Although your post was meant as satire, it is essentially correct. We don't have to do anything to win. As long as we stay, we prevent a) Iran from taking over and making Iraq their puppet state and b) any sort of full-on civil war from occurring.
Fry: "Professor, we're all sick of your new upbeat attitude." Professor: "Nonsense! It's just in the song I wrote! 'We all need a new angle on life!..." Leela: "Bender, you've gotta help us!" Bender: "I try to get out, but they keep pulling me back in!" Professor: *crack* "OWW!" Amy: "No! Bender! The other way!" Bender: "I like him better this way." Professor: "I'm sad now..."
I remember my freshman year at Penn State. I met a few people on my floor who wanted to major in comp sci. Unfortunately, they didn't have any idea what C, java, etc were, and one didn't even own a computer. They admitted they were only majoring in comp sci because that was where the big money was. This was in 2000. Luckily. Penn State had a specific major for these types of people -- information technology science (or as I liked to call it, a b.s. in frontpage).
Parent.modpoints++;
Most people I know here (Suburban NY) refuse to read any work aside from 'executive' summaries & Cliff notes. I write techincal papers for a living; I would say a good 90% read the first page (the afore mentioned 'executive' summary) and proceed to fire off questions about what is covered in the other 99% of the document. We intentionally write in 'lay man''s' terms to avoid talking over many people, yet they refuse to read anything more than the first 1 - 2 pages. We have purposfully tested this idea with writing the first five pages in english, then filing in the rest with either technobable from a Markov Generator or pages from lipsum. Although this was an unimportant document, only one person actually asked what the rest of the document ment. Ouch. It's a good thing that I don't have to stay if layed off by a decent program (since that could easily generate a two page summary for these idiots).
This comment is too long. Can someone give me an executive summary?
So what you're saying is if you can't fix every problem there's no point in fixing any problem? Isn't that kind of like saying "Well we lost one tire but we still have three so let's keep driving"?
We know that all that extra carbon dioxide isn't making matters better so where is the downside of reducing something we know we're creating excess of?
Actually, I think a better analogy would be "well we lost one engine on our 747, but we still have three, so let's keep flying", where the flight would represent the world economy. Sure, we have to fix that engine eventually, but we can do so after the plane lands (future energy technologies materialize) rather then shutting down the remaining three engines and taking a nose dive (subscribing to the OMG DOOMSDAY IS THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW scenario and crippling major world economies).
Actually, letting the democrats win this time was just a karlrovian scheme in order to lull the democrats into a false sense of security. In 2008, Rove will tell Diebold to activate all the secret software mechanisms in the voting machines so that republicans win in a landslide. No one will suspect a thing since the democrats won this year. Muahahahaha.
In America, where only two parties are given a chance at winning by the media [and thus they shape perception that way into reality], you really can't lose by voting for a 3rd party. If you aren't happy with the current system, staying home isn't getting changes put into place. But if you vote Green, or Libertarian, or Independent, you're sending a message that you don't trust mainstream politics. Imagine what would happen if 10% of the voters went for non-Democrat and non-Republican. Could politicians really believe that that many millions of Americans don't deserve to be represented in Congress or the Presidency?
They'd HAVE to change the system to a more fair electoral system.
I disagree. If you happen to prefer a particular policy, you may be inclined to vote for a strong third-party candidate, whose beliefs closely match yours, over a weak populist candidate from the main stream party. While in an ideal political system you could vote for the best candidate, in our system your best option is to vote for the lesser of two evils. When too many people vote for the third candidate, you preclude the mainstream candidate from winning. Thus, you will be worse off when the candidate with polar opposite views to your own inevitably wins.
Now you may think it would be a good idea to "send a message", or "teach your party a lesson" by voting for a third party. The problem is that when your party loses, they resort to compromising their beliefs in order to try to regain their positions. After becoming sick of the opposition party being in power, you will probably vote for any populist candidate of your own party so that you will at least have someone tolerable representing you. But then the cycle repeats, the tolerable candidate will inevitably disappoint you again, and you will again teach them a lesson by kicking them out, and so forth.
