Wouldn't the logical expansion of the role playing game be to implement voice changing technology? That would make the game completely immersive and allow anyone to assume an identity completely different from themselves and project the image that they want to into the game not their own selves, which is probably a big draw of the game in the first place.
After some googling, it looks like something like that already exists:
I haven't had a chance to try it myself yet, but it looks like it has add-ons for various fantasy voices like "Gruff Dwarf," "Warrior Princess," and "Lich Lord." They also seem to have a free version which does gender changes.
He needs to envision new technologies and sciences to free us from this solar system.
Have you by chance read any of Stross's work? Envisioning new technologies and sciences is pretty much what he's best at. He's written several novels based on the idea of technological singularities. The thing is, most of the technologies he envisions in his novels also tend to also involve such incredible changes that humans tend to be somewhat obsolete, and the phrase "human colonization" becomes antiquated.
For example, in a chapter in one of his novels, Accelerando, (freely available online), a bunch of the (originally human) characters want to visit a curious beacon in a nearby star system. Instead of climbing onto a starship, they instead have their consciousnesses digitized and run as subprocesses on a space probe the size of a soda can, and then have the processes re-uploaded into new bodies after returning from their mission.
Which reminds me, did NASA ever get around to installing the emergency escape craft? I know it was supposed to be a stripped-down capsule, but I don't remember if they just decided to keep something docked at all times instead.
The X-38 (coincidentally, manufactured by Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites) was supposed to be the prototype for this. After a number of successful drop tests, the program was canceled in 2002.
What so special about htis one, other than being six or seven years behind the crowd and just as expensive?
I think what's different about EADS is that they're the first already-established aerospace company to announce suborbital space tourism plans. Of course, this is also probably why they're announced development costs are so much higher than everybody else's.
Aside from the nice view, wouldn't it be better to just rent out a stripped-down 747 and go into repeated dives, like they do to train astronauts for zero-g?
There's actually already a company that offers commercial zero-gravity flights on a stripped-down 727, offering flights in Florida and Las Vegas:
Even if it did, you wouldn't be able to play it because there's no way to generate keyboard events with the Wii. The only events you do get are mouse motion events and the left mouse button.
Actually, all the buttons on the Wii remote are accessible:
And on that note, someone mentioned that this may well lead us to our next step in evolution -- that may well be true, but shouldn't evolution happen in response to natural factors by nature's invisible hand? Not some doc in a lab?
That's an interesting religious belief. Can you provide a logical justification for it?
Natural evolution is all well and good, but it also involves lots of people dying and suffering.
I mean, so many people on Slashdot are keen on letting the "invisible hand of capitalism" work the market, why shouldn't we let nature decide what is best for us?
Wow, quite the non-sequiter. The two are complete opposites: One case involves ensuring humans have no control over things, while the other allows humans to do what they want.
I believe this sort of thing was covered with the Asgaard in Stargate SG-1, they died out because they genetically modified their bodies past a certain point where they could no longer reproduce, only extend their own lives. Now, I am not saying there is any scientific basis for something liek that happening, but aren't parables supposed to make you at least think before acting?
Personally, I am a bit miffed at the MIT folks for not giving credit where credit is due. This is the second article I have seen in the last month or two on this topic and they hardly even mention the fact that this is a key Tesla invention that was in fact accomplished by him and repeatably demonstrated. To read the articles one would think that the folks at MIT just sat down last week and invented this all by themselves when it is simply not true.
In the early days of electromagnetism, before the electrical-wire grid was deployed, serious interest and effort was devoted (most notably by Nikola Tesla [1]) towards the development of schemes to transport energy over long distances without any carrier medium (e.g. wirelessly). These efforts appear to have met with little success. Radiative modes of omni-directional antennas (which work very well for information transfer) are not suitable for such energy transfer, because a vast majority of energy is wasted into free space. Directed radiation modes, using lasers or highly-directional antennas, can be efficiently used for energy transfer, even for long distances (transfer distance LTRANSLDEV, where LDEV is the characteristic size of the device), but require existence of an uninterruptible line-of-sight and a complicated tracking system in the case of mobile objects. Rapid development of autonomous electronics of recent years (e.g. laptops, cell-phones, house-hold robots, that all typically rely on chemical energy storage) justifies revisiting investigation of this issue. Today, we face a different challenge than Tesla: since the existing electrical-wire grid carries energy almost everywhere, even a medium-range (LTRANS fewLDEV) wireless energy transfer would be quite useful for many applications. There are several currently used schemes, which rely on non-radiative modes (magnetic induction), but they are restricted to very close-range (LTRANSLDEV) or very low-power (~mW) energy transfers [2,3,4,5,6].
