Crime is more deadly when it is perpetrated with more deadly weapons.
And thus, we gather, you advocate more deadly crime. Here's some advice: an essay, couched in fancy grammar, does not necessarily make an argument compelling except to your own choir. Within all the balderdash though, we see some truth: Crime is more deadly when it is perpetrated with more deadly weapons.
|
|
|
|
.....
im skeptical of the moon landing myself (note this is not the same thing as saying "i know we never landed on the moon") but you dont seem to understand the physics of traveling in a zero g vacuum. it doenst require a great deal of fuel to lift off of the moon and from that point you just coast along, there is no friction to slow you down so you only need enough fuel to accelerate and decelerate.
I don't know if you saw this link, but the work of Kooima is absolutely amazing. Basically you can download lunar maps to under a half meter resolution and explore the place. It takes a high end gamer style computer. M odern radar mapping has shown us these landing sites, and has resolved the equipment left there, the vehicle tracks, and even the footprints of these men in the surface powder. (starts at 2:50 or so)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPJDxEkmjJo |
|
|
|
It's pretty easy to figure out to me. The moon's gravity is 1/6th of the earth's. Look at the NASA picture I posted of the fake spacecraft - does that in any way seem like 1/6th of a Saturn rocket? Keep in mind that the bottom portion supposedly stayed on the moon and just the top half takes off. It's about the size of a SUV. Logically, that would mean that the Saturn rockets would have only needed to be the size of about 6 SUVs. That and about 1000 other things don't add up. Next time you're trying to figure out how big a spacecraft needs to be, try using math instead of just guessing. I happened by an unexpected chance, to see the full exhibits of Tsiolkovsky at the Museum of Jurassic Technology in Los Angeles. This part of that Museum is worth visiting if you have a chance. As for cryptoanarchist, here he shows that he does not understand the rocket equation. More basic than that, his error is in not understanding the relation between velocity and momentum. |
|
|
|
While I dread to barge in on episodes of the blind leading the blind, and the accompanying crass affronts to logic and reason, the topic at hand is timely, and the general Bitcoin audience of a decidedly egalitarian bent, I will share some musings with our beloved subset of the vox populi for your further amusement......
This was forewarned by Eisenhower: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtYThe science fiction of Daniel Suarez (Daemon, Freedom, Kill Decision) guesses at some of the future dystopian enventualities of our current course of corporate mega control of politicians and society. I don't agree with his conclusions, but find his work highly imaginative and entertaining. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUEGzjnGsiAThe effort to produce the argument from first principles is appreciated, for me personally living in the USA, my position is quite different. It is more like "I have this right, the 2nd amendment, now how do we best live and conduct ourself with that reality". But yes, some would take it away, and the origin of those arguments are not in the loudest voices heard. This is because the very nature of "propaganda" is to be "propagated", and that is only really done by those who do not know it's nature, but do the job because it is popular or trendy, or they are paid in one fashion or another for so doing. It is unfortunate that some of the most important lessons of history cannot be so easily imparted and must be re learned the hard way over and over. Hopefully some part of this, at the least the tragic consequences of economic failure of nations overspending and printing money without end, can be mitigated by, as in the past, conversion to substitute currencies, but with Bitcoin, at an exponentially more rapid pace, and the net human suffering be according less. Forgive me for truncating in this reply some of your work. I'm interested in reading more, please either post references or if more appropriate send me a link to such. Well done. |
|
|
|
I understand. Some people drive me crazy on here, too. I just feel better, from a certain sense of schadenfreude knowing where people like him will end up in the future. At best, it will be exactly where they are now, in countries crumbling from debt, their prospects for retirement and pensions quickly evaporating, and their society devolving into riots and destruction. At worst, in a society where government services are rapidly becoming as relevant as CDs and copyright laws in the age of file sharing, where their system of beliefs are irrelevant, or get them killed. Maybe we would be feeling sorry for their types instead.
