This isn't anti-free speech. You used your free speech. Now the rest of us can use our freedom to ignore you. Being modded down is not a violation of your inalienable human rights.
I keep a spare set of keys in one of those magnetic things in my wheel well just in case I accidentally lock my keys in my car. Remind me not to go drinking in Canada. (Not that I do much drinking, and never if I'm going to be behind a wheel. My friend's dad got killed by a drunk driver, and that really puts a hell of a damper on things.)
I'm against kids with handguns too. Personally, I'd like purchasing a gun to require a license that says that the purchaser has been through a gun safety course. Accidents are a problem, and teaching people is a good way to help mitigate that.
I have no issue with adults having these. I have no issue with adults having guns. My problems with this are not based on crime, they are based on carelessness. The average kid who doesn't know enough to use a gun safely is not going to go out and steal one, and he is not going to be able to go buy one until he turns 18 (21 for handguns). I have no idea what percentage of kids have access to the tools needed to do this, but I personally had access to the things I'd need to make this (other than the lasers, but they were less prevalent back then) well before I was responsible enough to be trusted with something like this.
Also, I am against kids having things like Paintball and pellet guns without training as well. They have a similar ability to cause irreversible damage to people who aren't wearing protective goggles. It's just easier with a laser.
Because it's easier to conceal a Mini Maglite than a handgun? Because doing this is cheaper than buying a Saturday Night Special? Because there are laws on the possession of guns (age limits, felons, assault weapons)?
To be perfectly honest, I'm probably going to go make one of these things. I can think of a variety of things both fun and useful to do with one. However, I don't want random kids having these, just like I don't want them having handguns. This can cause too much damage too quickly. I really hope the first person to blind someone gets the book thrown at them by the legal system, as an example to others.
Could be that they were nonfunctional in the past. Could be that they are slowly gaining functionality, and are right now the equivalent of eyespots that can sense light and dark, but will eventually evolve into real eyes that can make out a far greater level of detail.
An appendix is not critical, like a heart or brain is. It's not even serious, like eyes. It's on the same level as tonsils. Things that do something, but not so much that they'll be immediately missed when removed.
Also, why should something ever be completely nonfunctional? I have skin. Skin is important stuff. Among all of its important uses, it also has mostly useless photoreceptors. So far, the only use I've heard of for them is trying to beat jet lag by putting bright lights behind the knees. We don't really need them right now, but if blindness becomes a selected trait for whatever reason (Cthulhu waking up and walking around the world would do it, but probably nothing else) those with nonfunctional eyes would start breeding more that those without. Genetic blindness would spread throughout the (drastically depleted) population. And the photosensors would get better, first discerning light and dark, then all the levels of illumination between light and dark, then colors, and so on until we had they best visual senses we could that didn't have issues with the madness-inspiring form of a Great Old One.
That's not what skin does now. But if skin does that in the future, the future people will say the same things people say now about evolution and useless organs, without consideration of what was there first.
Yes and no. Friend of mine was talking about the "How much blood can you cough up?" game one of his moron friends was trying to start. Diving, he held his breath for the last 10-15 feet coming up, just so he could freak people out by coughing up a bunch of frothy blood. No lasting side effects other than the story, as far as I know.
Very slowly. Possibly not at all for most tissues. I know lungs will, and quite possibly taste buds. The only other things I would worry about as far as pressure goes would be eyes, ears, and blood vessels in the nose. I've heard third hand accounts of divers getting nosebleeds, and one of my friends is thinking about getting those vessels cauterized, because he gets nosebleeds if he sneezes too hard. Just about everyone knows about working your jaw muscles when you're flying because of pressure differential, so it doesn't seem that outrageous that damage could occur there. Eyes are mostly liquid, although I don't know how well they deal with a lack of external pressure.
I believe you're mistaking my antipathy towards most of humanity for idiocy. I have met enough failures that I find it easier to assume the worst about everyone, and be pleasantly surprised on the rare occasion that I'm wrong.
My "stupid test" is a conversation. When I talk to people, I pay attention. I'm a passive observer in my own conversations, in other words, I'm not actively testing random people.