I don't understand the jargon in that article. I do understand that physical and emotional suffering of disease will put a patient at risk to fall prey to unethical procedures. I cannot say if some of those will be in the name of research leading to better treatments. I just know that when you have a death sentence, a limited time and the pain is untreatable, ethical treatment of a patient is huge. I'm going to be very careful about letting doctors put electricity into my brain again.
I can understand your concern given the harrowing nature of your ECT experience, but from what I can tell, the treatment this article about is fairly mild and self-applied. For what it's worth, here's some photos on their page:
Basically, it seems to be a battery-operated kit that the person carries around with them and is attached to low-intensity scalp electrodes. It doesn't seem to interfere much while it's operating, and I'm guessing the person can turn it on and off whenever they want.
The NovoTTF-100A device used in this trial delivers very low intensity, alternating electric fields to the tumor site through the scalp.
If the answer is not very deep then you couldn't treat stuff like cervical cancer or colon cancer, because you can't stick electrodes (comfortably?) onto those body parts. If its a big field, however, that you slide the person into (like an MRI) with a deep-penetrating field, it'd make more sense.
I'm wondering if transcranial magnetic stimulation (a technique I work with, but in a very different context) could be useful in non-invasively delivering such a field. It's effective depth is only a couple of centimeters max (unless somebody's using an experimental Deep TMS system), but it might be better than scalp electrodes. It would be impossible to get it to run continuously at the 100-300kHz rate that their 2004 journal paper says is needed, but it's possible that single rapidly-changing pulses at a slower rate could have the desired effect.
I'm sure there are many many right-wing types here who would love to show their support for bringing this vital infrastructure to Iraq.
I'm not sure what your sarcasm is for... I'd be willing to bet that there are quite a few more right-wingers than left-wingers working on technology infrastructure in Iraq.
The private sector is also looking quite interesting in the orbital spaceflight arena. I tried submitting the following story last week:
Bigelow Announces $15 Million For Month in Space
Robert Bigelow has announced a price of $15 million for a four-week trip to one of the private space stations Bigelow Aerospace will deploy, with a price of $3 million for an additional four weeks. This drastically undercuts the Russian Space Agency's $25 million price for a week or two on the ISS. Bigelow also stated that interested countries and companies could lease an entire in-orbit research facility for $88 million/year.
That's just an abstract, so it's hard for me to draw any conclusions without being able to see the data itself.... I'd like to know because I don't subscribe to that journal.
I could be mistaken, but I don't think the document download links require a subscription. Try the links right under where it says "electronic paper collection."
Does that study draw its conclusions from actual murder rates & then-current laws, or does it suppose that invisible market forces would compel a rational mass-murderer to prefer to shoot the defenseless so they could kill more people before killing themselves?
It does the former, analyzing the statistics of murder rates and computing regressions based on whether or not an area had concealed weapon laws.
Okay, so person A starts shooting everyone. Person B steps in and shoots the shooter. Person C walks in on the situation, sees person B with the gun, and shoots him in a panic. Three more people walk by and pull out their guns in self defence. Not only does this cause chaos, but no-one even knows who the shooter is anymore, let alone whether he is still alive.
Historically, how often has a situation like you describe actually happened?
I agree with the right to bear arms, what I don't agree with is the right to bear fully automatic weapons. I truly don't think this would have been possible with a asaiilant carrying only a shotgun or a hunting rifle.
According to initial reports the shooter was just armed with a couple of 9mm handguns.
I'm not meaning to preach, but what historical indicators are you using to base this on? What exactly about this makes you think that our current system ended this any better? What makes you think it would have been 33 instead of 32 if it had been harder for the shooter to get a gun?