Says it all really. I don't bother arguing with them for the most part. Just make the occasional point here and there. Arguing with guys like these is too much like arguing with my parents. Endlessly frustrating and rarely do you get any sense out of them. More power to those of you that have the patience to make the relevant points. I can only imagine how exasperated your parents must be. You do have a point, but it beats being a Borg spawn of the deep far left spinmeister crypt, faithfully marching down the anti-gun tunnel of doom. |
|
|
|
... I'm gonna just relate to anarchism from now on, since anarcho-capitalism as most of us (and I say this but I have no idea if I'm the only one who actually thinks this way) know it, isn't actually very related to real capitalism. Actually? Anarcho-Capitalism has never been related to reality. It is science fiction, written by aristocratic elitists in Vienna. Oh come on. I would prefer Arachno-Capitalism. |
|
|
|
As I said, we don't really know. Is their crime rate low due to lack of guns, or due to their culture? Aren't there some places where guns are completely banned, where crime rates are really high? (like Washington DC)
Japan doesn't "lack" guns nor "gun deaths"/crime at all, despite what that bloody sociopath would have gun control victims believe about his criminals' utopia. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/25/the-great-japanese-gang-wars.htmlYeaaaah... There's plenty of anecdotal evidence that some people die from guns in places with gun control, but the US murder rate is 12x that of Japan. That said, there's only barely a correlation between murder rate and death rate in countries. It's extraordinary for someone to be murdered anywhere. Almost everyone in the world dies of disease, not guns, fists, spears, or bombs. Cancer's killed ~25m in the US in the past 40 years. Guns have been involved in roughly 500k homicides in the US in the past 40 years. The Brady Campaign takes in $4m annually. The Kanzius Institute takes in $1.3m annually. So...... yeah. This isn't fair, because Brady's the biggest, while Kanzius isn't (however, they are in the small minority of medical research NPFs actually spending the money almost entirely on actual programs), but I would argue America's wrong-prioritization currently = ((cancer deaths / gun deaths)*(cancer funding / gun funding)), or ~150%. The way I see it, we're basically 150% fucking stupid. If you go to cancer funding you will see a similar differential, namely breast cancer gets far more than other far deadlier cancers. Due to marketing, basically. |
|
|
|
He has abandoned reason. It is becoming increasingly clear that he just doesn't want any of his future rape victims to be able to protect themselves. ....
Although I don't agree with FirstAscent, and may rib him a little bit, there is no cause for ad hominem attacks. He may have some life experiences which have shaped his attitudes to their current state. Certainly his attitude roughly parallels that of many people in positions of power, who think they can make decisions for large disparate groups eg "one size fits all" thinking. Yeah, it's unsettling to see this attitude so blatantly displayed. But it's not uncommon... |
|
|
|
What is the alternative? Corporate science at least is under some sort of public and corporate scrutiny. Academic research, on the other hand, has been free to rot without any true oversight or audits. Over the past few decades it has mutated into the ultimate scam, source of irreproducible bullshit, and circle-jerk of awards and conferences. Most of modern-day graduate students and other researchers in sciences simply push random buttons and cluelessly repeat sloppy, uncontrolled experiments (disguised as "working hard") until one desired outcome appears - then sweep everything else under the rug, and struggle to sell the cherry-picked story as "science." Publish or perish. There are rare exceptions, of course - scientists who design their experiments beforehand, and honestly report the outcomes. But there are exceptions among the corporate scientist, too. The inflamatory article you linked to implies a dichotomy which is false; the real question here is not corporate-vs-someotherkindofscience, but good vs. bad science. Those among us directly involved, today, in scientific research will understand what I am pointing to. But what about the poor polar bears? LOL... |
|
|
|
Sounds like the only solution is to ban all guns in all cities, then when people bring them from nearby, ban them in states, then when they bring them from neighboring states, ban them in the whole country, then when they bring them from neighboring countries, ban them in all countries. .....
Don't be LOGICAL. Hold hands in a circle and sing "Give Peas a Chance!" |
|
|
|
The problem is you have no problem with it. How many times must I say: Ineffective laws (or even effective laws) ineffectively enforced put guns in criminals' hands? I specifically called for gun permits enforced at the federal level only precisely because Chicago residents can simply go elsewhere to get guns.
