While we want to make sure people can express themselves and make interesting uses of technology, how in the world are the various security systems going to deal with people "embedded" with weapons and even bombs?
If there is no way to conclusively prove that a given prosthesis is harmless, then quite simply they won't be allowed on aircraft with others. Perhaps they will have to be rich bastards who can afford a private plane. Or maybe commercial travel via cruise ships will see a resurgence in popularity.
See, though, in a few more decades, I'd be willing to bet that a determined group could design an implant that would appear to be completely safe, yet entirely destructive.
Or lets get speculative, perhaps the lethal agent is carried in the bloodstream? Maybe this passenger is infected with a virus and is just dying to spend six hours in cramped quarters with a few hundred potential victims...
If you are determined, then even a small sliver of metal can become a deep intoning voice "WEAPON.. OF.. MASS.. DESTRUCTION!!"
Sterling: "[Napster is] a kind of profoundly undemocratic technical fait accompli. 'Look at this neat gizmo that we geeks built while you weren't working. We geeks accidentally ate your industry. [This is a] techno-imperative market argument which I don't think really makes all that much sense in a stagnant monopoly... where is the steamroller going, I don't see it going anywhere particular, it's just abolishing other people's money. Does Napster give anybody money for a reelection campaign? Do they have a friendly judge? Is there somebody to sue?"
"What would the music scene look like if the industry disappeared? I imagine things like the Royal family paying for the production of Handel's Water Music. "
Live performance, that's what would happen to the music industry. Rates for shows would rise to what the market will support.
Thermobarics? Three months ago? Uh.. only this particular use of a Vietnam era weapon: The Fuel-Air Explosive. FAE's are old, this use of them may be new but the tech is ancient (and easy!).
A FAE is nothing more than fuel evaporated / vaporized into the atmosphere, and then detonated with a small chunk of high explosive. You can make one with propane, kerosene, hell even gasoline.
does this baffle anyone else? why do we need several thousand?? why does anyone need several thousand... so after the first wave.. we'll keep bombing so we can try and kill the roaches too??
After the first wave is exactly why we need several thousand. Look, lets say we nuke.. Canada. And we do it thoroughly, no city over 50,000 persons left un-glazed.
And then, say, Russia gets pissed because of that, and wants to shut us down. Well, they can't, at least not with any hope of survival.
Basically, our arsenal might barely be able to take on every other country out there that has nuclear weapons, which is the point. There is no such thing as friends, not in the long run, so our nuclear arsenal is there to ensure we can defeat all nuclear-equipped countries, if we have to.
I don't mean to say we should go back to living in caves, or to say that those engineers were evil people. But we shouldn't blindly accept everything in the name of progress. An advanced way of killing or incapacitating another human being doesn't seem like progress to me.
To make that statement implies that you think that there is no situation in which it is proper to kill. I respectfully disagree. The situations that spring readily to mind are: War, self-defense (against an individual or a government when all other means of redress have failed).
Improving our capabilities in those areas IS progress, whether you like it or not. And the reasoning goes like this: There are many nations on this planet, many with radically different agendas. At some point, one or more of those nations will decide that it is in their best intrests to do something, that another nation will find objectionable. Once diplomacy fails, there will be war. Now, who would you want to have the better technology, your side or there side?
Okay, if you had read the article, you would know that this is barely the first step. They haven't even ascertained if the reaction produces more energy than what it requires to sustain. If it doesn't (with this method), then it's just an interesting way to produce neutrons and tritium, period.
Second, IF it is determined that more energy is coming out than goes in, a way has to be devised for the neutrons of one set of reactions to seed the next set (preferably the next hundred set).
Third, just because something is potentially dangerous doesn't mean we should restrict it. AN OBJECT IS DEAD WITHOUT AN ACT OF WILL TO USE IT! If you've got problems with the way people use technology, then you need to go after the causes, the reasons WHY people decide to do nasty things, not try to restrict the technology itself.
You know, if flight technology had been restricted, the events of 9/11 would never have occured..
Yeah, but there's a good reason why we focus on the stars rather than the oceans: It is easier to contain 15psi than to resist 100psi.