JOHN R. LOTT Jr. State University of New York - Department of Economics WILLIAM M. LANDES University of Chicago Law School; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
Abstract: Few events obtain the same instant worldwide news coverage as multiple victim public shootings. These crimes allow us to study the alternative methods used to kill a large number of people (e.g., shootings versus bombings), marginal deterrence and the severity of the crime, substitutability of penalties, private versus public methods of deterrence and incapacitation, and whether attacks produce copycats. Yet, economists have not studied this phenomenon. Our results are surprising and dramatic. While arrest or conviction rates and the death penalty reduce normal murder rates, our results find that the only policy factor to influence multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws. We explain why public shootings are more sensitive than other violent crimes to concealed handguns, why the laws reduce both the number of shootings as well as their severity, and why other penalties like executions have differential deterrent effects depending upon the type of murder.
JOHN R. LOTT Jr. State University of New York - Department of Economics WILLIAM M. LANDES University of Chicago Law School; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
Few events obtain the same instant worldwide news coverage as multiple victim public shootings. These crimes allow us to study the alternative methods used to kill a large number of people (e.g., shootings versus bombings), marginal deterrence and the severity of the crime, substitutability of penalties, private versus public methods of deterrence and incapacitation, and whether attacks produce copycats. Yet, economists have not studied this phenomenon. Our results are surprising and dramatic. While arrest or conviction rates and the death penalty reduce normal murder rates, our results find that the only policy factor to influence multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws. We explain why public shootings are more sensitive than other violent crimes to concealed handguns, why the laws reduce both the number of shootings as well as their severity, and why other penalties like executions have differential deterrent effects depending upon the type of murder.
This is why it is wrong for your second amendment rights to end at the boundary of a school. Nothing is preventing from people illegally bringing guns on to campus. The same argument applies, well, anywhere.
Just to fill everybody in, the campus is designated a "gun-free zone." There was a state bill last year to change this, but it didn't make it out of subcommittee.
Some brain tasks are linear/feedforward (V1, for example), while tasks such as language are inherently nonlinear. Postulating a single mechanism for both seems nonintuitive to me.
I'm not sure if this is what you were referring to, but there was actually a paper back in 2000 where visual inputs were rerouted to a ferret's auditory cortex, which then developed the architecture found in visual cortex:
Modules of neurons sharing a common property are a basic organizational feature of mammalian sensory cortex. Primary visual cortex (V1) is characterized by orientation modulesÐgroups of cells that share a preferred stimulus orientation which are organized into a highly ordered orientation map. Here we show that in ferrets in which retinal projections are routed into the auditory pathway, visually responsive neurons in `rewired' primary auditory cortex are also organized into orientation modules. The orientation tuning of neurons within these modules is comparable to the tuning of cells in V1 but the orientation map is less orderly. Horizontal connections in rewired cortex are more patchy and periodic than connections in normal auditory cortex, but less so than connections in V1. These data show that afferent activity has a profound inuence on diverse components of cortical circuitry, including thalamocortical and local intracortical connections, which are involved in the generation of orientation tuning, and long-range horizontal connections, which are important in creating an orientation map
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't the logical expansion of the role playing game be to implement voice changing technology? That would make the game completely immersive and allow anyone to assume an identity completely different from themselves and project the image that they want to into the game not their own selves, which is probably a big draw of the game in the first place.
After some googling, it looks like something like that already exists:
http://www.screamingbee.com/product/MorphVOX.aspx
I haven't had a chance to try it myself yet, but it looks like it has add-ons for various fantasy voices like "Gruff Dwarf," "Warrior Princess," and "Lich Lord." They also seem to have a free version which does gender changes.
He needs to envision new technologies and sciences to free us from this solar system.
Have you by chance read any of Stross's work? Envisioning new technologies and sciences is pretty much what he's best at. He's written several novels based on the idea of technological singularities. The thing is, most of the technologies he envisions in his novels also tend to also involve such incredible changes that humans tend to be somewhat obsolete, and the phrase "human colonization" becomes antiquated.
For example, in a chapter in one of his novels, Accelerando, (freely available online), a bunch of the (originally human) characters want to visit a curious beacon in a nearby star system. Instead of climbing onto a starship, they instead have their consciousnesses digitized and run as subprocesses on a space probe the size of a soda can, and then have the processes re-uploaded into new bodies after returning from their mission.
