| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
Comments:
<0> tweek: you are right, one firearm is not. which is why the right to have a firearm should be more than simply being a rich politician, aka Nancy Pelso or Boxer, or Schumer
<1> Lupine: good point
<1> Lupine: I just question who and who should not own a gun
<2> awsome
<0> tweek: in the US, you as a private citizen has no right to protection from the govn't.
<3> and allow people to borrw money for education against what their families have cumulitively paid into soc security and not tapped.
<1> I never said goverment should limit gun ownership
<4> the right to have a firearm should be more than simply being a rich politician?
<4> the ****?
<5> antifed...hopefully an automag
<4> antifed: you'll take down two, maybe three, ATF agents before you're filled fulla lead. don't deny it.
<1> Lupine: so why do we go to war,s and give goverment aka iraq m***ive money to buy weapons, but deny others not to own weapons
<0> gop: well, pragmatically I would agree with you. the problem is, the 2nd amendment has been eroded by 99%.. so of course, anyone who supports the 2nd amendment is extremely skeptical of any attempts to limit it more.
<6> Cry: I really need to get a good rifle.
<2> im gonna analyze the current system and point out its errors and how it works, then discuss the reforms such as privatizing and personal security system proposal
<6> Cry: I'd like to get my hands on a Steyr Aug.
<7> tweek, the idea is that the govt. won't do anything really stupid if the whole population is armed.
<7> Not that the population will win, but simply that it'll deterr a major event.
<7> Cause let's face it, if the military detached from the regular population and wanted to kill us all
<1> P_O: good point
<0> well, if the SHTF, i got dibs on the MG-42 :-)
<7> there would be little to stopt hem.
<4> P_O: that I can at least agree with. I doubt the US Gov't would do many stupid things, regardless of gun ownership, however.
<4> they're at the top - they have much to lose.
<3> P_O, it the american population decided that they weren't gonna take it anymore there isnt a damn thing the government could do about it.
<3> armed or not
<7> tweek, sometimes more power can be gotten through violent changes in the govt than can be through convincing voters of something.
<0> tweek: they already do many stupid things.. look at the police mentality in some cities.. such as NYC... the NYPD will open fire on anyone with a firearm,, and often, open fires on people without a firearm.
<7> That's what happened in a lot of South American countries.
<6> FEMA: Should that happen, we'd see another War between the States.
<1> tweek: they have, under clinton they where wire tapping emails, rember
<4> were this a country with a poor income and very little gov't ability to control ****, the likelihood of the gov't opening fire on entire cities rises.
<0> P_O: indeed..it wasn't eh majority of the citizens who fought the revolutionary war
<4> gop: ... what in the **** are you talking about, dude
<1> they even kicked a guy from clinton state of the union address
<1> for having a simple tshirt
<3> their plan is to keep some of us so pacified with trifles and trinkets and bull**** prejudices that we never consolidate our forces.
<1> the goverment has become a police state in many cases
<4> gop: since when did Clinton, T-shirts, or wiretapping come into the discussion? I'm confused
<1> you said the goverment has not done any crazy things
<1> when it has
<8> BlueJeans: maybe I'm wrong, but I'm sure it was ammonium hydroxide and aluminum, and the problem was that the liquid gel'd up, so the battery needed to be rebuilt, and that's why it wasn't feasable yet
<3> and that pacified few will control the rest.
<9> the government isn't some quasi-physical entity. It's people. and since a people now and again do crazy things...
<4> Lupine: what, for riot control? yeah, **** them. owning a gun really won't change that, IMO, however... it's not as if you outnumber 'em, in general, or as if they would allow a situation like a few thousand angry people with guns to come into being.
<1> what if one day with are controlled by a none bias computer
<1> goverment
<3> then just short me in the head.
<1> that is a none bias robot who is president who is judge, and makes no error
<9> gop: too bizarre an idea.
<1> how will a gun help us thier
<6> Jakyl: people do crazy things, like wiretap other people without warrents..
<10> Nomex, okay. That sounds really interesting. When I get a chance, I can look further on my own. Aluminum - Aluminum hydroxide should store a lot of energy with little weight. It would be cool if they can pull this off. The world needs a better battery.
<8> Warrants
<9> gop: you will be at the mercy of the computer's programmers then
<4> Jakyl: what if it's an evolutionary system?
<0> tweek: well, your arguement seems to be that the private citizen ought to be better armed,so they would be more effective. I agree
<3> you wanna be a slave to the machine then go ahead. just dont try to take the rest of the world with you.
<11> I do hope the Dems focus on the "domestic spying" controversy as the election approaches :-)
<1> well what if computers can program themself
<4> what gop said.
<1> that computers program other computers that program robots
<9> antifed: yeah, and they blow up children in government buildings because their irrational paranoia overcame them
<9> antifed: the broom sweeps both ways
<8> BlueJeans: at least we have lithium polymer right now
<8> that's some ok storage
<1> I don't want a computer telling me like it does know, that I got a parking ticket
<1> when I didn't break a law
<8> I wonder when li-po will take over everything
<3> second generation autobots. its an old idea. its been explored. it aint gonna happen.