The best strategy is to always vote for the lesser of two evils in our two-party system. Your job is to make sure that the best candidate wins in the primary election. There, you have the ability to punish a populist or ineffective representative in favor of one whom is in your best interest.
However, as far as American politics are concerned, this situation may change in the near future. If the republicans score a major victory today, the democrats may actually self-destruct. At this point, the republicans may fracture into the neoconservative and libertarian camps, resulting in a three party system.
The Bush tax cut is really like taking out a loan. Which means that taxes will be paid in the future. By whom? Those of us who are young right now. Remember, when you support a tax cut, you support taxing our future.
Only if you assume a zero-sum static economy. In reality, tax cuts stimulate economic development, leading to an increase in government revenue.
I'm more concerned about the actual, proven fraud committed by the likes of ACORN, abusing our lax voter registration laws, then a supposed fear over voter machine manipulation based only on conspiracy theories and conjecture.
It's funny that you used that phrase, because that is essentially what house minority leader Nanci Pelosi said recently. Quoted from the Boston Globe:
"[U]nless there are levels of theft and fraud that would truly mean the end of American democracy, a Democratic House seems as close to a sure thing as we ever get in American politics three days before an election... November 2006 will be remembered either as the time American democracy was stolen again, maybe forever, or began a brighter day. "
In other news, ACORN, a liberal activist group, has been caught registering thousands of fake voters in Missouri.
I've tried out the software and it was fun for some laughs. I'm not sure how it works exactly but I can tell that the angle of the face makes a difference. When I put one picture of myself in where I'm looking ever so slightly to the right, I'm matched with celebrities photos looking in that direction. When I put in a similar photo facing the other direction, I get a different set of celebrities looking in the other direction. There's a few overlaps and those are the ones I think I look the most like (although it's a stretch to say I have anything that could pass as a celebrity look).
I wonder if this technology could be combined with other advances in artificial recognition. I recently saw a video on youtube which demonstrated how a computer algorithm could determine the perspective of a photograph and create a 3-dimensional space that you could navigate inside of. Sorry I don't have the direct link but I can't access youtube from work.
Anyway, if this were applied to photos of faces, the software could create a 3d-model of the person to more accurately determine his shape, which would increase the accuracy of facial recognition. In addition, you could help by adding a white space in the person's photo with a ruler on it, so that the program would have an accurate idea of scale and colors to match dimensions and skin tones.
Just do as we say goddamnit, your not even 600 years old yet, you should listen to your elders.
kids today:)
If our elders could go more then 50 years without initiating a devastating world war, ruining tens of millions of lives, we might take them more seriously.;)
- as soon as we get all the intricacies of fusion reactors (hot, cold, or on the rocks) figured out. (there is a big jackpot to be won here by the first nation (or group of nations) to work this out)
I think fusion power is overrated. It is too complicated and expensive to be commercially viable within the next 50 years. By contrast, you could make more fission power plants using proven designs which just shovel dirt into the reactor (cheap natural uranium or thorium, which are plentiful and come from the US, Canada, Australia, etc). Use a breeder reactor and reprocessing, and you have essentially unlimited fuel. It's just a matter of capital costs to build more plants.
What I'm trying to say is that it is a misconception to think that fusion power will somehow immediately cure all of the world's energy needs. You still would have to build and feed the plants. In practice they would function much the same as fission plants do now, they would have higher capital costs but lower fuel costs, just like the difference between coal and fission plants do today.
You don't need Acrobat Reader to open PDFs, you know. There's a lot of less annoying choices out there that work fine with pretty much any reasonable PDF you throw at them.
For example, Foxit. This program is small, fast, and doesn't require installation.
Re:A ways to go before element 137
on
Element 118 Created
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Neutron stars are just big nuclei, and they contain billions of billions of moles of nucleons.
But neutron stars are held together by gravity, not the strong nuclear force (as far as we know).