Which reminds me, did NASA ever get around to installing the emergency escape craft? I know it was supposed to be a stripped-down capsule, but I don't remember if they just decided to keep something docked at all times instead.
The X-38 (coincidentally, manufactured by Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites) was supposed to be the prototype for this. After a number of successful drop tests, the program was canceled in 2002.
What so special about htis one, other than being six or seven years behind the crowd and just as expensive?
I think what's different about EADS is that they're the first already-established aerospace company to announce suborbital space tourism plans. Of course, this is also probably why they're announced development costs are so much higher than everybody else's.
"Auque said the company has determined that designing and flight-qualifying its proposed space plane would require 1 billion euros in investment."
I wonder why it costs so much. Branson's just spending around $200 million on development of the SpaceShipTwo series.
Aside from the nice view, wouldn't it be better to just rent out a stripped-down 747 and go into repeated dives, like they do to train astronauts for zero-g?
t ion
There's actually already a company that offers commercial zero-gravity flights on a stripped-down 727, offering flights in Florida and Las Vegas:
http://www.gozerog.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Gravity_Corpora
That said, the impression I get is that it's not so much the weightlessness which is desirable about suborbital spaceflights, but the view.
Well if i say them i get the secret service at my door... why don't you try some things and see what happens.
Uh, ok. I'm going to assassinate the president with a spoon and dental floss, on June 12, 2007.
Even if it did, you wouldn't be able to play it because there's no way to generate keyboard events with the Wii. The only events you do get are mouse motion events and the left mouse button.
Actually, all the buttons on the Wii remote are accessible:
http://www.wiicade.com/api.aspx
There are obvious things the media can't say or people can't say about the President for instance.
Example?
And on that note, someone mentioned that this may well lead us to our next step in evolution -- that may well be true, but shouldn't evolution happen in response to natural factors by nature's invisible hand? Not some doc in a lab?
That's an interesting religious belief. Can you provide a logical justification for it?
Natural evolution is all well and good, but it also involves lots of people dying and suffering.
I mean, so many people on Slashdot are keen on letting the "invisible hand of capitalism" work the market, why shouldn't we let nature decide what is best for us?
Wow, quite the non-sequiter. The two are complete opposites: One case involves ensuring humans have no control over things, while the other allows humans to do what they want.
I believe this sort of thing was covered with the Asgaard in Stargate SG-1, they died out because they genetically modified their bodies past a certain point where they could no longer reproduce, only extend their own lives. Now, I am not saying there is any scientific basis for something liek that happening, but aren't parables supposed to make you at least think before acting?
Sure. Who's acting without thinking?
Personally, I am a bit miffed at the MIT folks for not giving credit where credit is due. This is the second article I have seen in the last month or two on this topic and they hardly even mention the fact that this is a key Tesla invention that was in fact accomplished by him and repeatably demonstrated. To read the articles one would think that the folks at MIT just sat down last week and invented this all by themselves when it is simply not true.
p df
The opening paragraph of their earlier paper:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0611/0611063.
In the early days of electromagnetism, before the electrical-wire grid was deployed, serious interest and effort was devoted (most notably by Nikola Tesla [1]) towards the development of schemes to transport energy over long distances without any carrier medium (e.g. wirelessly). These efforts appear to have met with little success. Radiative modes of omni-directional antennas (which work very well for information transfer) are not suitable for such energy transfer, because a vast majority of energy is wasted into free space. Directed radiation modes, using lasers or highly-directional antennas, can be efficiently used for energy transfer, even for long distances (transfer distance LTRANSLDEV, where LDEV is the characteristic size of the device), but require existence of an uninterruptible line-of-sight and a complicated tracking system in the case of mobile objects. Rapid development of autonomous electronics of recent years (e.g. laptops, cell-phones, house-hold robots, that all typically rely on chemical energy storage) justifies revisiting investigation of this issue. Today, we face a different challenge than Tesla: since the existing electrical-wire grid carries energy almost everywhere, even a medium-range (LTRANS fewLDEV) wireless energy transfer would be quite useful for many applications. There are several currently used schemes, which rely on non-radiative modes (magnetic induction), but they are restricted to very close-range (LTRANSLDEV) or very low-power (~mW) energy transfers [2,3,4,5,6].
