Because, you might have noticed, I used the example of 18 wheelers. Yeah...there are laws against 18 wheelers...no one is allowed to own or drive 18 wheelers...
What is all this about 18 wheelers? The topic is about the right to bear arms.
Yeah, and you replied to my post in wich I used an example featuring an 18 wheeler.
Its called an analogy (2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : SIMILARITY b : comparison based on such resemblance), and it seems to be beyond your capacities to deal with such abstractions.
On 9/11 they used jet planes
No, on 9/11 they used Box Cutters to take over the planes. Perhaps we need to have people that buy razor blades fill out a questionaire and have a mandatory waiting period.
Those were not random idiots. Those were people with military training. They were proficient in the use of blades and close combat. They would have qualified for a gun liscense, in much the same way that they qualified for a freaking airplane liscence.
Your example is irrelevant. Find a dictionary and look that word up.
Circular logic...my head is spinning.
No, just plain simple logic.
Lets have a looksy: Just because some crazy irresponsible individual may get his/her hands on a gun doesn't mean that I should give up my second ammendment right to bear arms. In fact, it exemplifies the need for the second ammendment.
So, according to you, the second amendment is exemplified by the second amendment: It lets crazies have guns, and it lets you have guns. Since you need a gun to defend yourself (that is another logic fault right there, you can't use a gun when you've been shot dead first) from others with guns. Round and round it goes...
If guns are to be controlled who is to set down the guide lines?
Some government comitee. The same kind of people that sets guidelines about lead levels in drinking water and such likes.
Should we set down laws that they can only be used for hunting and self defense? A damn lot of good that would do.
Sigh.
They do exist allready. Unless you think its perfectly legal to shoot at anything or anyone...with your examples of logic might mean that you do...
Regulation leads to confiscation. I'd give examples but you would invoke Goodwins Law.
I would do no such thing because I don't know nor care to know what that is.
I do know, however, that another type of deadly device is regulated and millions of people enjoy them without that confiscation you speak of. They are known as horeless carriages, or "automobiles" to some.
Er...you need help with your logic, but lets keep this going...
[blablabla more guns means more chance of getting shot blabla]
Since most people (even idiots) don't like getting shot - as the odds of getting shot in any particular activity goes up the willingness to engage in that activity goes down.
So? What is the big problem with a gun liscense thing?
Restrict gun ownership to those who can prove that they are mature enough to handle a gun. If you are, you get to have a gun, exatly the same way that if you pass the tests, you get to drive a car.
The only people I can see having a problem with this are those that no one in their right mind would allow to have a gun and the paranoid people who would like the government to either not know they exist or go away.
I therefore think that guns should be regulated in much the same way that we don't allow any idiot to drive around with an 18 wheeler.
And you reply: "Good argument!! There are lots of irresponsible idiots so don't let anyone have guns."
So, you have never seen an 18 wheeler in your life, have you?
Who, the HELL, is modding that crap up? Seriously, what is wrong with you. I say "restrict", I get trolled with semi-litterate idiots who say that I said "ban".
Is this bizarro slashdot or something?
Why is it not possible to have a fucking rational discussion about guns when people from the U.S. are around? Its not that hard people: read what the other person actually wrote, not what you are expecting to read!
On to the rest:
So it's OK to let irresponsible idiots drive 3000 pound cars.
No, its not.
And it's OK to let irresponsible idiots buy chainsaws.
Please, PLEASE look up murder statistics. Compare numbers of homicide with firearms to homicide with chainsaws. Please.
The fact that there's a law against having a fire arm will not stop crazy irresponsible people from getting one.
And this is where rationality flies off the window.
Because, you might have noticed, I used the example of 18 wheelers. Yeah...there are laws against 18 wheelers...no one is allowed to own or drive 18 wheelers... sigh
Remember the terrorists during the 9/11 attacks didn't use guns.
Irrelevant. On 9/11 they used jet planes.
If laws worked there'd be no crime.
Who modded this insightfull? I seriously want to have a chat with the person who modded THAT insightfull. He is advocating a society without laws, and you mod him insightfull?
Just because some crazy irresponsible individual may get his/her hands on a gun doesn't mean that I should give up my second ammendment right to bear arms. In fact, it exemplifies the need for the second ammendment.
Circular logic...my head is spinning.
So, I'll try this again, because you did NOT read it correctly the first time, you just jumped up and trolled with the usual prefabricated and slightly insane rant...