I have set a low bar for humanity, and it does well at keeping me from being disappointed. You have done an excellent job yourself of adjusting my feelings towards you in the way you have proclaimed you wished to do, so I suppose I should congratulate you on figuring out from my post what the most effective way to do that is. Starting your post off by insulting me was predictable, but effective. The failed grammar and spelling all spoke to laziness in thought, which was very effective indeed. But the Coup de Grace was the failed reading comprehension that led paying attention during conversations to turn into walking up to random strangers, and asking them arcane questions in an attempt to discern their worthiness. That was a masterful stroke indeed, sir. Or madam.
>Maybe not, but believing yourself to be smarter than pretty much everyone else definitely is.
Was that directed at me or at my GPP? The feeling I got about my GPP was curiosity, not arrogance. He wanted to know what the lack of atmosphere would do to the effectiveness of the nuke. What he learned was that the nukes effectiveness would indeed drop, but it would still be good enough for the task at hand.
I wasn't trying to imply that I was smarter than everyone else either. I was just mocking my parent for being scornful towards someone who was displaying curiosity.
Criminals generally don't have suppressors on their guns. A gunshot is noisy, and attracts more attention than "Give me your wallet, or I'll shoot." That, however, is more dangerous than not mugging someone when the guy reaches back for his wallet, and is holding a.45 when he brings his hand forward.
State by state, there is a general trend away from gun violence with more lax gun control. Vermont, one of the least violent states per capita, has no restrictions on concealed carry other than not being a convicted felon. You don't even need a license.
If I'm not mistaken, that's not the incredibly uncommon happening you imply. Ones that are big enough to cause real destruction are. This site says 20 to 50 hit every day.
Now I just hope that this asteroid hits a CNN satellite, keeping everyone from hearing about the asteroid as it goes by.
That's right, legions of engineers and rocket scientists never make mistakes. They especially never have and never will forget to convert metric numbers to imperial numbers, or vice versa.
Seriously, not believing people to be infallible is not a character flaw or sign of stupidity.
I'm prejudiced against everyone equally. Upon first meeting someone, regardless of gender, race, or ethnicity, I assume that they are lazy, useless, stupid examples of humanity, at best. Past experience with people has led me to the realization that that assumption has better odds than any other. Changing my mind isn't all that hard, and can be done over the course of a single conversation, assuming that conversation is intelligent.
If I attribute the same traits to everyone equally, is that prejudice?
Read through the list of nations that are part of the U.N. Some of them count as bad neighborhoods, and they still have a presence on the global scene. You started with an image of a Utopian galactic society, and I can't figure out why. Why would you assume that the rest of the universe is so much better than us? Why would you assume that drugs aren't widespread to help lower the effects of culture shock? Why couldn't a military ruler exist in such a system? Even nonsentient species on this planet understand self-defense. Build up enough military power that whoever or whatever is out there can't impose their will on us seems like a valid argument for a leader on any stage.
And how can you make sweeping statements about as of yet imagined beings and their society, and be condescending to everyone who isn't partaking of the same fiction?
It depends. My grandfather keeps an unloaded handgun in a drawer by his bed. It's his contention that a burglar isn't going to ask to see the magazine when they're on the wrong end of the barrel.
Or you could do what Pat McManus does, and have an alarm system that doesn't beep, it plays the sound of a pump-action 12-gauge. A gun doesn't have to be dangerous to be a deterrent.
>Is there any game that hasn't been completely "figured out"?
Anything with randomness. Anything where different players know different things.
So, most card games, which do not necessarily have winning moves. In the computer realm, multiplayer FPS cannot be "figured out" because of differing knowledge. If I move behind you where I can see you and you can't see me, my knowledge is greater, and I will demonstrate that with a shotgun blast to the back of the head. If I plant mines, and you don't see them before running over them. Even fog of war can tip the odds. Chess, go, checkers, and tic tac toe are really the only offline games that can be learned such that a game cannot be lost. If there's cards or dice, even the best player in the world can lose, regardless of whether the best player in the world is a computer or a human.
