I am probably going to get modded down for this... But the reason this is a topic of focus is due to the fact that there is significant research basis for it being true.
You shouldn't get modded down, because it's a good point to discuss. But the reason I'm skeptical is because it's counterintuitive to those of us who grew up around violent video games, violent TV, violent music, etc., and turned out just fine. That doesn't mean the studies are wrong, but it does mean a lot of folks -- myself included -- are going to have to overcome our inherent distrust of facts that disagree with our perceived reality.
You became a professional soldier but you don't see that as an expression of your violent tendencies?
Step back from yourself for a moment and think about that.
Oh, bullshit.
People join the armed forces because it's a job with a regular paycheck. They join because the military offers some sweet medical benefits. They join because they want to go to college without spending the rest of their lives in debt. They join because they had family members in the military.
And some of them join because they believe the Constitution and what it represents matters enough to risk their lives defending it.
These idiots post a "steal me" list of people with guns so now criminals have a shopping list and now they hire armed guards to protect them because gun owners are angry?
But isn't the stated point of having a gun in one's house to deter criminals from breaking in to steal things? You can't have it both ways.
Police are pretty good at catching people who break the law. They are infamously bad at preventing crimes from happening. Just ask any woman who's ever tried to have her boyfriend or husband arrested for stalking.
The one the same day as the Sandy Hook massacre? Where roughly the same number of people were attacked, but not a single one died?
Someone mod this guy up to +20 or something, please. Yes, violent people will find other ways to commit violence, but no other method combines deadliness with ease of use. If you want to unload 30 rounds from an AR-15 into a room full of 6- and 7-year-olds, all you have to do is point and click and click and click.
The Book of Mormon makes numerous statements about history and archaeology that are clearly and objectively false, yet Mormons claim it was received directly from God and translated with divine aid.
Someone else tackled the time dilation portion of the argument, so I'll go with some of the other arguments you make here:
... that means 200 years to get to the planet with the first explorer group and maybe it is simply uninhabitable for any number of reasons you can imagine: temp right, oxygen wrong, oxygen right water wrong, organisms which view us as yummy.
I am every bit in favor of sending unmanned craft in advance of any manned mission so that we might find out what resources are in the target system and what resources we'd need to take with us.
And if we don't find a nearby system -- say, one within 15 light-years -- that could support human life, then let's take an ecosystem with us. Imagine hollowing out a large asteroid like Ceres, supplying it with water from Jupiter's rings and moons, then boosting it out of Sol orbit on a multi-generational trip to Proxima Centauri. What you describe in your last paragraph is something that happens regularly on Earth anyway; the challenge would be scaling the ecosystem down to something that would fit inside a sphere with about the surface area of Alaska without scaling it down too much.
Of course, there are a lot of other challenges, too. A lot. But the reward would be a human settlement orbiting a star that will last trillions of years with little or no chance of being wiped out by external forces. That's a reward well worth the risks, isn't it?
There's a very good chance you're right. Even the dinosaurs only made it 14 percent of the way to a billion years before they were wiped out. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't invest in contingencies on the off chance that we are still around.
Perhaps there was a race of lizard people who buried all of their dead in sand, of which never saw water for millions of years. No fossils and no records.
In which case they're irrelevant (and probably in our gas tanks), and we're the first spacefaring species in Earth's history that matters.
True, but "robots first" isn't a bad plan so long as we don't get lazy about it. It would be cool if we could send some automatons to start terraforming or at least building some basic structures. You know, law some infrastructure in place before we get there. Getting there is going to be tough, but building from scratch in an inhospitable place is going to be REALLY tough.
Bingo! We've done a pretty good job lately of landing large things on Mars, so yes, sending spacecraft ahead with supplies would be a necessary first step (along with making sure they landed intact, naturally). Water would be the most expensive thing to transport by far, but the moon has enough ice that extracting it from there would be less cost-prohibitive than lifting it out of Earth's gravity well, at least for the short term.
Colonization of other worlds is ultimately about survival of the human species. Earth only has another 1 billion years or so of habitability, presuming we don't get hit by a Tunguska-sized asteroid between now and then.
We have the choice of traveling to the planets (and eventually the stars) or becoming extinct. And we're the first species in Earth's 4½ billion years to recognize that we have this choice and that there's simply no better time to act on it.
Is a strong magnetic field not an effective solution for the solar wind? Heck, with large enough solar arrays, you could use the solar wind to power a magnetic field that would protect the crew cabin from the solar wind. There's something poetic in that. Alternately, if fusion ever gets off the ground as a power and thrust source, you could just use its magnetic field to protect the crew.
I can see why you posted this anonymously; it's not likely to be a popular opinion. But I think you're introducing some hyperbole here.
No. 1, the online experiences are a lot better. PC users, in my admittedly limited experience, are more mature than their counterparts on XBox and PS3.