Now, if we can get that liquid-rebreathing system working (and to a point where it doesn't cause chemical pneumonia in adults), then it becomes more feasible (as the walls of the vessel need to only be thick enough to hold your breathing medium). Unless of course, you happen to be a major government who can afford $500,000,000 for a submarine that can carry more than ten people.
And I also think it's psychological.. it's more reasonable to imagine yourself living on another world with an atmosphere, than deep in an ocean.
Look, I agree, it'd be cool to live underwater.. So, we need to learn how to build with diamond.
Re:Military rail guns meet military EMPs. . .
on
Homemade Gauss Gun
·
· Score: 1
TEMPEST shielding, look it up. It's to prevent snooping via correlating waste EMF radiation, but it also works nicely to stop an EMP. Also, look up the Faraday cage, and apply that to the concept of a EMP weapon.
I mean, come on. It's nearly as bad as if he began advocating a return to Vinyl. No knowledgable person I know can take this idea seriously.. "You want to cripple my computer on the off chance I might do something bad with it? Fuck off."
And that's the real danger, because this guy (and wonks like him) have real spending power, and They are going to push this DRM hardware by hook or by crook. I would recommend going on the offensive: We need to make it plain to all (in power.. who might make this law..) that this is a bald-faced attempt at total control of our ability to use our LEGALLY OWNED PROPERTY. It's my fucking computer, Jack, not yours. Take your DRM smeg and shove it where it hurts.
Do we install goveners on cars to ensure they can only drive 45MPH, just because some people might speed? No. Do we make baseball bats that crumble on contact with flesh, just because some people use them to kill? No.
ugh.. I can't believe this nonsense.. except that it's really happening.
Developers switching from C++ to Java concluded that Java was the natural evolution of C++. This was because it offered similar object-oriented capabilities in a safer way, by making use of a runtime much like VB. Most assume that interpreted languages had long ago proven their advantages, elbowing aside compiled languages to a niche in high performance computing.
In fact, if one were to look at computer science departments across the country, you'd see that Java has replaced C++. So which language is really an evolved C++? The better answer is, simply, that new languages are more revolutionary than evolutionary. If we accept this, then VB.Net starts to make sense as a replacement for VB. However, one has to ask how different VB.Net and C# really are, given that they use the same runtime.
Interpreted languages pushing aside compiled languages for high performance computing? Uh, no, that doesn't follow, and the reason is that if you need the maximum possible speed and efficiency, you don't want the over-head of an interpreter. In other words, if you can get by with using an interpreted language, it is not high-performance by nature. Only by having the luxury of more-than-adequate system performance can you afford to interpret everything.
But, on a different tack, why do we care so much about the languages we use? Why are we so stuck on "my-flavor versus your-flavor"? And more importantly, why is there always this huge push to make one language dominant over all fields? Why can't I just use the language that best expresses my ideas? (if starting a new project;-)
First, let me say that I know exactly what you are talking about.
In the first of my last two jobs, my direct report manager was excellent. Always on top of the situation, fully aware of what, why and how, never crowding but always there to lend a hand to get some issue moved out of my way (You rule Russ!:-).. the problems came from our higher ups, those who we were ostensibly working for. Constant shifts of focus, a lack of taking anything seriously.
In my last job, the situation was considerably worse. None of my managers had a clue, no matter how goddamned often we'd explain it to them. Constant changes in focus caused by a dying business made it just about impossible to get any real projects done. I'd finish one project, then be told we would no longer need it and could I get started on this new thing right away?
In both cases, it is my opinion that the problems were always caused by management not taking software engineering seriously. These managers need to understand that the engineers and programmers are trying to do their jobs with diligence and focus, and that the success or failure of a project can control the fate of the entire company. It's that serious. It's never taken that seriously, at least so far in my experience.
I used to work at Sprint, and I recall when they first announced this system -- two years after all the other major players had entered the market. I said it then that it was a day late and a dollar short. Sadly, I turned out to be correct. Poor bastards.
These guys, while not having it exactly made, had resources I'm envious of.. To wit,
Not all of the team had significant experience with object-oriented Perl, so we brought in Randal Schwartz and Damian Conway to do training sessions with us. We created a set of coding standards, drafted a design and built our system.
Say what? You brought in who? Gee.. And I had to learn it all on my lonesome..