So let me understand this. A. Progressive Authoritarian Controllers cause Chicago to create gun control law and takes all the guns from the good guys, leaving the bad guys with all the guns. B. Doesn't work. Things get worse. WAY WORSE. C. Progressive authoritarian Controller calls for nation wide, uniform federal law taking guns away from the good guys to 'fix the problem'. D. So a big problem created by the Prog trying to fix a little problem now has to be solved by a bigger fix, with yet more risk and inconvenience and loss of property by the good guys. Basically your ideas are to screw with the rights of the good guys. Gosh...I wonder how that will work down in South Texas where Eric Holder has been arming all the Mexican gangs with AR15/AK47/AK74? I'm going to exit this thread for a short while to replace the heating element on my 3d printer. And then I'm going to print a gun. Give me a couple of days, and I'll return and with a bit of luck put up some photos. Your misunderstanding arises from the fact that you don't get the following: - More guns translates to more gun deaths. - Gun advocates are the ones responsible for allowing the free flow of guns into criminals' hands. - Ineffective laws enforced ineffectively put guns in criminals hands. - Ineffective laws enforced effectively put guns in criminals hands. - Effective laws enforced ineffectively put guns in criminals hands. - Inconsistent and competing laws allow criminals to get guns. Well, your misunderstanding arises from in part, not comprehending that I fully comprehend that many laws are "Ineffective or Inconsistent". What is baffling/ridiculous/absurd is that you think that some law that you or other current generation progressives dream up would be "better". I suggest rather that you look at "Ineffective" and understand it as a failure of centralized control concepts, then go spend your time at something more useful productive and profitable than opining ineffectively and inconsistently on internet forums. Wait a second. If you are ineffectively and inconsistently opining about ineffective and inconsistent rules and laws...Clearly you can solve the world's problems and are smarter and wiser than all those who came before and who implemented existing law. That is such utter nonsense. |
|
|
|
The problem is you have no problem with it. How many times must I say: Ineffective laws (or even effective laws) ineffectively enforced put guns in criminals' hands? I specifically called for gun permits enforced at the federal level only precisely because Chicago residents can simply go elsewhere to get guns.
So let me understand this. A. Progressive Authoritarian Controllers cause Chicago to create gun control law and takes all the guns from the good guys, leaving the bad guys with all the guns. B. Doesn't work. Things get worse. WAY WORSE. C. Progressive authoritarian Controller calls for nation wide, uniform federal law taking guns away from the good guys to 'fix the problem'. D. So a big problem created by the Prog trying to fix a little problem now has to be solved by a bigger fix, with yet more risk and inconvenience and loss of property by the good guys. Basically your ideas are to screw with the rights of the good guys. Gosh...I wonder how that will work down in South Texas where Eric Holder has been arming all the Mexican gangs with AR15/AK47/AK74? I'm going to exit this thread for a short while to replace the heating element on my 3d printer. And then I'm going to print a gun. Give me a couple of days, and I'll return and with a bit of luck put up some photos. |
|
|
|
Others in this thread seem to think they only get them from other criminals. The reality is they get them because people such as yourself (gun advocates) insist on allowing a free flowing path of guns into their hands.
Really? I probably missed that. Personally, I know that criminals buy their guns from other gun owners, either on the street, over the internet, or at gun shows. I know this because the media has been harping about "background checks" for almost a year now. I can't imagine that everyone else is actually as dumb as you claim them to be. Maybe? Yeah, there are people that dumb in this thread. Scroll back and find the post, or take my word for it. I believe it was Spendulus. Or maybe it wasn't Spendulus. And maybe you don't know the facts enough. For example, in Texas many convicted felons who have been clean for five years can buy guns. But they cannot pass the federal background check. Thus they are legal under state law, but not federal. Similar in numerous other states. I have no problem with that. Each state has differing problems. They are in a sense experimental societies. And we know how successful (NOT) Illinois, New York and Washington DC have been with their very restrictive gun laws. LOL.... |
|
|
|
For the record: I'd rather be shot in the heart than beaten to death. But more than anything, I'd rather not be attacked at all.