Guns should not be freely available to everyone. Guns should be available only to those who can prove that they are capable of handling them responsibly.
Read that again, no, again. Yeah...that's right, I do say that guns should be available...ain't that something!
Just not to any idiot who will go off to shoot at cars on the highway because he's bored!
Of course this is Karma suicide as a lot of anti-gun nuts reside on/.
Even though you call me a nut, I'll explain the position:
There are a lot of irresponsible idiots out there. If guns are freely available, there will be a lot of irresponsible idiots out there with guns.
I therefore think that guns should be regulated in much the same way that we don't allow any idiot to drive around with an 18 wheeler.
There are also a lot of pro-gun nuts on/. AFAICT, their opinion is: "I want a gun. I hate and fear all authorities, especially if they are called 'government'. I oppose any steps by said government to either make it harder for me to have a gun or to keep track of who has guns."
I strongly disagree with that position because it gets in the way of stopping irresponsible idiots from getting their clumsy hands on devices designed to make holes in people.
Of course, that makes me an "anti gun nut", because when you don't have rational arguments, name calling is the only substitute. Damn liberal media...
Someone is much more likely to buy a Desert Eagle handgun if Lara Croft is using it in the movie (sweet! a chick with a gun! I want one just like that! maybe it'll make me just like her/find a girl just like her)
Dude, seriously, I know we're geeks, but I, for one, do not yet need a gun to get girls to go out with me.
Its "allow 6 to 8 weeks" not "we will NOT give it to you before 6 weeks". They usually ship before that, if they are not too busy or anything. But if they are busy, say, its getting close to xmas and everyone is shipping stuff all over the place, then its gonna take longer. Hence the 6 to 8.
My friend bought DVDs off Amazon once, took 9 weeks to get here. Of course, he had used an "e with acute accent" to correctly name the city, and somewhere in the long chain of transmitting this info the e acute got transformed into seven A, so the thing was shipped to another continent and back (wich is odd, because it clearly stated Canada on the damn thing, I don't really see why they sent it to germany...go figure).
As long as we're plugging Vinge, someone should mention _Fat_Times_at_Fairmont_High_ (I think I just did), a novella he just wrote playing with these themes in a very near-future context. Someone upthread mentioned how these things will eventually build up as chemical polution
Like in Neil Stephenson's book. The "toner" wars and the ensuing asthmatic deaths.
By Vernor Vinge is a very good book that uses that concept a lot.
It discuss, amongts other topics, the consequences of total information awarness brought by a technology similar to this (but better, because its sci-fi, not sci-fact).
Spent about 15 minutes arguing with operators who wouldn't send an ambulance without a specific location, while the guy lay bleeding on the pavement.
Speaking both as someone who's waited for ambulances to show up while I was bleeding and as a former first aid volunteer, I must say that if they don't really know where the ambulance has to get to, its better not to send it.
Imagine if they had sent it to say, the other side of the mountain (or whatever) and it then had to backtrack for 45 minutes once the correct location has been acertained...
Sure, it'd be nice to have an ambulance right away, but i would rather people spent 5 minutes finding out where it has to go than having the ambulance sent to the wrong place.
Obviously, people like yourself don't enjoy this kind of narrative, because it makes their heads hurt from all the thinking it requires.
lol! This coming from the idiot that didn't even notice the constant explaining of the matrix and the hacker's abilitites in it in the first movie! Yeah...I guess some of us are too busy actualy paying attention to do what you call "thinking".
Spew your lil' insults, Einstein...
No, this is GENIUS story telling...
Yeah, that's why most people hated it...because its genius...riiiight....
I told you not to reply, and lo and behold, a post full of insults. How utterly predictable. Well, you claim you are one of the few, the smart, the "connect the dots" kind. And your genious theory is that Neo has a machine's soul and that's why he can do magic?
So, so lame.
Yeah, I did read your previous post...you are not as smart as you think. Its not that I didn't think of it, I just dismiss the crap, unlike some people.
Well, I'll leave you to your stupid beliefs about my mind, your uncanny ability to connect the dots, or as other see it, your random bullshit generator, gives you a nice, completely wrong view of it all. Enjoy it.
but did they go into why Neo had superman like powers, as compared to, say, Morpheus? No... it was simply because he was 'The One'...
Yeah, instead of having spider man powers, he's got superman powers. All the matrix hackers have super powers, he has better powers. Its all part of the whole VR thing. In the Matrix, anythig is possible because everything is simulated. Neo is l33ter than the rest.