But I gotta say, I would have loved to have been on that team for that. Though I would have rankled at the suggestion of needing "help" with object oriented programming, it would have been worth it to meet those two.
Oh, sure. It seems like a good idea now. I mean, who wouldn't want our government to have even more data about us than they do now? Sure, bring it on. And in a few more years, bring on the centralized data and lookup services. I mean, employers need to know your entire history, don't they? I mean, you can't very well be trusted to fill out a resume honestly, can you?
And a few more years later, we'll be able to get rid of the state driver's license completely. Everything will key off that card.
What a glorious world of trust and freedom it will be! Police officers able to examine your entire history in seconds. Just great. Of course, you do trust your police, right? And your local county clerk's office, too? I mean, this information could never be abused, could it?
Sure, I'm paranoid. Rabidly anti-government. Hater of all authority. Yep, sure thing, that's me, feel free to write off what I say as kookiness. But at least THINK about it, would you? Thanks.
If you have no intentions of ever fixing any problems discovered with your systems, then of course, you'd want to keep word of problems secret.
Oh, poor Microsoft, the costs of producing and distributing patches must be just a terrible burden. Imagine the burden on the rest of us who have to deal with your buggy systems. I would characterize IIS as a public menace right now.
No, this is just a bad attempt to deny reality: Microsoft's poor practices are coming to light in a way even the average Joe can understand.
This can't possibly pass. This is so entirely wrong I lack words to describe it fully.
It's illegal. Wouldn't this be a violation of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."?
It's got loopholes galore. In order for me to verify you do, indeed, have illegal material, I have to break into your machine. "Ooops, sorry, nothing found here. Sorry about your machine.."
It's quite fucking hostile to me as a buyer of the RIAA's music. It's an assumption of guilt, backed up with the force of law.
The appropriate responses? Depends on your ethics. At a minimum, don't buy any music associated with the RIAA. At most? Do everything to hit them in the pocketbook. If it takes money from them, it's useful. Fucking bastards. Yeah, I've got great respect for our legislative process now.
May I also point out the Torque engine from GarageGames? $100 and you get the engine that built Tribes2, plus updates. Read their licensing agreement, however. It's not all roses, but it's not too onerus. Basically, you have to give them the option to publish your game in any way that they see fit.
No, it's not OpenSource, but it's cheap and good things can be done with it.
Re:Open Source Object/Physics Modelling Environmen
on
The Future of Gaming
·
· Score: 1
Check out Worldforge. It's not quite a "reality model", more like an open-source MMORPG framework, but it certainly has potential.
On the graphical side of things, there is Verse, which is more simulation and apperance, rather than gameplay oriented.
Personally, I think these two projects should get together and make offspring with wild abandon, they both seem to be looking at similiar issues (though not exact overlap, Verse is more about collaberative graphical spaces, Worldforge seems focused on games).
But, according to the article cited in the submission, there is an extremely fine line between a cheat and an exploitation of the game world. To wit, the prox mine climbing gag.
If you think that is a cheat, and the author seems to be borderline on it, then I have a question: If your game world is supposed to simulate, to a degree, the rules we live with now, then what's wrong with it? In reality, I can grab a bag of pitons and a hammer and go scale my local supermarket's wall, if I really feel like it. Why shouldn't I in a game?
I guess the issue is this: If a given simulation is performing as intended, then nothing I do inside that simulation can be considered cheating. Take a look at reality as we know it. It's a system of complexity that we have only limited understanding of, but that by application of subtle factors, we can achieve miracles. To wit, the nuclear bomb.
Is the nuke a cheat? Is reality a simulation? How can you tell?
So I guess what I am advocating is a clear definition of cheating: Cheating is altering a given system in ways the designer does not explicitly allow. Not, the exploitation of existing rules.
Which is why "smurfing" has got to be the prime evil that game companies currently perpetrate against players of online games. They change the rules out from underneath a player.
1. Urban sprawl exists because people dont like living in high-density areas. I'm living right now in downtown Miami, and I HATE it. Crime, bums, noise, all of it, I want out. I don't know my neighbors, and I don't want to. And as to farmland or "bushland" as you put it, there are millions of acres gone undeveloped, in nearly every state.
2. Roads are not ugly, at least, I don't think so.
3. "Vast amount of reources". So? Renewable resources, hey that's one of the keys to sustainability isnt it?