Thank you for that thrilling example of the difference between connotation and denotation. What you said is technically correct, but many people do not make the same distinction.
Might I mention that the rest of the properties of the universe were fairly hostile to life at that point in time? If we start collapsing towards a new Big Bang, power supplies starting to work again probably won't be the most important thing to us. Of course, by the time entropy becomes an issue the way the GPP suggests, we won't be overly worried about that either.
I've seen what an alcoholic is capable of. One of my best friends had an alcoholic father. He still has scars, both physical and mental, from his childhood. In my personal opinion, the best effect alcohol ever had on that abusive drunk was when he was killed by a drunk driver in the greatest feat of poetic justice I've ever known.
You want a dozen alcoholics over a single pedophile? Fine. But first, allow me to mention a few more things. Just because someone is a registered sex offender does not mean they're a pedophile. Honestly, I'd bet that most of them aren't. Most of them are going to be people convicted of public indecency: streaking, public urination, public sex acts, that sort of thing. Among the people who are on that list for having sex with a minor, I'd bet about half of them were within a few years of their 'victims.' An 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old might be statutory rape, and will get you put on the list, but I wouldn't call the 18 year old a pedophile.
Also, alcoholics are dangerous even when it's late at night and everyone's at home. Last year, about a mile from here, we had a (presumably) drunk driver hop the curb at a T intersection and crash into someone's living room. No one died from it, but in the following month, we had a remarkable jump in the "Don't drink and drive" TV ads from the police department.
Encouraging anyone based on race or gender is prejudiced. Whenever there are criteria involved in a choice that are not merit-based, we intentionally cripple ourselves.
Not discouraging girls and minorities is one thing, but it's easy to overshoot, and start discouraging men and majorities in the name of not being exclusionary. This is possibly more stupid, in the case of discouraging majorities, because you limit the available pool even more.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't anti-free speech. You used your free speech. Now the rest of us can use our freedom to ignore you. Being modded down is not a violation of your inalienable human rights.
I keep a spare set of keys in one of those magnetic things in my wheel well just in case I accidentally lock my keys in my car. Remind me not to go drinking in Canada. (Not that I do much drinking, and never if I'm going to be behind a wheel. My friend's dad got killed by a drunk driver, and that really puts a hell of a damper on things.)
I'm against kids with handguns too. Personally, I'd like purchasing a gun to require a license that says that the purchaser has been through a gun safety course. Accidents are a problem, and teaching people is a good way to help mitigate that.
I have no issue with adults having these. I have no issue with adults having guns. My problems with this are not based on crime, they are based on carelessness. The average kid who doesn't know enough to use a gun safely is not going to go out and steal one, and he is not going to be able to go buy one until he turns 18 (21 for handguns). I have no idea what percentage of kids have access to the tools needed to do this, but I personally had access to the things I'd need to make this (other than the lasers, but they were less prevalent back then) well before I was responsible enough to be trusted with something like this.
Also, I am against kids having things like Paintball and pellet guns without training as well. They have a similar ability to cause irreversible damage to people who aren't wearing protective goggles. It's just easier with a laser.
Because it's easier to conceal a Mini Maglite than a handgun? Because doing this is cheaper than buying a Saturday Night Special? Because there are laws on the possession of guns (age limits, felons, assault weapons)?
To be perfectly honest, I'm probably going to go make one of these things. I can think of a variety of things both fun and useful to do with one. However, I don't want random kids having these, just like I don't want them having handguns. This can cause too much damage too quickly. I really hope the first person to blind someone gets the book thrown at them by the legal system, as an example to others.
Could be that they were nonfunctional in the past. Could be that they are slowly gaining functionality, and are right now the equivalent of eyespots that can sense light and dark, but will eventually evolve into real eyes that can make out a far greater level of detail.
An appendix is not critical, like a heart or brain is. It's not even serious, like eyes. It's on the same level as tonsils. Things that do something, but not so much that they'll be immediately missed when removed.