Why do the mass that enters black holes, or are in some way attracted to it (like for spiral galaxies) typically form a disc shape?
I can see why water flowing out of a sink would have a disk shaped surface, but not really why black holes or even galaxies should.
Because of centrifugal force. As the material orbits the object at high speeds, it is thrown outwards perpendicular to its direction of travel. Like cooking a pizza, where the chef takes a sphere of dough and spins it around on his finger to make it flatten out into a pie.
Hrm... With that definition, Atomic bombs could be considered natural because we are assisting in natural atoms splitting.
Actually, there are naturally occuring nuclear reactors. All we had to do was dig the dirt up, stuff it through a few osmosis machines, and then slam together a critical mass.
Now that I think about it, if humanity is causing global warming, then your point would be apt. Both nuclear bombs and global warming are naturally occuring process that we accelerated by concentrating chemical/nuclear reactions.:)
Maybe it is because some artists know that the only way they can make money is by producing a hit single, packing 10 other filler songs on the album, and sell it for $20...
Listen to the news and take note: When the fighters are contrary to the wishes of US foreign policy, they are insurgeants or even terrorists. When they are for the wishes of US foreign policy, they are soldiers or even patriots. (This brought to light during the Reagan presidency regarding the actions in Nicaragua, it's the same these days.) News tends to colour Hezbollah and Hamas as organisations with dirty, bloody even, hands. The problem is, both sides are about as bad, rather like the tit-for-tat vengeance killing in Iraq between sunnis and shites. It's were everything becomes shades of gray and the news, often in line with Whitehouse wishes (because the Whitehouse feeds much of the media), is coloured in.
I have an even simpler definition for you:
Initiating conflicts, intentionally targeting civilians, intentionally putting civilians in harms way = terrorism.
Responding to aggression, making best efforts to not kill civilians even though foe dresses as and hides among civilians = not terrorism.
The news tends to cover Hezbollah with dirty and bloody hands because, well, they do. They intentionally locate their weapons in civilian locations such as apartment buildings, schools, and hospitals. They launch anti-personnel rockets towards population centers. When Israel responds, with inevitable civilian casualties, they are decried as evil baby killers. The media perpetuates this no-win situation by gobbling up every photo-op, whether real or doctored, because it forwards their agenda and/or ratings. How you could claim that the media is in the White house's pocket, especially in light of stories such as this one, is beyond me.
If a deranged 100 lb girl attacks me, I don't have to kill her to stop her. If she's got a gun, I do. If a 300 lb man attacks a 100 lb girl, and they both have guns, the question is just which one is faster on the draw, and more practiced firing a gun.
That is an absurd argument, you are comparing hypothetical situations which, if it ever occurs, is extremely uncommon, while the examples I mentioned happen millions of times per year.
Is that more likely to be: (a) a criminal who makes his (or her!) living from firearms skill, and who practices on a shooting range all day to be fast and accurate on the draw,
or
(b) an honest civillian who works 9-5 all day, comes home exhausted, and perhaps can squeeze an hour gun practice in if (s)he doesn't take the kids to soccer practice?
Giving criminals the tools to commit crimes, and the right to practice commiting crimes, strangely enough, doesn't reduce crimes all that much.
Obviously you have never fired a handgun, nor do you have any understanding of the issue. The entire purpose of firearms is that they can be used effectively with minimal training. I have a 9-5 job and I only practice shooting, at most, once per month. Yet that is enough to keep me proficient enough to defend myself. Just for reference, most police only qualify with their pistols once or twice per year. Furthermore, your claim that criminals frequent firing ranges to become proficient before commiting crimes is at best, dubious.
Where are all the quiet, self-effacing Texans, then? Where are all the meek, genteel guys from Detroit? Where are all the softspoken, nonconfrontational New Yorkers?
Face it: an unarmed society is a polite society. An armed society is a society of agressive thugs bristling with testosterone, and out to blow holes in anything they can find. Like most Americans you'll meet -- and yes, I've been there. And yes, the majority are crude, confrontational, and agressive: with no sense of community obligation, respect for others, and every single one of them spilling over with a false sense of personal superiority over his or her fellow man. If that's the consquenence of an armed society, by all means, keep your armed society the hell away from me!