It's funny that freely available satellite images of Mars have greater resolution than freely available images of Earth.
Actually, I wonder how much of that is due to the fact that Mars has a much thinner atmosphere than Earth, which blurs satellite photographs less.
I don't understand the jargon in that article. I do understand that physical and emotional suffering of disease will put a patient at risk to fall prey to unethical procedures. I cannot say if some of those will be in the name of research leading to better treatments. I just know that when you have a death sentence, a limited time and the pain is untreatable, ethical treatment of a patient is huge. I'm going to be very careful about letting doctors put electricity into my brain again.
I can understand your concern given the harrowing nature of your ECT experience, but from what I can tell, the treatment this article about is fairly mild and self-applied. For what it's worth, here's some photos on their page:
http://www.novocuretrial.com/treatment.html
Basically, it seems to be a battery-operated kit that the person carries around with them and is attached to low-intensity scalp electrodes. It doesn't seem to interfere much while it's operating, and I'm guessing the person can turn it on and off whenever they want.
But is that how it works? are electrodes applied to the skin and only the cells in the immediate vicinity are affected?
Yes, in the current iteration it seems that it delivers electric fields directly through the scalp:
http://www.novocuretrial.com/science.html
The NovoTTF-100A device used in this trial delivers very low intensity, alternating electric fields to the tumor site through the scalp.
If the answer is not very deep then you couldn't treat stuff like cervical cancer or colon cancer, because you can't stick electrodes (comfortably?) onto those body parts. If its a big field, however, that you slide the person into (like an MRI) with a deep-penetrating field, it'd make more sense.
I'm wondering if transcranial magnetic stimulation (a technique I work with, but in a very different context) could be useful in non-invasively delivering such a field. It's effective depth is only a couple of centimeters max (unless somebody's using an experimental Deep TMS system), but it might be better than scalp electrodes. It would be impossible to get it to run continuously at the 100-300kHz rate that their 2004 journal paper says is needed, but it's possible that single rapidly-changing pulses at a slower rate could have the desired effect.
I'm sure there are many many right-wing types here who would love to show their support for bringing this vital infrastructure to Iraq.
I'm not sure what your sarcasm is for... I'd be willing to bet that there are quite a few more right-wingers than left-wingers working on technology infrastructure in Iraq.
The private sector is also looking quite interesting in the orbital spaceflight arena. I tried submitting the following story last week:
Bigelow Announces $15 Million For Month in Space
Robert Bigelow has announced a price of $15 million for a four-week trip to one of the private space stations Bigelow Aerospace will deploy, with a price of $3 million for an additional four weeks. This drastically undercuts the Russian Space Agency's $25 million price for a week or two on the ISS. Bigelow also stated that interested countries and companies could lease an entire in-orbit research facility for $88 million/year.
In related news, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe is looking at layoffs of 10% of its workforce, with additional layoffs planned for Japan and the US. Of course, Sony says this has nothing to do with low demand for the PS3.
That's just an abstract, so it's hard for me to draw any conclusions without being able to see the data itself. ...
I'd like to know because I don't subscribe to that journal.
I could be mistaken, but I don't think the document download links require a subscription. Try the links right under where it says "electronic paper collection."
Does that study draw its conclusions from actual murder rates & then-current laws, or does it suppose that invisible market forces would compel a rational mass-murderer to prefer to shoot the defenseless so they could kill more people before killing themselves?
It does the former, analyzing the statistics of murder rates and computing regressions based on whether or not an area had concealed weapon laws.
Okay, so person A starts shooting everyone. Person B steps in and shoots the shooter. Person C walks in on the situation, sees person B with the gun, and shoots him in a panic. Three more people walk by and pull out their guns in self defence. Not only does this cause chaos, but no-one even knows who the shooter is anymore, let alone whether he is still alive.
Historically, how often has a situation like you describe actually happened?
I agree with the right to bear arms, what I don't agree with is the right to bear fully automatic weapons. I truly don't think this would have been possible with a asaiilant carrying only a shotgun or a hunting rifle.