4. Absolutely correct. That's why we weed personal flying vechicles, so that we can live even more spread out, or at higher density. But I'm sure you and your radical environmentalist friends would completely freak out at that prospect, wouldn't you? I mean, hey, no more roads right? But it would mean we could live up to 300 miles from a job, rather than 30 like now.
5. Many things kill, or can be made to kill. Are you going to ban bathrooms?
6. This engine of his seems to be very sustainable. I don't know what you mean by "sustainable" in this context.
Environmental and social disaster? Hah. Bullshit. Consider, for the moment, the world as it would be if we were all living in a handful of extremely large cities without internal combustion engines. Mmmm. Ambulances would be rather slow. No mass shipping or transport of goods.
What you describe is a fucking nightmare, and there's no way I'd voluntarily live that way.
I think everybody has the ideas you've outlined at one point or another. Heck, I just read an article at Gamasutra a few days ago about procedural worlds. So of course I'm thinking procedural universe.
But such a universe is empty and dead. As you say, not fun for anybody else.
So now I'm thinking about aspects of alien civilizations that could be mapped to various math functions. Color schemes and habitation layouts seem like an obvious mapping. Entire classes of names and gibberish seem like another (as you've done already). Certain game-dependant things, like types and levels of technology, could work too.
But the biggest problem with the whole scheme, is how to keep it realistic when someone decides to play Captain Kirk and goes galavanting to hell and gone, pissess off a few civilizations, destroys a bunch of bases and ships.. then returns a month later to find out it all reset. No good. Gotta find a resonable way to store events, or more properly, to instantiate a given set of fractal points as persistant, malleble data, without occupying terrabytes.
I don't recall the question of God ever being brought up in the movies. Is "Jedi" ever referred to in the movies explicitly as a religion?
Yes.
In the first released film (A New Hope), Han Solo goes on a bit of rant about it, giving a line about "Ancient weapons and spooky religions are no match for a good blaster at your side" or something very close to that.
Slashdot Mirror
If there is no way to conclusively prove that a given prosthesis is harmless, then quite simply they won't be allowed on aircraft with others. Perhaps they will have to be rich bastards who can afford a private plane.
Or maybe commercial travel via cruise ships will see a resurgence in popularity.
See, though, in a few more decades, I'd be willing to bet that a determined group could design an implant that would appear to be completely safe, yet entirely destructive.
Or lets get speculative, perhaps the lethal agent is carried in the bloodstream? Maybe this passenger is infected with a virus and is just dying to spend six hours in cramped quarters with a few hundred potential victims...
If you are determined, then even a small sliver of metal can become a deep intoning voice "WEAPON.. OF.. MASS.. DESTRUCTION!!"
Safe? Hah. Wake up.
You make this sound like a bad thing.
A FAE is nothing more than fuel evaporated / vaporized into the atmosphere, and then detonated with a small chunk of high explosive. You can make one with propane, kerosene, hell even gasoline.
After the first wave is exactly why we need several thousand. Look, lets say we nuke.. Canada. And we do it thoroughly, no city over 50,000 persons left un-glazed.
And then, say, Russia gets pissed because of that, and wants to shut us down. Well, they can't, at least not with any hope of survival.
Basically, our arsenal might barely be able to take on every other country out there that has nuclear weapons, which is the point. There is no such thing as friends, not in the long run, so our nuclear arsenal is there to ensure we can defeat all nuclear-equipped countries, if we have to.
To make that statement implies that you think that there is no situation in which it is proper to kill. I respectfully disagree. The situations that spring readily to mind are: War, self-defense (against an individual or a government when all other means of redress have failed).
Improving our capabilities in those areas IS progress, whether you like it or not. And the reasoning goes like this: There are many nations on this planet, many with radically different agendas. At some point, one or more of those nations will decide that it is in their best intrests to do something, that another nation will find objectionable. Once diplomacy fails, there will be war. Now, who would you want to have the better technology, your side or there side?
Okay, if you had read the article, you would know that this is barely the first step. They haven't even ascertained if the reaction produces more energy than what it requires to sustain. If it doesn't (with this method), then it's just an interesting way to produce neutrons and tritium, period.
