-30 is an example of how modern tanks are matched by modern weapons. And, the RPG costs only a few thousand dollars -- you could afford that if you got a job. Tanks cost five million or more.

- MANPADS (man-portable air-defense systems) can be acquired for the price of a new car. That list you posted is for full-fledged SAM systems designed to deny air power for an entire region. That's overkill for a revolt, and in a civil war, both sides would have them.

Now to address your psychobabble, you can't just "blow up" the rebels. You have to find them first. Then you have to order the military to "blow up" their fellow countrymen. And then, it would only slow down a revolt of any significant size. Like I said, advanced weaponry is still only useful as support. There is not enough advanced weaponry in the world to "blow up" revolting citizens faster than they can recruit more. You would know this if you based your position on reality. These things happen continuously around the world. It's almost axiomatic that if a small minimum percentage of the population revolts, the government cannot simply "stomp" them out.

In conclusion, no matter if it's a revolt, or a full-fledged war, infantrymen have always been and continue to be the sole force behind any conflict. Without them, there is no war. Government can only resist a revolt with the support of its citizens, and even then it can only resist, not dominate. Advanced technology can only support, alone it is useless.
User avatar
#46 - yunch (07/21/2016) [-]
Turkey is the best example. It was the people that stopped the coup.
#80 - anon (07/21/2016) [-]
Turkey is a horrible example. The people has nothing to do with the fighter jets that took out the helicopters or the fact that most of the soldiers out in public thought they were on a training exercise.
#79 - No, just that they aren't people. 07/20/2016 on Based Sheriff David Clarke 0
#265 - Can confirm. Starting in high school and going all the way to … 07/19/2016 on 1 Keklometer away +5