While its possible to remove the terrorists from google, Twitter, facebook etc.. you only move to where they will talk to some heavily encrypted chat system (or some abandoned sonic fetish phpbb forum), and obviously you end getting several "false positives" in the process.
Also with the terrorists visible its easier to infiltrate someone on the group and get em to meet on some place where the whole fucking army will be waiting.
If you could point out a female president to be elected would help, because right now all we have is a reality show villain and a literal terminator, just wanting more control over the drones to take out the human population.
Yes, if you do accomplish to actually ban guns on a way you remove the guns from the hand of the criminals, you will indeed and undoubtedly reduce the crimes. But with a ban that is as effective as let's say the ban on drugs, you manage to reduce the regular gun buying of regular citizens, but people planning to commit a crime will still be able to find the guns in a very easy fashion. The lack of criminality in japan is more linked to the lack of poverty and culture than gun bans.
All sounds nice in paper, but yet, you still can buy cocaine easily, and the laws on it are pretty much just as rough as the ones you just proposed.
Obviously there would a good benefit on performing a good background check and actually training the person how to safely handle the gun instead of just "LETS GIVE WEAPONS TO EVERYONE LOL", but banning guns won't solve the issue of people that want to commit crimes having access to weapons. The best approach is giving people less reasons to want to commit crimes in first place.
Well, you can make it illegal, but can you actually stop it from being distributed? As i said on another post, right now you can buy cocaine on your own city, and won't be even that hard. And you know how many trillions of dollars were spent worldwide trying to get rid of it, don't you?
Same dudes will just put "and now selling guns too!" on their signs.
The problem is the how. It's easy to scream "ban the something" and enact laws etc.. but actually getting it banned? Now that's an different story entirely. I bet that if you know how, you can buy cocaine in less than a hour in your own city, and all a "weapon ban" would do is just give the same guys one more thing to sell.
"Silencing" people only lead em to go discuss somewhere else and now with even less opposition, which leads em to becoming even more racists, xenophobes etc.. And no, you can't "kill all places".
That would indeed lead to a very nice shortcut. "Google is now owned by this mysterious Mr.X, and his first order is to exponentially increase the funding of the google AI".
I think depends a bit on how much money the lawyer would be able to potentially extract as well. Just think on how much you can ask from google for example.
They probably use some text to speech algorithm first, and then feed their massive insane AI with the data that uses it to determine things like if the person is a victim/perpetrator to ring a phone somewhere with cryptic words, or the brand of toothpaste the person use or usually both.
Those nasty stuffs will still keep being shared and accessed via encryption and disguise, unless of course, actual police job is done and the people producing the material in first place get sent into jail. At a basic level, its a battle that can't be won, but on more serious levels, "overblocking" mean blocking everything the government or people paying corrupt people in the government to block.
Slashdot Mirror
You know how many linux machines you used just to post this?
While its possible to remove the terrorists from google, Twitter, facebook etc.. you only move to where they will talk to some heavily encrypted chat system (or some abandoned sonic fetish phpbb forum), and obviously you end getting several "false positives" in the process.
Also with the terrorists visible its easier to infiltrate someone on the group and get em to meet on some place where the whole fucking army will be waiting.
Most trump "supporters" would immediately switch if an actually good candidate appeared, but trump is all they got.
If you could point out a female president to be elected would help, because right now all we have is a reality show villain and a literal terminator, just wanting more control over the drones to take out the human population.
But does it run Linux?
You never know when that newest vr game may include a trump hair "hat".
Yes, if you do accomplish to actually ban guns on a way you remove the guns from the hand of the criminals, you will indeed and undoubtedly reduce the crimes.
But with a ban that is as effective as let's say the ban on drugs, you manage to reduce the regular gun buying of regular citizens, but people planning to commit a crime will still be able to find the guns in a very easy fashion.
The lack of criminality in japan is more linked to the lack of poverty and culture than gun bans.
All sounds nice in paper, but yet, you still can buy cocaine easily, and the laws on it are pretty much just as rough as the ones you just proposed.
Obviously there would a good benefit on performing a good background check and actually training the person how to safely handle the gun instead of just "LETS GIVE WEAPONS TO EVERYONE LOL", but banning guns won't solve the issue of people that want to commit crimes having access to weapons.
The best approach is giving people less reasons to want to commit crimes in first place.
Well, you can make it illegal, but can you actually stop it from being distributed?
As i said on another post, right now you can buy cocaine on your own city, and won't be even that hard.
And you know how many trillions of dollars were spent worldwide trying to get rid of it, don't you?
Same dudes will just put "and now selling guns too!" on their signs.
The problem is the how.
It's easy to scream "ban the something" and enact laws etc.. but actually getting it banned? Now that's an different story entirely.
I bet that if you know how, you can buy cocaine in less than a hour in your own city, and all a "weapon ban" would do is just give the same guys one more thing to sell.
And what kind of gunpowder eating nanorobotic technology do you have to offer to make that happen?
Well people that use "think of the children" as an excuse to force things are the first to trample over the actual children to get their way.
Don't like what I write? Find me and kill me. You will not! Why? Cowardice!
Ha ha
Hey, don't tempt Cruz like that! He been trying to stop the whole zodiac killing been quite a while now.
Well, at least they didn't used the ol "think of the children!!" bullshit this time.
"Silencing" people only lead em to go discuss somewhere else and now with even less opposition, which leads em to becoming even more racists, xenophobes etc..
And no, you can't "kill all places".
That would indeed lead to a very nice shortcut.
"Google is now owned by this mysterious Mr.X, and his first order is to exponentially increase the funding of the google AI".
I think depends a bit on how much money the lawyer would be able to potentially extract as well.
Just think on how much you can ask from google for example.
You know that several of his books are basically "how the three laws will fuck everything up", right?
When the AI get smart enough to hire a lawyer or became one.
They probably use some text to speech algorithm first, and then feed their massive insane AI with the data that uses it to determine things like if the person is a victim/perpetrator to ring a phone somewhere with cryptic words, or the brand of toothpaste the person use or usually both.
Those nasty stuffs will still keep being shared and accessed via encryption and disguise, unless of course, actual police job is done and the people producing the material in first place get sent into jail.
At a basic level, its a battle that can't be won, but on more serious levels, "overblocking" mean blocking everything the government or people paying corrupt people in the government to block.
Not just using the composite, but abusing the "slow" ntsc encoder to produce 16 colors from the original 4.
It's a no-brainer choice here.
But if you send scientists to space, they will actually survive and probably thrive.
Using it with a television to play games, right?
Without the NTSC glitch,CGA is quite horrid.