Why do I get the feeling that I am wasting my time...
Do you wear a bulletproof vest? Are you clothes made of kevlar? Or are you lying when you say you're afraid of being attacked, and taking real, tangible steps to prevent it, when your real aim to find an opportunity to kill without being caught?
No, I don't wear a bullet-proof vest or wear kevlar underpants. At some times, yes I am afraid of being attacked. I live in one of the worst areas of the highest murder rate cities in the country. Just last year, an entire family was murdered in their home on Christmas morning. I guess you have run out of even semi-sensible arguments since you have resorted to accusing me of being a serial killer. I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post since it is getting off topic anyway.
What happens in a fist/knife fight? You can fight, or you can run (well, most of the time). What happens in a gun fight? You let the bullets fly. Shooting first is best, as every cowboy western duel has taught us. Guns are almost a 100% guarantee that more situations will come down to an actual fight, and that more people will be hurt. If they have the drop on you, you're equally SOL if you have a knife at your throat or a gun at your head. Yes, some hardened criminals have guns around here as well - but they're usually after bigger fish than the few dollars in your pocket. Your average street thug or wacko doesn't have a gun - and if they do they're very much so wanted by the police. "Shots fired" actually get real attention here, and with modern communication you can expect the cops to arrive in a timely fashion.
What happens in a fist/knife fight when it is a 300 lb rapist versus a 100 lb girl? Guns are equalizers, they give anyone, man, woman, elderly, the ability to defend themselves. An armed society is a polite society. Anyone who has a concealed carry permit can tell you that being armed increases ones awareness to not get in such a situation where you might have to defend yourself. Most criminals don't have a death wish and don't want to get shot. Over 4 million times per year, armed citizens use their weapons to defend themselves from criminals. In the vast majority of these cases, the criminal flees once they see their target is armed.
The world has moved on since the Dark Ages. Your (or any other witnesses) cell phone is a more powerful tool than the gun in almost every situation. There are really extremely few situations where you would have time to pull out a gun, and where the gun would be more efficient than the police. Either you have no time at all and would be shot, or you have run off, barricaded or hidden yourself somewhere and the police will arrive in time. It was a different time when you could be all alone on the farm in the countryside, and noone would help if you screamed off the top of your lungs.
There are a few problems with relying on the government to protect you. Firstly, the average response time for a 911 call can be 5 minutes or higher. A criminal can mug you, rape you, or break into your house in far less time. If someone attacks you on the street, you won't have time to call 911 and wait for help. The idea that you could run and barricade yourself until the police come to rescue you is both rediculous and dangerous. There have been many cases where someone heard an attacker breaking into their house, they called the police, but they never came. Most famously, in 1981, this happened to three women who were brutally and repeatadly raped in their Washington D.C. home because the police never came. They sued the city, but the courts ruled that the police are not required nor responsible to respond or help any invididual, their duty is only to protect the public at large, meaning to catch and punish the criminal after they already robbed/raped/killed you.
Do you own a fire extinguisher in your home? I assume you do, because it is a tool that can be used to save your life and your property. You could just rely on 911 and call them for even small fires that you could put out yourself. But then again, a small fire could grow and burn your entire house down before the firefighters arrive.
2) Guns protecting "the people" from the government
Sure, a bunch of guys with handguns could be the core of an army in 1776 or thereabouts. Maybe even well into the 19th century. Look around, there's fighter jets, bombers, tanks, artillery, mechanised infantry, machine guns, destroyers and battleships. Hundreds of thousands of men like that died on a single day in WWI, they'd last even shorter today. The closest thing they could mount to a defense would be trying to lead a guerilla war, but they couldn't hold any ground. Any armed revolution that wa
And even if you built such a thing, you still wouldn't understand how it works, it would just be an equally mysterious human intelligence implemented in a moon sized computer. Also, we are nowwhere near understanding the anatomy of the brain to a degree that would permit us to make our moon-sized replication.
Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and they ask me to simulte a human mind. Call that job satisfaction, 'cause I don't...
Slashdot Mirror
Although your post was meant as satire, it is essentially correct. We don't have to do anything to win. As long as we stay, we prevent a) Iran from taking over and making Iraq their puppet state and b) any sort of full-on civil war from occurring.
Fry: "Professor, we're all sick of your new upbeat attitude." ..." ..."
Professor: "Nonsense! It's just in the song I wrote! 'We all need a new angle on life!
Leela: "Bender, you've gotta help us!"
Bender: "I try to get out, but they keep pulling me back in!"
Professor: *crack* "OWW!"
Amy: "No! Bender! The other way!"
Bender: "I like him better this way."
Professor: "I'm sad now
I remember my freshman year at Penn State. I met a few people on my floor who wanted to major in comp sci. Unfortunately, they didn't have any idea what C, java, etc were, and one didn't even own a computer. They admitted they were only majoring in comp sci because that was where the big money was. This was in 2000. Luckily. Penn State had a specific major for these types of people -- information technology science (or as I liked to call it, a b.s. in frontpage).
This comment is too long. Can someone give me an executive summary?
Actually, I think a better analogy would be "well we lost one engine on our 747, but we still have three, so let's keep flying", where the flight would represent the world economy. Sure, we have to fix that engine eventually, but we can do so after the plane lands (future energy technologies materialize) rather then shutting down the remaining three engines and taking a nose dive (subscribing to the OMG DOOMSDAY IS THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW scenario and crippling major world economies).
Actually, letting the democrats win this time was just a karlrovian scheme in order to lull the democrats into a false sense of security. In 2008, Rove will tell Diebold to activate all the secret software mechanisms in the voting machines so that republicans win in a landslide. No one will suspect a thing since the democrats won this year. Muahahahaha.
I disagree. If you happen to prefer a particular policy, you may be inclined to vote for a strong third-party candidate, whose beliefs closely match yours, over a weak populist candidate from the main stream party. While in an ideal political system you could vote for the best candidate, in our system your best option is to vote for the lesser of two evils. When too many people vote for the third candidate, you preclude the mainstream candidate from winning. Thus, you will be worse off when the candidate with polar opposite views to your own inevitably wins.
Now you may think it would be a good idea to "send a message", or "teach your party a lesson" by voting for a third party. The problem is that when your party loses, they resort to compromising their beliefs in order to try to regain their positions. After becoming sick of the opposition party being in power, you will probably vote for any populist candidate of your own party so that you will at least have someone tolerable representing you. But then the cycle repeats, the tolerable candidate will inevitably disappoint you again, and you will again teach them a lesson by kicking them out, and so forth.
The best strategy is to always vote for the lesser of two evils in our two-party system. Your job is to make sure that the best candidate wins in the primary election. There, you have the ability to punish a populist or ineffective representative in favor of one whom is in your best interest.
However, as far as American politics are concerned, this situation may change in the near future. If the republicans score a major victory today, the democrats may actually self-destruct. At this point, the republicans may fracture into the neoconservative and libertarian camps, resulting in a three party system.
Only if you assume a zero-sum static economy. In reality, tax cuts stimulate economic development, leading to an increase in government revenue.
+1, insightful
-5, right-wing nut
*ahem* you forgot about Tellah. Spoony bard.
I wonder if this technology could be combined with other advances in artificial recognition. I recently saw a video on youtube which demonstrated how a computer algorithm could determine the perspective of a photograph and create a 3-dimensional space that you could navigate inside of. Sorry I don't have the direct link but I can't access youtube from work.
Anyway, if this were applied to photos of faces, the software could create a 3d-model of the person to more accurately determine his shape, which would increase the accuracy of facial recognition. In addition, you could help by adding a white space in the person's photo with a ruler on it, so that the program would have an accurate idea of scale and colors to match dimensions and skin tones.