Outside of the Matrix, no one has special powers because its supposed to be reality. Being The One doesn't mean anything outside the matrix, until the end or Reloaded, where neo mysteriously has super powers.
They never explain that.
You've been trolling me for many posts now, claiming at first that they did explain it, I demonstrated that you are a gullible sucker. You then claimed that they hadn't explained the powers in-matrix to begin with, I demonstrated that you are an ignorant poser with the attention span of a gnat. Now you're just going in circles repeating your previous fallacies. I'll say it again, and you can admit it or keep being wrong, but unless you have anything new to add, don't bother to reply:
They did not explain why neo has powers outside the Matrix. They did not explain lots of things. That is why I didn't like the 3rd movie: because they did not awnsers the questions that they had opened. They said it was a planned trilogy, they filmed the last 2 movies all in one go, and the 3rd movie ends with questions opened in #2 left unawnsered. That is bad storytelling.
there was better explaination of his powers inside the Matrix? All I seem to remeber is him being told he was 'The One', and could therefore perform some truely funky manuvers inside the Matrix.
Come on! They went on and on about code and rules and "do you really think that your muscles have anything to do with how strong you are...in this place?"!
Slashdot Mirror
What is all this about 18 wheelers? The topic is about the right to bear arms.
Yeah, and you replied to my post in wich I used an example featuring an 18 wheeler.
Its called an analogy (2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : SIMILARITY b : comparison based on such resemblance), and it seems to be beyond your capacities to deal with such abstractions.
On 9/11 they used jet planes
No, on 9/11 they used Box Cutters to take over the planes. Perhaps we need to have people that buy razor blades fill out a questionaire and have a mandatory waiting period.
Those were not random idiots. Those were people with military training. They were proficient in the use of blades and close combat.
They would have qualified for a gun liscense, in much the same way that they qualified for a freaking airplane liscence.
Your example is irrelevant. Find a dictionary and look that word up.
No, just plain simple logic.
Lets have a looksy:
Just because some crazy irresponsible individual may get his/her hands on a gun doesn't mean that I should give up my second ammendment right to bear arms. In fact, it exemplifies the need for the second ammendment.
So, according to you, the second amendment is exemplified by the second amendment: It lets crazies have guns, and it lets you have guns. Since you need a gun to defend yourself (that is another logic fault right there, you can't use a gun when you've been shot dead first) from others with guns.
Round and round it goes...
If guns are to be controlled who is to set down the guide lines?
Some government comitee.
The same kind of people that sets guidelines about lead levels in drinking water and such likes.
Should we set down laws that they can only be used for hunting and self defense? A damn lot of good that would do.
Sigh.
They do exist allready.
Unless you think its perfectly legal to shoot at anything or anyone...with your examples of logic might mean that you do...
This statement could be made about everything.
should not be freely available to everyone.
should be available only to those who can prove that they are capable of handling them responsibly.
Well, I'd go down the list of weapons used in homicides and apply it to those first...
Do the same with the vote, and then perhaps we can talk.
I do think that before being allowed to vote you should have to find your country and state on a map of the world.
Regulation leads to confiscation. I'd give examples but you would invoke Goodwins Law.
I would do no such thing because I don't know nor care to know what that is.
I do know, however, that another type of deadly device is regulated and millions of people enjoy them without that confiscation you speak of. They are known as horeless carriages, or "automobiles" to some.
the criminals are the ones commiting most crimes
Er...you need help with your logic, but lets keep this going...
[blablabla more guns means more chance of getting shot blabla]
Since most people (even idiots) don't like getting shot - as the odds of getting shot in any particular activity goes up the willingness to engage in that activity goes down.
So? What is the big problem with a gun liscense thing?
Restrict gun ownership to those who can prove that they are mature enough to handle a gun. If you are, you get to have a gun, exatly the same way that if you pass the tests, you get to drive a car.
The only people I can see having a problem with this are those that no one in their right mind would allow to have a gun and the paranoid people who would like the government to either not know they exist or go away.
And you reply: "Good argument!! There are lots of irresponsible idiots so don't let anyone have guns."
So, you have never seen an 18 wheeler in your life, have you?
Who, the HELL, is modding that crap up? Seriously, what is wrong with you. I say "restrict", I get trolled with semi-litterate idiots who say that I said "ban".
Is this bizarro slashdot or something?