No. 2, a good gaming PC doesn't have to cost you $1,200. Buy a decently powerful CPU, an Asus motherboard and a $150 video card, and you'll have better graphics on your PC than console gamers have presently, for a lot less than $1,200. The only reason a gaming rig should cost you that much is if you buy a laptop or an Alienware PC.
Third, "To run a larger monitor you need a more powerful PC"? Um, no. If you want better screen resolutions, you'll want a more capable video card, but any video card in the $150 price range or above is going to give you far better graphics than you'll get from a console.
I'll concede the point on trading in console games, but I suspect the gaming industry will close that down as soon as they find a legal way to do it. But to say "the PC would be dead for gaming" if not for MMOs is to overlook the success of Steam and GOG.com.
Students shouldn't have sufficient privileges to change anything on the computer. Also, the computers should be resetting themselves at least every night, if not at every log in. Your school has incompetent IT staff.
Schools aren't exactly bursting with excess cash to hire competent IT staff -- or any IT staff, for that matter. At most schools, the "IT staff" probably comprises the library employee(s).
That said, you can probably say the same thing about most schools in the United States -- including the school where my son goes (and where he installed Minecraft on several computers before he got busted).
Even the M-16s don't have full auto these days. The M-16A2 has three-round burst instead, IIRC because the DOD determined that "spray and pray" isn't an effective method for engaging the enemy.
Someone should of told Anonymous that it is never a good idea to feed the trolls.
We, as a nation, have tried "not feeding the trolls," and WBC has only become more emboldened. So let's try punching the schoolyard bully in the jaw and see if that has an effect.
I think you'll find that most reasonable Christians DON'T want anything to do with these clowns. A lot of people in my church are VERY conservative, and even they are appalled anytime one of the WBC crazies opens their mouth. Small sample size, yes. But I've found it to be true in other locations as well.
The problem is that "most reasonable Christians" will say those Westboro Baptist folks "aren't Christian," when, in fact, they are.
Slashdot Mirror
I am probably going to get modded down for this... But the reason this is a topic of focus is due to the fact that there is significant research basis for it being true.
You shouldn't get modded down, because it's a good point to discuss. But the reason I'm skeptical is because it's counterintuitive to those of us who grew up around violent video games, violent TV, violent music, etc., and turned out just fine. That doesn't mean the studies are wrong, but it does mean a lot of folks -- myself included -- are going to have to overcome our inherent distrust of facts that disagree with our perceived reality.
You became a professional soldier but you don't see that as an expression of your violent tendencies?
Step back from yourself for a moment and think about that.
Oh, bullshit.
People join the armed forces because it's a job with a regular paycheck. They join because the military offers some sweet medical benefits. They join because they want to go to college without spending the rest of their lives in debt. They join because they had family members in the military.
And some of them join because they believe the Constitution and what it represents matters enough to risk their lives defending it.
These idiots post a "steal me" list of people with guns so now criminals have a shopping list and now they hire armed guards to protect them because gun owners are angry?
But isn't the stated point of having a gun in one's house to deter criminals from breaking in to steal things? You can't have it both ways.
Police are pretty good at catching people who break the law. They are infamously bad at preventing crimes from happening. Just ask any woman who's ever tried to have her boyfriend or husband arrested for stalking.
The one the same day as the Sandy Hook massacre? Where roughly the same number of people were attacked, but not a single one died?
Someone mod this guy up to +20 or something, please. Yes, violent people will find other ways to commit violence, but no other method combines deadliness with ease of use. If you want to unload 30 rounds from an AR-15 into a room full of 6- and 7-year-olds, all you have to do is point and click and click and click.
The only reason the State knows legally that you have a gun is by registering, which is frankly unconstitutional in itself.
It's just as constitutional as requiring a license to drive a car.
Note that military M16 has select-fire which can choose between semi-automatic, 3 round burst, & full-automatic.
Not exactly. The M16-A1 had semi-auto and full auto. The M16-A2 has semi-auto and three-round burst.
So, until some asshole obtains a warrant, you best believe I will never register my property, nor seek a license to exercise any of my rights.
I'm guessing you live in a cardboard box and walk to work, then.
The Book of Mormon makes numerous statements about history and archaeology that are clearly and objectively false, yet Mormons claim it was received directly from God and translated with divine aid.
So, not much different from the Bible, then.
Someone else tackled the time dilation portion of the argument, so I'll go with some of the other arguments you make here:
... that means 200 years to get to the planet with the first explorer group and maybe it is simply uninhabitable for any number of reasons you can imagine: temp right, oxygen wrong, oxygen right water wrong, organisms which view us as yummy.
I am every bit in favor of sending unmanned craft in advance of any manned mission so that we might find out what resources are in the target system and what resources we'd need to take with us.