Also, why should something ever be completely nonfunctional? I have skin. Skin is important stuff. Among all of its important uses, it also has mostly useless photoreceptors. So far, the only use I've heard of for them is trying to beat jet lag by putting bright lights behind the knees. We don't really need them right now, but if blindness becomes a selected trait for whatever reason (Cthulhu waking up and walking around the world would do it, but probably nothing else) those with nonfunctional eyes would start breeding more that those without. Genetic blindness would spread throughout the (drastically depleted) population. And the photosensors would get better, first discerning light and dark, then all the levels of illumination between light and dark, then colors, and so on until we had they best visual senses we could that didn't have issues with the madness-inspiring form of a Great Old One.
That's not what skin does now. But if skin does that in the future, the future people will say the same things people say now about evolution and useless organs, without consideration of what was there first.
Yes and no. Friend of mine was talking about the "How much blood can you cough up?" game one of his moron friends was trying to start. Diving, he held his breath for the last 10-15 feet coming up, just so he could freak people out by coughing up a bunch of frothy blood. No lasting side effects other than the story, as far as I know.
In Soviet Russia, live polar bear eats you!
Very slowly. Possibly not at all for most tissues. I know lungs will, and quite possibly taste buds. The only other things I would worry about as far as pressure goes would be eyes, ears, and blood vessels in the nose. I've heard third hand accounts of divers getting nosebleeds, and one of my friends is thinking about getting those vessels cauterized, because he gets nosebleeds if he sneezes too hard. Just about everyone knows about working your jaw muscles when you're flying because of pressure differential, so it doesn't seem that outrageous that damage could occur there. Eyes are mostly liquid, although I don't know how well they deal with a lack of external pressure.
I believe you're mistaking my antipathy towards most of humanity for idiocy. I have met enough failures that I find it easier to assume the worst about everyone, and be pleasantly surprised on the rare occasion that I'm wrong.
My "stupid test" is a conversation. When I talk to people, I pay attention. I'm a passive observer in my own conversations, in other words, I'm not actively testing random people.
I have set a low bar for humanity, and it does well at keeping me from being disappointed. You have done an excellent job yourself of adjusting my feelings towards you in the way you have proclaimed you wished to do, so I suppose I should congratulate you on figuring out from my post what the most effective way to do that is. Starting your post off by insulting me was predictable, but effective. The failed grammar and spelling all spoke to laziness in thought, which was very effective indeed. But the Coup de Grace was the failed reading comprehension that led paying attention during conversations to turn into walking up to random strangers, and asking them arcane questions in an attempt to discern their worthiness. That was a masterful stroke indeed, sir. Or madam.
>Maybe not, but believing yourself to be smarter than pretty much everyone else definitely is.
Was that directed at me or at my GPP? The feeling I got about my GPP was curiosity, not arrogance. He wanted to know what the lack of atmosphere would do to the effectiveness of the nuke. What he learned was that the nukes effectiveness would indeed drop, but it would still be good enough for the task at hand.
I wasn't trying to imply that I was smarter than everyone else either. I was just mocking my parent for being scornful towards someone who was displaying curiosity.
Criminals generally don't have suppressors on their guns. A gunshot is noisy, and attracts more attention than "Give me your wallet, or I'll shoot." That, however, is more dangerous than not mugging someone when the guy reaches back for his wallet, and is holding a .45 when he brings his hand forward.
State by state, there is a general trend away from gun violence with more lax gun control. Vermont, one of the least violent states per capita, has no restrictions on concealed carry other than not being a convicted felon. You don't even need a license.
Bah. Tunguska wasn't an impact event, it was a weapons test. (pdf alert)
If I'm not mistaken, that's not the incredibly uncommon happening you imply. Ones that are big enough to cause real destruction are. This site says 20 to 50 hit every day. Now I just hope that this asteroid hits a CNN satellite, keeping everyone from hearing about the asteroid as it goes by.
That's right, legions of engineers and rocket scientists never make mistakes. They especially never have and never will forget to convert metric numbers to imperial numbers, or vice versa.
Seriously, not believing people to be infallible is not a character flaw or sign of stupidity.
