Doom Shepherd

I grant that it SEEMS counterintuitive, but there have been case studies. Every so often, there are two virtually identical towns in the US, one that decides to ban all weapons, and another that decides to allow unrestricted access. The crime rates in the former always rise, the crime rates in the latter always decline. Between 1991 and 2009, the number of firearms owned in the US increased by around 90 million guns. Over the same period, violent crime declined by 43%. http://www.fbi.gov/page2/september10/crime_091310.html. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_04.html http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_04.html http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/ You're damned right it isn't : P (Ok, sorry, I'm a foreigner and if you were to point out my every mistake, this forum would be about grammatical errors only... but you really misspelled the wrong word in your post.) Ha! Good catch. I'm going to pretend that that was ironically intentional.

Are you joking? I had to translate that but that is obviously the worst thing one male can say to another. In this day and age, it's dangerous to even call a GIRL "sweety." Chances are you'll be slapped with some kind of sexual harassment suit. The only MALE who gets called "sweety" anymore is The Doctor. And any guy Captain Jack likes.

No, not really. We cut the space budget LONG before that. Plus, I think most of our space weapon technology budget went to DARPA, not NASA. Anyway, we're off topic now, so I'll have to put something else on my bucket list: Invade Scotland. (Or at least visit.) Trigger a revolution.

Hopefully there will be a Human mission to Mars by 2036 apparently. Yeah. I think the asteroid mission is supposed to come before the Mars one, in 2025 or so. (Which is still ridiculous. We should have been on Mars in the early 1990's. At the latest. Would have been, if we'd kept up Apollo-Era levels of funding.)

What the hell do you mean by europe turning to shit? Our culture doesn't allow that. Look at our history since 3000 BC. I think he did. The Inquisition, the Crusades, the 100-years' War, the 30 Years' War, WWI, WWII, the Rise of Communism, the Rise of Fascism, the Holocaust, the Holodomor... etcetera. Not that Western Civilzation isn't the best civilization (because it is,) but we've seen our fair share of "everything goes to shit" more than once, and there's no guarantee it can never happen again. Although I think AB may be talking about the current economic fails and the subtle Islamic "Invasion" of Europe, I don't know. The way I see it, Europe has the same problem with immigrant Muslims as the US has with Mexicans... except that Mexicans don't explode as often.

Criminals are 80% less likely to invade a home when they have reason to believe the owner is armed. That is a fact. Because he's a goddamn CRIMINAL, that's why! Here's the thing about criminals: they don't CARE about the laws that say they can't own guns. He obviously doesn't give a damn for the laws that say he can't break in to other people's houses and take their stuff! This isn't rocet science, it's BASIC logic! And even if he doesn't have a gun, he could have a knife or a crowbar. Both are deadly. How do you think he got IN in the first place?

Alright, you make a solid point, and that without outright telling me that I'm an arrogant prick (funny how soon after I wrote that it already annoys me when I read it again... I should keep that in mind next time I post, and I apologise). So perhaps I can learn from my mistakes, and join the debate instead of trying to start a forum war. It's okay. I AM an arrogant prick. So let that be a barometer for you: If I think you're being a jerk, you know you've gone too far. Okay, the line is properly drawn here: both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate targets: Among other things, 2 Japanese armies were located in Hiroshima, while Nagasaki was a major producer of munitions, ships, and other military equipment. Civilians were not the primary target in the atomic bombings. On the other hand, terrorists prefer to attack civilian targets of no military value. So if you blow up a tank or a barracks full of soldiers, that does not make you a terrorist (the term is, however, often applied incorrently here.) If, however, you avoid the tank and go blow up a busful of schoolchildren or a discotheque, (or a civilian airliner) THEN you are a terrorist.

The right answer is: Saddam Hussein killed more Iraqis, through war and genocide and refusal to comply with sanctions, than anyone, terrorists or US occupation troops. 300,000 - 500,000 in the Iran/Iraq war, 50,000-100,00 Kurds, 60,000-100,000 Shiites, and the 100,000-200,000 infants who died while Iraq refused to comply with sanctions. Falsest analogy since apples met oranges. Since I actually know the definition of terrorism, the former.

Bucket List: 1. Go to Red Base. 2. Kill Everyone. 3. Get the flag back. I have an infinite bucket list, because every time I accomplish something, I set a new goal. Right now, I mainly want to live long enough to see certain things: A probe below the ice of Europa. The first confirmed life-bearing extrasolar planet. A human mission to an Asteroid. Halley's Comet.

So, high. But not infallible. Yeah, but the 'correct use' of the condom involves no other physical contact with your partners bodily fluids... Typically not something doable if you're having sex. Except that if you read the conditions of the test... they actually conducted this study by observing people who were taking the highest risk possible... in sexual relationships with partners whom they knew to be HIV+.