Why is it not possible to have a fucking rational discussion about guns when people from the U.S. are around? Its not that hard people: read what the other person actually wrote, not what you are expecting to read!
On to the rest:
So it's OK to let irresponsible idiots drive 3000 pound cars.
No, its not.
And it's OK to let irresponsible idiots buy chainsaws.
Please, PLEASE look up murder statistics. Compare numbers of homicide with firearms to homicide with chainsaws.
Please.
The fact that there's a law against having a fire arm will not stop crazy irresponsible people from getting one.
And this is where rationality flies off the window.
Because, you might have noticed, I used the example of 18 wheelers. Yeah...there are laws against 18 wheelers...no one is allowed to own or drive 18 wheelers...
sigh
Remember the terrorists during the 9/11 attacks didn't use guns.
Irrelevant.
On 9/11 they used jet planes.
If laws worked there'd be no crime.
Who modded this insightfull? I seriously want to have a chat with the person who modded THAT insightfull. He is advocating a society without laws, and you mod him insightfull?
Just because some crazy irresponsible individual may get his/her hands on a gun doesn't mean that I should give up my second ammendment right to bear arms. In fact, it exemplifies the need for the second ammendment.
Circular logic...my head is spinning.
So, I'll try this again, because you did NOT read it correctly the first time, you just jumped up and trolled with the usual prefabricated and slightly insane rant...
Guns should not be freely available to everyone.
Guns should be available only to those who can prove that they are capable of handling them responsibly.
Read that again, no, again. Yeah...that's right, I do say that guns should be available...ain't that something!
Just not to any idiot who will go off to shoot at cars on the highway because he's bored!
The world of biology needs an Asimov in my opinion.
It had one, his name was Isaac Asimov: Phd in microbiology.
Now you know : )
Of course this is Karma suicide as a lot of anti-gun nuts reside on /.
/.
Even though you call me a nut, I'll explain the position:
There are a lot of irresponsible idiots out there.
If guns are freely available, there will be a lot of irresponsible idiots out there with guns.
I therefore think that guns should be regulated in much the same way that we don't allow any idiot to drive around with an 18 wheeler.
There are also a lot of pro-gun nuts on
AFAICT, their opinion is: "I want a gun. I hate and fear all authorities, especially if they are called 'government'. I oppose any steps by said government to either make it harder for me to have a gun or to keep track of who has guns."
I strongly disagree with that position because it gets in the way of stopping irresponsible idiots from getting their clumsy hands on devices designed to make holes in people.
Of course, that makes me an "anti gun nut", because when you don't have rational arguments, name calling is the only substitute.
Damn liberal media...
Someone is much more likely to buy a Desert Eagle handgun if Lara Croft is using it in the movie (sweet! a chick with a gun! I want one just like that! maybe it'll make me just like her/find a girl just like her)
Dude, seriously, I know we're geeks, but I, for one, do not yet need a gun to get girls to go out with me.
And I think it might be illegal...
: )
Its "allow 6 to 8 weeks" not "we will NOT give it to you before 6 weeks". They usually ship before that, if they are not too busy or anything. But if they are busy, say, its getting close to xmas and everyone is shipping stuff all over the place, then its gonna take longer. Hence the 6 to 8.
My friend bought DVDs off Amazon once, took 9 weeks to get here. Of course, he had used an "e with acute accent" to correctly name the city, and somewhere in the long chain of transmitting this info the e acute got transformed into seven A, so the thing was shipped to another continent and back (wich is odd, because it clearly stated Canada on the damn thing, I don't really see why they sent it to germany...go figure).
As long as we're plugging Vinge, someone should mention _Fat_Times_at_Fairmont_High_ (I think I just did), a novella he just wrote playing with these themes in a very near-future context. Someone upthread mentioned how these things will eventually build up as chemical polution
Like in Neil Stephenson's book. The "toner" wars and the ensuing asthmatic deaths.
Yeah, I'm a sci-fi geek, not a techno geek : )
By Vernor Vinge is a very good book that uses that concept a lot.
It discuss, amongts other topics, the consequences of total information awarness brought by a technology similar to this (but better, because its sci-fi, not sci-fact).
That's it. NZ has gone too far. We now be forced to liberate them.
Well, intelligence indicates that the new zealanders posses an elvish weapon of mass destruction code named the one true ring...
kudos to apple; and also for the fact that 2 years on no one seems to have been able to bring to market a better product.
Well, except Apple themselves, who introduced the iPod v2, thinner, sleeker, and now with a dock.