I'm prejudiced against everyone equally. Upon first meeting someone, regardless of gender, race, or ethnicity, I assume that they are lazy, useless, stupid examples of humanity, at best. Past experience with people has led me to the realization that that assumption has better odds than any other. Changing my mind isn't all that hard, and can be done over the course of a single conversation, assuming that conversation is intelligent.
If I attribute the same traits to everyone equally, is that prejudice?
Read through the list of nations that are part of the U.N. Some of them count as bad neighborhoods, and they still have a presence on the global scene. You started with an image of a Utopian galactic society, and I can't figure out why. Why would you assume that the rest of the universe is so much better than us? Why would you assume that drugs aren't widespread to help lower the effects of culture shock? Why couldn't a military ruler exist in such a system? Even nonsentient species on this planet understand self-defense. Build up enough military power that whoever or whatever is out there can't impose their will on us seems like a valid argument for a leader on any stage.
And how can you make sweeping statements about as of yet imagined beings and their society, and be condescending to everyone who isn't partaking of the same fiction?
It depends. My grandfather keeps an unloaded handgun in a drawer by his bed. It's his contention that a burglar isn't going to ask to see the magazine when they're on the wrong end of the barrel.
Or you could do what Pat McManus does, and have an alarm system that doesn't beep, it plays the sound of a pump-action 12-gauge. A gun doesn't have to be dangerous to be a deterrent.
Wrong.
Let z1 = z^2 + c.
-Mandelbrot
>Is there any game that hasn't been completely "figured out"?
Anything with randomness. Anything where different players know different things.
So, most card games, which do not necessarily have winning moves. In the computer realm, multiplayer FPS cannot be "figured out" because of differing knowledge. If I move behind you where I can see you and you can't see me, my knowledge is greater, and I will demonstrate that with a shotgun blast to the back of the head. If I plant mines, and you don't see them before running over them. Even fog of war can tip the odds. Chess, go, checkers, and tic tac toe are really the only offline games that can be learned such that a game cannot be lost. If there's cards or dice, even the best player in the world can lose, regardless of whether the best player in the world is a computer or a human.
Thank you for that thrilling example of the difference between connotation and denotation. What you said is technically correct, but many people do not make the same distinction.
Might I mention that the rest of the properties of the universe were fairly hostile to life at that point in time? If we start collapsing towards a new Big Bang, power supplies starting to work again probably won't be the most important thing to us. Of course, by the time entropy becomes an issue the way the GPP suggests, we won't be overly worried about that either.
I've seen what an alcoholic is capable of. One of my best friends had an alcoholic father. He still has scars, both physical and mental, from his childhood. In my personal opinion, the best effect alcohol ever had on that abusive drunk was when he was killed by a drunk driver in the greatest feat of poetic justice I've ever known.
You want a dozen alcoholics over a single pedophile? Fine. But first, allow me to mention a few more things. Just because someone is a registered sex offender does not mean they're a pedophile. Honestly, I'd bet that most of them aren't. Most of them are going to be people convicted of public indecency: streaking, public urination, public sex acts, that sort of thing. Among the people who are on that list for having sex with a minor, I'd bet about half of them were within a few years of their 'victims.' An 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old might be statutory rape, and will get you put on the list, but I wouldn't call the 18 year old a pedophile.
Also, alcoholics are dangerous even when it's late at night and everyone's at home. Last year, about a mile from here, we had a (presumably) drunk driver hop the curb at a T intersection and crash into someone's living room. No one died from it, but in the following month, we had a remarkable jump in the "Don't drink and drive" TV ads from the police department.
Encouraging anyone based on race or gender is prejudiced. Whenever there are criteria involved in a choice that are not merit-based, we intentionally cripple ourselves.
Not discouraging girls and minorities is one thing, but it's easy to overshoot, and start discouraging men and majorities in the name of not being exclusionary. This is possibly more stupid, in the case of discouraging majorities, because you limit the available pool even more.
Nice, that's almost exactly what I was picturing. Thanks for showing me.
I'm thinking of the porn stars, is that close enough?