If our elders could go more then 50 years without initiating a devastating world war, ruining tens of millions of lives, we might take them more seriously. ;)
I think fusion power is overrated. It is too complicated and expensive to be commercially viable within the next 50 years. By contrast, you could make more fission power plants using proven designs which just shovel dirt into the reactor (cheap natural uranium or thorium, which are plentiful and come from the US, Canada, Australia, etc). Use a breeder reactor and reprocessing, and you have essentially unlimited fuel. It's just a matter of capital costs to build more plants.
What I'm trying to say is that it is a misconception to think that fusion power will somehow immediately cure all of the world's energy needs. You still would have to build and feed the plants. In practice they would function much the same as fission plants do now, they would have higher capital costs but lower fuel costs, just like the difference between coal and fission plants do today.
For example, Foxit. This program is small, fast, and doesn't require installation.
But neutron stars are held together by gravity, not the strong nuclear force (as far as we know).
I can see why water flowing out of a sink would have a disk shaped surface, but not really why black holes or even galaxies should.
Because of centrifugal force. As the material orbits the object at high speeds, it is thrown outwards perpendicular to its direction of travel. Like cooking a pizza, where the chef takes a sphere of dough and spins it around on his finger to make it flatten out into a pie.
Actually, there are naturally occuring nuclear reactors. All we had to do was dig the dirt up, stuff it through a few osmosis machines, and then slam together a critical mass.
Now that I think about it, if humanity is causing global warming, then your point would be apt. Both nuclear bombs and global warming are naturally occuring process that we accelerated by concentrating chemical/nuclear reactions. :)
Maybe it is because some artists know that the only way they can make money is by producing a hit single, packing 10 other filler songs on the album, and sell it for $20...
http://www.supremecommander.com/
I have an even simpler definition for you:
Initiating conflicts, intentionally targeting civilians, intentionally putting civilians in harms way = terrorism.
Responding to aggression, making best efforts to not kill civilians even though foe dresses as and hides among civilians = not terrorism.
The news tends to cover Hezbollah with dirty and bloody hands because, well, they do. They intentionally locate their weapons in civilian locations such as apartment buildings, schools, and hospitals. They launch anti-personnel rockets towards population centers. When Israel responds, with inevitable civilian casualties, they are decried as evil baby killers. The media perpetuates this no-win situation by gobbling up every photo-op, whether real or doctored, because it forwards their agenda and/or ratings. How you could claim that the media is in the White house's pocket, especially in light of stories such as this one, is beyond me.
That is an absurd argument, you are comparing hypothetical situations which, if it ever occurs, is extremely uncommon, while the examples I mentioned happen millions of times per year.
Is that more likely to be: (a) a criminal who makes his (or her!) living from firearms skill, and who practices on a shooting range all day to be fast and accurate on the draw,
or
(b) an honest civillian who works 9-5 all day, comes home exhausted, and perhaps can squeeze an hour gun practice in if (s)he doesn't take the kids to soccer practice?
Giving criminals the tools to commit crimes, and the right to practice commiting crimes, strangely enough, doesn't reduce crimes all that much.
Obviously you have never fired a handgun, nor do you have any understanding of the issue. The entire purpose of firearms is that they can be used effectively with minimal training. I have a 9-5 job and I only practice shooting, at most, once per month. Yet that is enough to keep me proficient enough to defend myself. Just for reference, most police only qualify with their pistols once or twice per year. Furthermore, your claim that criminals frequent firing ranges to become proficient before commiting crimes is at best, dubious.
Where are all the quiet, self-effacing Texans, then? Where are all the meek, genteel guys from Detroit? Where are all the softspoken, nonconfrontational New Yorkers?
Face it: an unarmed society is a polite society. An armed society is a society of agressive thugs bristling with testosterone, and out to blow holes in anything they can find. Like most Americans you'll meet -- and yes, I've been there. And yes, the majority are crude, confrontational, and agressive: with no sense of community obligation, respect for others, and every single one of them spilling over with a false sense of personal superiority over his or her fellow man. If that's the consquenence of an armed society, by all means, keep your armed society the hell away from me!