Would you rather be shot in the heart from twenty feet away, or have someone throw punches spears or arrows at you from twenty feet away? Fixed it. Unfortunately the fix makes smaller, weaker people such as women, children or the elderly far more capable of being assaulted... Darn, you don't think that might be the reason guns became popular, do you? |
|
|
|
It just doesn't seem in any way logical to assume that new laws would have the desired effect on someone or an entity who has already demonstrated no concern for your privacy, and other rights, and who is already openly breaking numerous laws and often in violation of sworn oaths. In Fact, I would consider this an excellent example of crazy.
Do realize that the surveillance framework is first and foremost about quashing mass movements borne of discontent. It has not 'come on-line' in a real sense mostly because there is yet no need. To a large degree the system works by simple intimidation (and to this end it is necessary at some point to uncover it's scale.) At a later phase, if it comes to this, it would be used for active policing. .....The surveillance framework is probably not really well suited to protecting itself in a functional democracy which, arguably, we still have here in the US. I make no apologies for believing that the most logical and suitable avenue of approach to this battle is old-school-democracy style politics and plain-Jane marketing/propaganda. This, in part, because 'our side' has the moral high ground. The alternate seems to be to sit around fantasizing about some revolution or what-not. It would be advisable to do some hard-nosed planning for such an eventuality, but not at the expense of neglecting more immediate efforts I have to say that a focus on the NSA's dirty tricks is really going to miss the boat. - Recently we say Eric Holder grab massive data from Verizon. He didn't use the NSA for that - he sent a court order to Verizon.
- The IRS is developing a comprehensive database on us, supposedly including all credit card and bank data.
- The forthcoming Obamacare database would hold intimate details on every American.
- Local police departments are close to being able to track most vehicles on the road by combining mosaic data from the uploaded records of their camera systems, both stationary and mobile.
The threats to liberties thus are occurring at multiple levels of government, and at each level in multiple places. Evidence of the political use of the datasets exists. Evidence exists that the major commercial companies involved in the NSA scandal will hand over data sets to anyone who has a buddy who is a judge. In the last year, we've seen a number of news stories about "the Democrats data center" and "how the smart guys at Google helped Obama win". But at that time we didn't know the "how". Now it is pretty obvious. Here is a concrete example of why I think focusing on the NSA is a red herring. Suppose you encrypt all your phone calls and data, increase your use of VPN and Tor, increase the use of cash and btc versus tracable credit card charges, encrypt computers and databases on the clouds, so forth and so on. Assume further that in that fight for privacy you fully utilize emerging tools that the market will provide which we haven't seen yet - and which will be very powerful and cheap. Suppose the NSA notices this pattern and it's filters respond by "keeping the data forever". So WHAT? That does not have anything to do with whether the thugs under Eric Holder get or can use those datasets, or the IRS, or the Dept. of Agriculture, or the political operatives of the Democrats, or any other of the current or future corrupt operations that may come to be. So I would argue that the figure is against the primary sources of the data aggregation which then benefits the various government agencies seeking to get it. And this would mean, yes, against Google and Yahoo ... and you can go on down that list. The fight is to prevent their aggregating data in a useful form, and your privacy interests are diametrically opposed to their commercial interests. Seems like that's what it's come to. |
|
|
|
But they likely wouldn't matter, and here's why. Basically, people that either grew up around firearms, who decided to learn about them, who are familiar with hunting, or who have had military or police style training know A LOT MORE THAN YOU. Now don't be offended - this happens in virtually every discussion where a liberal progressive tries to talk to what he thinks are "gun nuts".