<4> Lupine: more effective? true. will riot if they don't get their regular shipment of Twinkies? not so likely.l
<1> or misused the parking space
<6> Jakyl: you're ***uming you know McVey's motives.
<1> or a big corporation, having a glitch and over charging us
<4> 'the second revolution begine when the Second Amendment is revoked', as seen on a bumper sticker? - no.
<10> true. but lithium technology is expensive. Cheap and light would be a god-send.
<7> gop, computers are not without error.
<7> A computer could not be a judge.
<9> antifed: ***uming? heh.
<4> wishful NRA thinking. you're gonna be shot if you try ****, and no one will care.
<8> yeah
<1> P_O: thus it will have a error, even if none bias
<1> P_O: and how will a gun save you then
<1> what if a glitch made you enemey of the state
<7> Well, a bullet does even more damage to a computer than to a human actually heh.
<6> the 2nd revolution will happen when the Federal Government encroaches too far into State Business, just as it did last time.
<7> One broken circuit and you're ****ed.
<1> P_O: not to a bullet proof machine
<8> p_o: depends on the comp
<7> Nomex, I guess.
<3> Colossus: The Forbin Project is a good movie. you should watch it.
<8> I know a few servers that would take a bullet
<7> But if you shoot through the motherboard.
<1> why could a computer not be a judge, in some near future
<12> yeah, the. .state revolution.
<5> antifed...Second Civil war you mean
<7> Or if you shoot down a rack
<10> Nomex, lead-acid is on par with flywheels these days. (Thre is a company that makes flywheel energy storage for the server farms).
<12> anyone ever tell you yer nuts?
<5> and when that happens...the whole world will got down ttoilet
<6> Cry: no, I mean State Revolution. but yes, I am refering to the first as the so called 'civil ware'
<1> I see goverment being controlled or being program to control via computers
<6> war, even
<13> P_O: computers are not without error mainly because both the hardware and software is designed by humans, which are obviously not without error :P
<4> gop: too unpredictable. artifical neural networks are actually used *now* for many, many applications that require quick unbiased pattern recognition decisions.
<6> Cry: The States revolted against the federal government for the first time then, and may again.
<4> but they don't always get everything right.
<1> IamKing: so a computer controlling or even a computer judge, could make you an emeny of the state, if ( glitch) error or memory leak makes it seem you are.
<0> tweek: you are right, the 2nd amendment was repealed in 1934
<3> but the computer would be a distributed system. shoot one part of it and if it is intelligent it will just use its remote backup and or reconfigure some telephone company equipment and take revenge anyway.
<1> No way to go against computer jdugement
<1> FEMA: yea
<1> good point
<1> it will have a backup
<4> Lupine: heh! another NRA wet dream...
<14> gop : Computers need Checks and Balances like we humans.
<4> give 'em something to whine about, I guess.
<1> until your bullets are gone
<12> oh noez dey takin mah guns
<12> shoot gubmint
<12> librals
<1> TimothyWT: yea a computer programmer
<12> end of days!!!
<1> and he will have a bias
<12> AAAAA
<14> gop : no.
<3> Terminator explored that very well also.
<1> so the computer programmer will have NO bias
<4> gop: you see the vote-tallying contest to obfuscate bias into the code?
<4> pretty interesting stuff.
<3> machine logic doesn't work for human beings.
<1> he human, and he will create a machine, that can program other machine that program other machines or robots
<1> tweek: some say that, sure
<1> not likely this time
<4> no, this is an actual contest.
<1> but in the near future say no
<1> say why not
<1> my point is we should not trust goverment
<14> gop : When we have Androids even if they have all the answers we will need to check and balance them.
<1> big goverment, we should keep an eye out
<4> the goal was to write a bit of code that looked like an innocent vote tally counter, but would give more votes to a certain candidate.
<6> eh, both of you really ought to leave the whole AI issue alone until someone can show me one AI that can p*** the turing test
<4> the IOCCC is awesome ****
<3> for man to be governed by machines you would have to change the nature of man. that ain't gonna happen. man hasn't really changed at all for the length of written history.
<1> TimothyWT: but if they take over, and misunderstand the logic, they could misunder you as enmeny
<1> thier computer machine which some here play with at work, could have enough power to control a small town
<14> gop : duh thats why I don't want Andriods Robots in the battlefield.
<1> let look 20 or 30 years down the road
<1> maybe a whole county or half a state
<1> TimothyWT: hmm good point
<1> both big goverment or machines controlling us is wrong
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#gamedev
#freebsd
Merle Haggard licks
flash buttons.fla
#politics
hvcplus undernet
#nhl
aurelius wtf2.jpg
clothing optional college
#linuxhelp
|
|