Second, IF it is determined that more energy is coming out than goes in, a way has to be devised for the neutrons of one set of reactions to seed the next set (preferably the next hundred set).
Third, just because something is potentially dangerous doesn't mean we should restrict it. AN OBJECT IS DEAD WITHOUT AN ACT OF WILL TO USE IT! If you've got problems with the way people use technology, then you need to go after the causes, the reasons WHY people decide to do nasty things, not try to restrict the technology itself.
You know, if flight technology had been restricted, the events of 9/11 would never have occured..
Now, if we can get that liquid-rebreathing system working (and to a point where it doesn't cause chemical pneumonia in adults), then it becomes more feasible (as the walls of the vessel need to only be thick enough to hold your breathing medium).
Unless of course, you happen to be a major government who can afford $500,000,000 for a submarine that can carry more than ten people.
And I also think it's psychological.. it's more reasonable to imagine yourself living on another world with an atmosphere, than deep in an ocean.
Look, I agree, it'd be cool to live underwater.. So, we need to learn how to build with diamond.
TEMPEST shielding, look it up. It's to prevent snooping via correlating waste EMF radiation, but it also works nicely to stop an EMP. Also, look up the Faraday cage, and apply that to the concept of a EMP weapon.
And that's the real danger, because this guy (and wonks like him) have real spending power, and They are going to push this DRM hardware by hook or by crook. I would recommend going on the offensive: We need to make it plain to all (in power.. who might make this law..) that this is a bald-faced attempt at total control of our ability to use our LEGALLY OWNED PROPERTY. It's my fucking computer, Jack, not yours. Take your DRM smeg and shove it where it hurts.
Do we install goveners on cars to ensure they can only drive 45MPH, just because some people might speed? No.
Do we make baseball bats that crumble on contact with flesh, just because some people use them to kill? No.
ugh.. I can't believe this nonsense.. except that it's really happening.
We're doomed. Or are we?
Whoops! :-} I miss-read his screed. I need to, in the future perhaps, learn to not shoot from the hip QUITE so much.. thanks.
Interpreted languages pushing aside compiled languages for high performance computing? Uh, no, that doesn't follow, and the reason is that if you need the maximum possible speed and efficiency, you don't want the over-head of an interpreter. In other words, if you can get by with using an interpreted language, it is not high-performance by nature. Only by having the luxury of more-than-adequate system performance can you afford to interpret everything.
But, on a different tack, why do we care so much about the languages we use? Why are we so stuck on "my-flavor versus your-flavor"? And more importantly, why is there always this huge push to make one language dominant over all fields? Why can't I just use the language that best expresses my ideas? (if starting a new project ;-)
In the first of my last two jobs, my direct report manager was excellent. Always on top of the situation, fully aware of what, why and how, never crowding but always there to lend a hand to get some issue moved out of my way (You rule Russ!
In my last job, the situation was considerably worse. None of my managers had a clue, no matter how goddamned often we'd explain it to them. Constant changes in focus caused by a dying business made it just about impossible to get any real projects done. I'd finish one project, then be told we would no longer need it and could I get started on this new thing right away?
In both cases, it is my opinion that the problems were always caused by management not taking software engineering seriously. These managers need to understand that the engineers and programmers are trying to do their jobs with diligence and focus, and that the success or failure of a project can control the fate of the entire company. It's that serious. It's never taken that seriously, at least so far in my experience.
I used to work at Sprint, and I recall when they first announced this system -- two years after all the other major players had entered the market. I said it then that it was a day late and a dollar short. Sadly, I turned out to be correct. Poor bastards.
But I gotta say, I would have loved to have been on that team for that. Though I would have rankled at the suggestion of needing "help" with object oriented programming, it would have been worth it to meet those two.
And a few more years later, we'll be able to get rid of the state driver's license completely. Everything will key off that card.
What a glorious world of trust and freedom it will be! Police officers able to examine your entire history in seconds. Just great. Of course, you do trust your police, right? And your local county clerk's office, too? I mean, this information could never be abused, could it?
Sure, I'm paranoid. Rabidly anti-government. Hater of all authority. Yep, sure thing, that's me, feel free to write off what I say as kookiness. But at least THINK about it, would you? Thanks.
If you have no intentions of ever fixing any problems discovered with your systems, then of course, you'd want to keep word of problems secret.