If you know so much, how come you don't grasp some of the basics? Furthermore, what does it matter what your own personal opinion is regarding how adept you are at using firearms? The chances of you causing injury to yourself or someone else while in the possession of a firearm is infinitely greater than those who are not in possession of a firearm.Do you understand that all gun deaths are caused by those in possession of a firearm? They are never caused by those not in possession of firearms. All homicides, all suicides and accidents caused by guns are caused by those in possession of firearms. You seem to think that your claim as to proper gun usage eliminates gun deaths. It doesn't. Go back to the basic statement, highlighted above. Then look at the second bolded statement, which is of course ridiculous. For example, a rapist corners a girl, she pulls out her gun and shoots him. He dies. The "gun death", as you put it, was caused by the rapist attempting the assault, not by the girl acting in self defense. Far more commonly, we should note, she pulls out that firearm and once the bad guy sees it, that guy is off running. How common is that compared to an actual self defense shooting? You never hear about those cases where the gun was not fired, do you? They are a hundred to one. There are any number of real life situations where just the sound of a pump action shotgun chambering a round caused the bad guys to become total cowards.... Many examples like this where the presence of deadly force in the hands of the good guys prevented something bad from coming down. What you've done is tried to assert that the good guys are the bad guys! By any rules of debate with you have just lost the argument. But I already noted that gun control nuts always lose these arguments, because of a lack of actual knowledge..... You seem to think that your claim as to proper gun usage eliminates gun deaths. It doesn't. I suspect that ownership of chainsaws is far, far more prone to causing tragic accidents than ownership of guns. But let's stick with YOUR logic. Obviously, we need to take guns away from police and the military. Because as long as they have them, gun deaths could occur. Really? |
|
|
|
I think a good application of Bitcoin to defeat "counterfeit science", would be the crowd funding of studies designed to bring actual cures to the forefront, or even inexpensive natural treatments. Users who donated could vote on which application the funds would be applied to, and scientists and doctors could get independent funding from a group that is not themselves dependent on the status quo of academic, corporate, and medical systems.
For example we could start "Cancer Coin" and people could mine it at home and check a box to donate all mined funds to cancer cures which are voted on by the majority, or they can save it and donate it to any group they like. Currently almost all peer reviewed medical studies rely on funding from pharmaceutical companies which not only want to create positive results to sell their drugs, but want to continue a system of "treatments" over any kind of cure. In the US medical system, cure is a bad word. Independent funding could help combat this.
There might be something there, but I'm somewhat at a loss as to how average people would make intelligent decisions about something that's pretty darn technical. Might be a way in the future to put then-useless bitcoin miners to work doing something like protein folding to figure out some antibody antigen/enzyme functions related to cancer. |
|
|
|
Governments can never be trusted as long as they are godless,...
Not to detail the subject, but I wouldn't trust a godly government, either. See Dark Ages and modern Middle East for why. Better to make it short and pithy... "Governments can never be trusted..." |
|
|
|
...
Lobby for a program which would allow people to query their own data for references to themselves so they can check up on things to make sure that there are no mistakes and that no bad data got in which could come back to haunt them later.
...
Great points - all but the "lobbying". There's no stopping them now. Even if we could successfully lobby to stop them - they would not stop. Pandora's box has been opened... I didn't mean to sound quite so legal about it, but in the US at this point making the demand(s) of this nature clear to one's political representatives is almost certainly the best course of action. The issues can resonate with the population if the right cord is struck, and it is still the case that without popular support it takes a lot more special interest money to win elections. Plus there are a certain number of independent and decent politicians who are personally troubled by the direction these things are going and they are not useless. But on to the term 'lobby'... A lot of us place critical importance on 'getting the money out of politics.' It's actually not 'the money' which is so pernicious but what the money buys and how the sausage is made. One silver lining of the whole surveillance state apparatus is that it has almost certainly captured a great deal of the inner workings of our developing fascist state. I like the general way this conversation is developing, and would like to note that there are problems with thinking legislation will fix the problem. Did the much heralded "Privacy Laws" help? Did the federal "anti spam" help? (You know...the "Can spam" law...) Many other examples where the law that is advertised as a solution actually entrenches the problem. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