I'm currently halfway through "The Big Switch" by Harry Turtledove, which is the third book in his "The War that Came Early" alternate-history series. Basically, WWII breaks out in 1938 when Chamberlain doesn't appease Hitler. Germany allies with, of all places, Poland (instead of it being a target in 1939, it becomes an ally against the USSR) Things get weirder in this book. Like I said, I'm only halfway, but it looks as though Rudolf Hess's mission to get the UK and France to ally with Germany against Russia might be going to work in this universe.

You're half right.

I'm a soulless, inhuman monster. with a penis. Also, I can find any country on an unlabled map. Even ones that aren't there anymore.

Now that I'm done blasting other people, here's a little story for you, including something I wrote ON that day. On 9/11, I lived and worked in Fayette County, PA, one county West of where Flight 93 went down. I first learned of the events of the day early in the morning, not long after the first plane hit. My folks saw the smoke coming out of the WTC, and thought from the early reports that a small plane had hit. It wasn't until I was on my way to work when I heard more of the story, on, of all things, the Howard Stern show. To this day I think I saw Flight 93 fly over, but I've never been sure. The maps all show it passing North of me instead. I watched the towers fall with a bunch of scared librarians. Later that evening, I wrote the following in my (long gone) computer journal. Sorry it's rather random, thoughts were still rather... disorganized. ******* It is September 11th, 11:45 P.M., and the world is insane. So am I. What I have seen today is indescribable. What I have felt today is intolerable. I have to write these feelings down because I believe that writing them down will help me exorcize them, and I am afraid that if I don't cast them out, I really will go mad. It has been a long time since I dared confront my emotions. Now is the worst possible time. I am consumed by anger. By rage. By hatred, a hatred so burning that I can feel the temperature of my skin rise when I contemplate it. I tell myself that hate is irrational, that it does more harm than good, but who of sound mind could witness what we have witnessed today, and NOT hate? The trick, I know, is to confine the hatred to those responsible. Given what we already know about the nature of this event, though, makes that very tricky, indeed. These people lived here. For years. Plotting. Planning. Are there more? Waiting? Lying low until the heat is off, planning to attack the Sears Tower? Or the Super Bowl? or Disney World? Nobody knows. And I keep thinking of "Survivors." A Star Trek episode in which the wife of a powerful, immortal being, along with an entire colony of people, is massacred by militant aliens called the Husnock. The immortal, powerful beyond imagining and driven briefly mad by his loss, explains his retaliation to the Enterprise crew with these words: "You don't understand... I didn't kill just one Husnock, or a hundred, or a thousand... I killed them ALL... ALL Husnock, EVERYWHERE..." I could do that. Right now. If I had the power. And part of me glories in the idea. That's terrifying, that I could hate that much. Oh, I know it will pass, that eventually I'll settle down to just hating the hijackers and their backers and supporters... that may in itself end up being a whole lot of people, how many militant screwballs are there? In all of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon? But not today. Today I want the Husnock dead. I look around me, and everyone is scared. Our local loony Democratic politician is afraid they'll come after him personally, even though he's far too unimportant to rate even a spitball. (County Commisioners aren't real people.) My co-workers are scared. My family is scared. My mother expects paratroopers any moment, even though father and I have explained to her that that couldn't happen. I'm not scared. Perhaps Bugs Bunny is right... "I'll be scared LATER. Right now I'm too MAD." But the dragon is still in me, screaming to me to let him out, let him rage, let him take revenge. What nonsense. Sure, I could fight. I'm perfectly capable of a rather extreme level of violence. But what could I do, get on the next plane to the Middle East? Frag a bunch of people who had nothing to do with any part of it? Some of those countries lost people in the WTC, no doubt. The WTC was multinational. It was an attack on the PLANET. (Image, footage of a streetful of Palestinians cheering. Despite my high talk, I wish to be in that scene... with a flamethrower.) I can't go to New York and help. I have few skills useful in this sort of crisis, and it's just too far. Lucky me, I'd get lost and mugged anyway. Or they'd blow up my building too. There saying now that many of the dead will be firefighters and cops and emergency personnel. Hundreds of them. Thousands of people, altogether. And it could have been worse. It was early, the buildings weren't full. It's insane to say we were lucky, but we were. And they managed to get most of the people who were in out... except the ones in the floors when the plane hit... and the ones trapped above. They never had a chance. Some jumped anyway, just to avoid dying in the fire. Banking, I suppose, on a one in a trillion chance of surviving a fall from 90-plus stories. Nobody won. Maybe they'll find pockets of survivors. I hear they've already pulled a few from the rubble alive. I can only hope, because I can't DO a damned thing, but sit here and hate, and hope to stop. I do not want to feel like this.