According to initial reports the shooter was just armed with a couple of 9mm handguns.
I'm not meaning to preach, but what historical indicators are you using to base this on? What exactly about this makes you think that our current system ended this any better? What makes you think it would have been 33 instead of 32 if it had been harder for the shooter to get a gun?
Here you go...
Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement
JOHN R. LOTT Jr.
State University of New York - Department of Economics
WILLIAM M. LANDES
University of Chicago Law School; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
Abstract:
Few events obtain the same instant worldwide news coverage as multiple victim public shootings. These crimes allow us to study the alternative methods used to kill a large number of people (e.g., shootings versus bombings), marginal deterrence and the severity of the crime, substitutability of penalties, private versus public methods of deterrence and incapacitation, and whether attacks produce copycats. Yet, economists have not studied this phenomenon. Our results are surprising and dramatic. While arrest or conviction rates and the death penalty reduce normal murder rates, our results find that the only policy factor to influence multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws. We explain why public shootings are more sensitive than other violent crimes to concealed handguns, why the laws reduce both the number of shootings as well as their severity, and why other penalties like executions have differential deterrent effects depending upon the type of murder.
I'm actually agreeing with drinkypoo! Perhaps if just one of the law-abiding citizens involved had been armed, much of this would have been avoided...
It sounds counter-intuitive to many, but here's a study which supports your position:
Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement
JOHN R. LOTT Jr.
State University of New York - Department of Economics
WILLIAM M. LANDES
University of Chicago Law School; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
Few events obtain the same instant worldwide news coverage as multiple victim public shootings. These crimes allow us to study the alternative methods used to kill a large number of people (e.g., shootings versus bombings), marginal deterrence and the severity of the crime, substitutability of penalties, private versus public methods of deterrence and incapacitation, and whether attacks produce copycats. Yet, economists have not studied this phenomenon. Our results are surprising and dramatic. While arrest or conviction rates and the death penalty reduce normal murder rates, our results find that the only policy factor to influence multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws. We explain why public shootings are more sensitive than other violent crimes to concealed handguns, why the laws reduce both the number of shootings as well as their severity, and why other penalties like executions have differential deterrent effects depending upon the type of murder.
This is why it is wrong for your second amendment rights to end at the boundary of a school. Nothing is preventing from people illegally bringing guns on to campus. The same argument applies, well, anywhere.
Just to fill everybody in, the campus is designated a "gun-free zone." There was a state bill last year to change this, but it didn't make it out of subcommittee.
Of course, in all likelihood, we'll end up seeing even more restrictions that feel good but end up in more people being hurt. There have already been talking heads on TV advocating "making university buildings into lock-down prisons, with no classroom windows, and wanding of everyone going in and out."
Some brain tasks are linear/feedforward (V1, for example), while tasks such as language are inherently nonlinear. Postulating a single mechanism for both seems nonintuitive to me.
I'm not sure if this is what you were referring to, but there was actually a paper back in 2000 where visual inputs were rerouted to a ferret's auditory cortex, which then developed the architecture found in visual cortex:
Induction of visual orientation modules in auditory cortex
Modules of neurons sharing a common property are a basic organizational feature of mammalian sensory cortex. Primary visual cortex (V1) is characterized by orientation modulesÐgroups of cells that share a preferred stimulus orientation which are organized into a highly ordered orientation map. Here we show that in ferrets in which retinal projections are routed into the auditory pathway, visually responsive neurons in `rewired' primary auditory cortex are also organized into orientation modules. The orientation tuning of neurons within these modules is comparable to the tuning of cells in V1 but the orientation map is less orderly. Horizontal connections in rewired cortex are more patchy and periodic than connections in normal auditory cortex, but less so than connections in V1. These data show that afferent activity has a profound inuence on diverse components of cortical circuitry, including thalamocortical and local intracortical connections, which are involved in the generation of orientation tuning, and long-range horizontal connections, which are important in creating an orientation map
Which candidate is anti-war, anti-RIAA, anti-Big Oil, anti-deficit spending, but pro-guns? That's the candidate I want to vote for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
Unfortunately, he has a zero chance of getting the nomination.