Why do I get the feeling that I am wasting my time...
Do you wear a bulletproof vest? Are you clothes made of kevlar? Or are you lying when you say you're afraid of being attacked, and taking real, tangible steps to prevent it, when your real aim to find an opportunity to kill without being caught?
No, I don't wear a bullet-proof vest or wear kevlar underpants. At some times, yes I am afraid of being attacked. I live in one of the worst areas of the highest murder rate cities in the country. Just last year, an entire family was murdered in their home on Christmas morning. I guess you have run out of even semi-sensible arguments since you have resorted to accusing me of being a serial killer. I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post since it is getting off topic anyway.
What happens in a fist/knife fight? You can fight, or you can run (well, most of the time). What happens in a gun fight? You let the bullets fly. Shooting first is best, as every cowboy western duel has taught us. Guns are almost a 100% guarantee that more situations will come down to an actual fight, and that more people will be hurt. If they have the drop on you, you're equally SOL if you have a knife at your throat or a gun at your head. Yes, some hardened criminals have guns around here as well - but they're usually after bigger fish than the few dollars in your pocket. Your average street thug or wacko doesn't have a gun - and if they do they're very much so wanted by the police. "Shots fired" actually get real attention here, and with modern communication you can expect the cops to arrive in a timely fashion.
What happens in a fist/knife fight when it is a 300 lb rapist versus a 100 lb girl? Guns are equalizers, they give anyone, man, woman, elderly, the ability to defend themselves. An armed society is a polite society. Anyone who has a concealed carry permit can tell you that being armed increases ones awareness to not get in such a situation where you might have to defend yourself. Most criminals don't have a death wish and don't want to get shot. Over 4 million times per year, armed citizens use their weapons to defend themselves from criminals. In the vast majority of these cases, the criminal flees once they see their target is armed.
The world has moved on since the Dark Ages. Your (or any other witnesses) cell phone is a more powerful tool than the gun in almost every situation. There are really extremely few situations where you would have time to pull out a gun, and where the gun would be more efficient than the police. Either you have no time at all and would be shot, or you have run off, barricaded or hidden yourself somewhere and the police will arrive in time. It was a different time when you could be all alone on the farm in the countryside, and noone would help if you screamed off the top of your lungs.
There are a few problems with relying on the government to protect you. Firstly, the average response time for a 911 call can be 5 minutes or higher. A criminal can mug you, rape you, or break into your house in far less time. If someone attacks you on the street, you won't have time to call 911 and wait for help. The idea that you could run and barricade yourself until the police come to rescue you is both rediculous and dangerous. There have been many cases where someone heard an attacker breaking into their house, they called the police, but they never came. Most famously, in 1981, this happened to three women who were brutally and repeatadly raped in their Washington D.C. home because the police never came. They sued the city, but the courts ruled that the police are not required nor responsible to respond or help any invididual, their duty is only to protect the public at large, meaning to catch and punish the criminal after they already robbed/raped/killed you.
Do you own a fire extinguisher in your home? I assume you do, because it is a tool that can be used to save your life and your property. You could just rely on 911 and call them for even small fires that you could put out yourself. But then again, a small fire could grow and burn your entire house down before the firefighters arrive.
2) Guns protecting "the people" from the government Sure, a bunch of guys with handguns could be the core of an army in 1776 or thereabouts. Maybe even well into the 19th century. Look around, there's fighter jets, bombers, tanks, artillery, mechanised infantry, machine guns, destroyers and battleships. Hundreds of thousands of men like that died on a single day in WWI, they'd last even shorter today. The closest thing they could mount to a defense would be trying to lead a guerilla war, but they couldn't hold any ground. Any armed revolution that wa
Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and they ask me to simulte a human mind. Call that job satisfaction, 'cause I don't...
The man who never has enough time is now cursed with hour glass eyes. How perfect is that?