It's impossible to lose the moral high ground to the palestinian leadership. What sad is that those same leaders have so thoroughly brainwashed the Palestinians (who if they had IGNORED those leaders, would have had their own state 60 years ago), as well as so many Europeans and even some of our more gullible Americans, into believeing that they do, in fact, hold it. Here's how you can tell who has the moral high ground: The people who DON'T recruit minors to go on suicide bombing missions? THEY ALWAYS HAVE IT. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2004/11/01/occupied-territories-stop-use-children-suicide-bombings

And where did you pick up any of that? I got my info from several doctors, and the Red Cross's Bloodborne Pathogens class. How about the CDC? http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/prevention.htm So, high. But not infallible.

Dang thing just keeps buffering forever. Anyway, if you read 1 Corinthians 7:25-40, it sure seems like Paul didn't believe human beings should marry at all, much less EVER have sex or procreate. He held forth marriage as a last resort but the IDEAL was to remain celibate forever. Then again, I believe Paul is the worst betrayer Christianity ever had; he did more to wreck Christ's teachings than anyone, and deserves a place far worse than that of Judas (who was, let's be honest, just doing - at Jesus's behest - what had to be done so that Jesus could die as was INTENDED.) But that's another thread entirely.

Nuclear bombs don't split single atoms of uranium. The energy released in splitting a SINGLE atom, of ANYTHING, is not that great. That is why it took a 'critical mass' of several kilograms of uranium to make an atom bomb. Scientists split individual atoms all the time in colliders. You'll notice the colliders do not explode. (this is, in fact, how they make antimatter.) In the "H-Bomb," the process used is FUSION, turning hydrogen into helium. You also need an A-bomb to trigger it. (Otherwise, the only way to get hydrogen or antihydrogen to fuse is by accumulating enough of it to make a STAR.) Ignoring the silliness of antihydrogen fission, however, matter-matter ANNIHILATION is MUCH more powerful. A gram of antimatter colliding with a gram of matter would produce a 42-kiloton explosion, or roughly 3x the Hiroshima bomb. However, currently we can only produce a few bits of antimatter. In 2008, the annual production of antiprotons at the Antiproton Decelerator facility of CERN was several picograms at a cost of $20 million. Thus, at the current level of production, an equivalent of a 10MT hydrogen bomb, about 250 grams of antimatter, will take 2.5 million years of the energy production of the entire Earth to produce. Knowing these facts, I believe we can conclude that the idea lacks merit.

You're forgetting nanotech. Keep in mind that we are building machines ever smaller, ever faster. We have now reached the point where we can begin to assemble molecule-sized machines. In fact, scientists recently built a molecule-sized electrical motor: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/nanotech-electrical-motor-is-made-from-a-single-molecule/2011/09/07/gIQAxYjW8J_story.html It can't actually DO much yet, but give them a few decades, keeping Moore's Law in mind. (Progress increases exponentially.) Now, imagine billions of tiny machines, living in a waste-disposal unit of some kind, recharged by solar power, whose sole purpose is to disassemble whatever waste products are placed into the unit, back into their component molecules or atoms. The elemental atoms are then taken to another facility, where they are REASSEMBLED into new patterns by fabrication devices, and turned into new product. Virtually perfect recycling. As long as the sun lasts. (And by then, even if we can't find a way around the light barrier, we'll have also achieved the technology required to create generation ships to carry our descendants to the stars in hollowed-out, fusion-powered asteroids.) None of this is "sci-fi" anymore. We have solar power. We already have primitive fabricator machines, that make stuff out of resin or other materials. We're working on nanomachines. To be more accurate, we know about the detrimental effects on astronauts who are in unshielded environments that don't provide gravity or a regular night-day cycle. (All problems that would be avoided living in a spinning, hollowed-out asteroid.) No, I've been doing this long enough to know that the only thing that makes space travel "impractical" is our unwillingness to spend more than a twentieth of a pittance on making it practical. That, and the fact that you shouldn't believe TV. Life is not, and most llikely never will be, like "Star Trek."

That depends on how you define "adultery." I don't think you're using the same definition that the rest of humanity uses. Adultery is not Adultery is CONTINUING to have sexual pleasure with many people AFTER you have one love that you promised not to. In that case, it's deception and betrayal. Which I'm pretty sure we agree is bad. Now, if you have one of those "open" marriage / relationships, where your partner has said "It's okay with me if you bang other people," then you're in the clear, because there's no deception. I don't see anything wrong with that, as long as everybody's informed and happy with the situation. It's the lying that makes it wrong, and condemns adulterers to the pits of Gre'thor, where the dishonored go when they die.

The internet already has one /b/. It does not need another.

So the idea would be to split anti-Uranium? Using Anti-Explosives? Inside an anti-bomb, built entirely out of antimatter? (And presumably dropped from an anti-Enola Gay?) Actually, I think it would take more energy to synthesize that much antimatter than the bomb itself would release. Given that the most we seem able to create right now is antihydrogen, it seems a bit far-fetched.

Anybody who passed Macroeconomics 101 could have seen that coming. Almost makes you wonder why the current crop of leaders didn't.

Wonder Woman is hot.