Same name, but definatly different and better.
Granted the Archos is not as cool as the Archos
So many "preview" buttons, so little time...
Oh, and I'm -still- waiting for my iTrip FM adapter to ship...I ordered it almost exactly 4 weeks ago, still no sign.
Have you never heard the words "6 to 8 weeks"?
Common shipping mantra.
Spent about 15 minutes arguing with operators who wouldn't send an ambulance without a specific location, while the guy lay bleeding on the pavement.
Speaking both as someone who's waited for ambulances to show up while I was bleeding and as a former first aid volunteer, I must say that if they don't really know where the ambulance has to get to, its better not to send it.
Imagine if they had sent it to say, the other side of the mountain (or whatever) and it then had to backtrack for 45 minutes once the correct location has been acertained...
Sure, it'd be nice to have an ambulance right away, but i would rather people spent 5 minutes finding out where it has to go than having the ambulance sent to the wrong place.
Beside I'll die of some STD caught in a big orgie at age 125.
Ewww...
but considering icarus' final fate, you have to wonder why they keep naming projects after him no ?
;- )
dedalus is a bit better
The inventor of the saw?
Daedalus is mostly known for the labyrinth, Icarus wasn't as prolific and is the one associated with flight.
Plus, Icarus flew too close to the sun. Considering that they are making a solar plane, I think the whole "flight+sun" concept is pretty relevant.
It seems that it is a gene also responsible for an organ called a "heart" wich has some function within the circulatory system.
Scientists will now attemp to remove that gene and see how things develop...
Speaking as a non-Canadian, they should pay me for having to endure that Celine fucking Dion at all hours of the day and night.
;-)
Hey, we had to endure her singing for YEARS before we finally convinced her to move away. She's your problem now...
Obviously, people like yourself don't enjoy this kind of narrative, because it makes their heads hurt from all the thinking it requires.
lol! This coming from the idiot that didn't even notice the constant explaining of the matrix and the hacker's abilitites in it in the first movie! Yeah...I guess some of us are too busy actualy paying attention to do what you call "thinking".
Spew your lil' insults, Einstein...
No, this is GENIUS story telling...
Yeah, that's why most people hated it...because its genius...riiiight....
I told you not to reply, and lo and behold, a post full of insults. How utterly predictable.
Well, you claim you are one of the few, the smart, the "connect the dots" kind. And your genious theory is that Neo has a machine's soul and that's why he can do magic?
So, so lame.
Yeah, I did read your previous post...you are not as smart as you think. Its not that I didn't think of it, I just dismiss the crap, unlike some people.
Well, I'll leave you to your stupid beliefs about my mind, your uncanny ability to connect the dots, or as other see it, your random bullshit generator, gives you a nice, completely wrong view of it all. Enjoy it.
but did they go into why Neo had superman like powers, as compared to, say, Morpheus? No... it was simply because he was 'The One'...
Yeah, instead of having spider man powers, he's got superman powers. All the matrix hackers have super powers, he has better powers. Its all part of the whole VR thing. In the Matrix, anythig is possible because everything is simulated. Neo is l33ter than the rest.
Outside of the Matrix, no one has special powers because its supposed to be reality. Being The One doesn't mean anything outside the matrix, until the end or Reloaded, where neo mysteriously has super powers.
They never explain that.
You've been trolling me for many posts now, claiming at first that they did explain it, I demonstrated that you are a gullible sucker. You then claimed that they hadn't explained the powers in-matrix to begin with, I demonstrated that you are an ignorant poser with the attention span of a gnat. Now you're just going in circles repeating your previous fallacies. I'll say it again, and you can admit it or keep being wrong, but unless you have anything new to add, don't bother to reply:
They did not explain why neo has powers outside the Matrix.
They did not explain lots of things. That is why I didn't like the 3rd movie: because they did not awnsers the questions that they had opened. They said it was a planned trilogy, they filmed the last 2 movies all in one go, and the 3rd movie ends with questions opened in #2 left unawnsered. That is bad storytelling.
there was better explaination of his powers inside the Matrix? All I seem to remeber is him being told he was 'The One', and could therefore perform some truely funky manuvers inside the Matrix.
Come on! They went on and on about code and rules and "do you really think that your muscles have anything to do with how strong you are...in this place?"!
Well, it was meant to be unkillable, so I don't think anyone bothered to code some loot for it to give away in the unlikely event of its death.