Oh, poor Microsoft, the costs of producing and distributing patches must be just a terrible burden. Imagine the burden on the rest of us who have to deal with your buggy systems. I would characterize IIS as a public menace right now.
No, this is just a bad attempt to deny reality: Microsoft's poor practices are coming to light in a way even the average Joe can understand.
It's illegal. Wouldn't this be a violation of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."?
It's got loopholes galore. In order for me to verify you do, indeed, have illegal material, I have to break into your machine. "Ooops, sorry, nothing found here. Sorry about your machine.."
It's quite fucking hostile to me as a buyer of the RIAA's music. It's an assumption of guilt, backed up with the force of law.
The appropriate responses? Depends on your ethics. At a minimum, don't buy any music associated with the RIAA. At most? Do everything to hit them in the pocketbook. If it takes money from them, it's useful. Fucking bastards. Yeah, I've got great respect for our legislative process now.
No, it's not OpenSource, but it's cheap and good things can be done with it.
On the graphical side of things, there is Verse, which is more simulation and apperance, rather than gameplay oriented.
Personally, I think these two projects should get together and make offspring with wild abandon, they both seem to be looking at similiar issues (though not exact overlap, Verse is more about collaberative graphical spaces, Worldforge seems focused on games).
If you think that is a cheat, and the author seems to be borderline on it, then I have a question: If your game world is supposed to simulate, to a degree, the rules we live with now, then what's wrong with it? In reality, I can grab a bag of pitons and a hammer and go scale my local supermarket's wall, if I really feel like it. Why shouldn't I in a game?
I guess the issue is this: If a given simulation is performing as intended, then nothing I do inside that simulation can be considered cheating. Take a look at reality as we know it. It's a system of complexity that we have only limited understanding of, but that by application of subtle factors, we can achieve miracles. To wit, the nuclear bomb.
Is the nuke a cheat? Is reality a simulation? How can you tell?
So I guess what I am advocating is a clear definition of cheating: Cheating is altering a given system in ways the designer does not explicitly allow. Not, the exploitation of existing rules.
Which is why "smurfing" has got to be the prime evil that game companies currently perpetrate against players of online games. They change the rules out from underneath a player.
And as to farmland or "bushland" as you put it, there are millions of acres gone undeveloped, in nearly every state.
2. Roads are not ugly, at least, I don't think so.
3. "Vast amount of reources". So? Renewable resources, hey that's one of the keys to sustainability isnt it?
4. Absolutely correct. That's why we weed personal flying vechicles, so that we can live even more spread out, or at higher density. But I'm sure you and your radical environmentalist friends would completely freak out at that prospect, wouldn't you? I mean, hey, no more roads right? But it would mean we could live up to 300 miles from a job, rather than 30 like now.
5. Many things kill, or can be made to kill. Are you going to ban bathrooms?
6. This engine of his seems to be very sustainable. I don't know what you mean by "sustainable" in this context.
Environmental and social disaster? Hah. Bullshit. Consider, for the moment, the world as it would be if we were all living in a handful of extremely large cities without internal combustion engines. Mmmm. Ambulances would be rather slow. No mass shipping or transport of goods.
What you describe is a fucking nightmare, and there's no way I'd voluntarily live that way.
But such a universe is empty and dead. As you say, not fun for anybody else.
So now I'm thinking about aspects of alien civilizations that could be mapped to various math functions. Color schemes and habitation layouts seem like an obvious mapping. Entire classes of names and gibberish seem like another (as you've done already). Certain game-dependant things, like types and levels of technology, could work too.
But the biggest problem with the whole scheme, is how to keep it realistic when someone decides to play Captain Kirk and goes galavanting to hell and gone, pissess off a few civilizations, destroys a bunch of bases and ships.. then returns a month later to find out it all reset. No good. Gotta find a resonable way to store events, or more properly, to instantiate a given set of fractal points as persistant, malleble data, without occupying terrabytes.
Yes.
In the first released film (A New Hope), Han Solo goes on a bit of rant about it, giving a line about "Ancient weapons and spooky religions are no match for a good blaster at your side" or something very close to that.
Fight back, obviously. BTW, I'm not a pacifist. But, in my response, should I hit you back or take out my gun and kill you?