And if we don't find a nearby system -- say, one within 15 light-years -- that could support human life, then let's take an ecosystem with us. Imagine hollowing out a large asteroid like Ceres, supplying it with water from Jupiter's rings and moons, then boosting it out of Sol orbit on a multi-generational trip to Proxima Centauri. What you describe in your last paragraph is something that happens regularly on Earth anyway; the challenge would be scaling the ecosystem down to something that would fit inside a sphere with about the surface area of Alaska without scaling it down too much.
Of course, there are a lot of other challenges, too. A lot. But the reward would be a human settlement orbiting a star that will last trillions of years with little or no chance of being wiped out by external forces. That's a reward well worth the risks, isn't it?
There's a very good chance you're right. Even the dinosaurs only made it 14 percent of the way to a billion years before they were wiped out. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't invest in contingencies on the off chance that we are still around.
Perhaps there was a race of lizard people who buried all of their dead in sand, of which never saw water for millions of years. No fossils and no records.
In which case they're irrelevant (and probably in our gas tanks), and we're the first spacefaring species in Earth's history that matters.
True, but "robots first" isn't a bad plan so long as we don't get lazy about it. It would be cool if we could send some automatons to start terraforming or at least building some basic structures. You know, law some infrastructure in place before we get there. Getting there is going to be tough, but building from scratch in an inhospitable place is going to be REALLY tough.
Bingo! We've done a pretty good job lately of landing large things on Mars, so yes, sending spacecraft ahead with supplies would be a necessary first step (along with making sure they landed intact, naturally). Water would be the most expensive thing to transport by far, but the moon has enough ice that extracting it from there would be less cost-prohibitive than lifting it out of Earth's gravity well, at least for the short term.
However if you take the account as factual, God stopped Abraham before he went through with it.
Isn't that kind of a dick move, though, regardless?
There is little difference between Mormonism and Scientology.
There is, however, one important distinction: Mormonism doesn't require an admittance fee.
Colonization of other worlds is ultimately about survival of the human species. Earth only has another 1 billion years or so of habitability, presuming we don't get hit by a Tunguska-sized asteroid between now and then.
We have the choice of traveling to the planets (and eventually the stars) or becoming extinct. And we're the first species in Earth's 4½ billion years to recognize that we have this choice and that there's simply no better time to act on it.
Is a strong magnetic field not an effective solution for the solar wind? Heck, with large enough solar arrays, you could use the solar wind to power a magnetic field that would protect the crew cabin from the solar wind. There's something poetic in that. Alternately, if fusion ever gets off the ground as a power and thrust source, you could just use its magnetic field to protect the crew.
A sarcastic asshole tax would probably earn more revenue, and pay for therapy for the emotional pain of said kids many times over.
I give away my sarcasm for free. Good luck taxing that!
I can see why you posted this anonymously; it's not likely to be a popular opinion. But I think you're introducing some hyperbole here.
No. 1, the online experiences are a lot better. PC users, in my admittedly limited experience, are more mature than their counterparts on XBox and PS3.
No. 2, a good gaming PC doesn't have to cost you $1,200. Buy a decently powerful CPU, an Asus motherboard and a $150 video card, and you'll have better graphics on your PC than console gamers have presently, for a lot less than $1,200. The only reason a gaming rig should cost you that much is if you buy a laptop or an Alienware PC.
Third, "To run a larger monitor you need a more powerful PC"? Um, no. If you want better screen resolutions, you'll want a more capable video card, but any video card in the $150 price range or above is going to give you far better graphics than you'll get from a console.
I'll concede the point on trading in console games, but I suspect the gaming industry will close that down as soon as they find a legal way to do it. But to say "the PC would be dead for gaming" if not for MMOs is to overlook the success of Steam and GOG.com.
I dunno, poll data seemed to work out pretty well for Nate Silver.
Or maybe you Christian-right nannies should fuck right off.
They're going to need an instruction manual to do that. Just sayin'.
Students shouldn't have sufficient privileges to change anything on the computer. Also, the computers should be resetting themselves at least every night, if not at every log in. Your school has incompetent IT staff.
Schools aren't exactly bursting with excess cash to hire competent IT staff -- or any IT staff, for that matter. At most schools, the "IT staff" probably comprises the library employee(s).
That said, you can probably say the same thing about most schools in the United States -- including the school where my son goes (and where he installed Minecraft on several computers before he got busted).
Even the M-16s don't have full auto these days. The M-16A2 has three-round burst instead, IIRC because the DOD determined that "spray and pray" isn't an effective method for engaging the enemy.
Someone should of told Anonymous that it is never a good idea to feed the trolls.
We, as a nation, have tried "not feeding the trolls," and WBC has only become more emboldened. So let's try punching the schoolyard bully in the jaw and see if that has an effect.
I think you'll find that most reasonable Christians DON'T want anything to do with these clowns. A lot of people in my church are VERY conservative, and even they are appalled anytime one of the WBC crazies opens their mouth. Small sample size, yes. But I've found it to be true in other locations as well.
The problem is that "most reasonable Christians" will say those Westboro Baptist folks "aren't Christian," when, in fact, they are.