• 2

    posted a message on Would Gun Control even help?
    Quote from JDawgMillenium

    Are nuclear bombs supported in the Constitution? Yeah. Try again.
    Are assault rifles supported in the constitution? Yeah. Try Again.
    Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
  • 1

    posted a message on Google Picture War
    Posted in: Forum Games
  • 1

    posted a message on Evolution: What's not to understand?
    Quote from LittleSouth

    natural selection doesn't have to do with which traits get passed on from generation to generation or "chosen", but which organisms are better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. in other words natural selection is a more politically correct way of saying survival of the fittest.

    And their TRAITS determine if they more physically fit. Longer hair is a trait, sharper teeth is a trait. If they help you survive better in a specific environment, natural selection will favor those traits over others and allow the organism to live.

    Stop. Get out. I'm serious, get out. You are clearly too damn uneducated to even be in this topic. This is no longer a matter of argument, this is a matter of willful ignorance on your part. If you cannot comprehend that "more or less common in a population" specifically relates to genetics passed down to new generations, the very method through which traits become more or less common, if you cannot figure out that "survival of the fittest" depends on biological traits passed onto the offspring, the next generation, then you clearly do not have the necessarily ability of comprehension to have any merit in this discussion.

    Calm down dude. have some 'tastes like diabetes'
    Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
  • 1

    posted a message on Would Gun Control even help?
    Quote from BattleVet

    This guy is a genius.

    And again, I still haven't seen anyone take this on. What a surprise.

    I will never rely on government safety, what you will get is an orwellian police state.


    I know you aren't that way as a person but your avatar screams to me "I really am crazy."

    A spatula can be a weapon, fertilizer can be a weapon, but a gun makes killing INFINITELY EASIER. You cannot deny that. How many people are killed each year by fertilizer murderers? How many are killed by stabbing? Thousands fewer than guns. Fertilizer murders almost never happen. I mean how many are there a year? Like 3, and about 1,800 stabbing murders? Compare it to over 10,000 murders a year with guns. 88 people every single day and this number will increase as a terrified public buys millions more guns every year.

    There was a man who killed his grandma with a hammer, then shot at 4 firemen, killing 2. Does this mean hammers are equally deadly as a rifle? Of course NOT. Could he have killed the firefighters with the hammer? Could he have killed men wearing giant helmets, face guards, and thick, padded coats, using a blunt object. NO. As soon as he jumps at the first firefighter, the other three would be on him. If he sits atop a roof with a rifle, OF COURSE he can kill the firefighters more easily.

    If you understand basic economic theory, if something becomes easier to do, more efficient to do, then the natural societal response, no matter what it is, is that MORE OF IT WILL HAPPEN.
    Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
  • 2

    posted a message on Richard Mourdock On Abortion: Pregnancy From Rape Is 'Something God Intended
    God intended the baby from the rape because it's not bad enough you got raped, no! Now you have to carry the rapist's baby and a Republican government will force you to have and raise that baby and share custody of it with the rapist. He can come into your life again, and again, and again, hugging and kissing the child while you watch. And what if you're married? Then your husband is watching the man who raped his wife walk around his home like he owns the place. This is just shoving the horrible experience in women's faces over and over.
    Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
  • 1

    posted a message on War
    I hate the "war and greed are human nature" argument. There is no mechanism, no 'hive mind' consciousness that makes us slaughter each other. All wars happen for a reason, caused by ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS acting on people, not some inherited tendency. To say that war is part of human nature is to say there are no causes to wars. That there's some nerve cluster in our brains chanting "maim kill burn, maim kill burn." We are not inherently territorial, the resource yield of a certain area is only so much so we have to protect that area to preserve what's keeping us alive. We're not inherently violent, we're driven to violence by scarcity and ignorance.

    Greed is generated by a fear of losing what one has. So we have hoarders, some kinds of OCD, and the like. If one has more than they need, or even want, they'd be willing to give up some for others.
    Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
  • 1

    posted a message on Economics
    Quote from Machiavel


    Information fiefdom problem:

    Information fiefdoms, for anyone who is unaware, are departments or levels of management which use their access to information and its dissemination to leverage some kind of benefit for themselves, or to position themselves within the bureaucracy so that they might exert as much influence as possible over the people under them.

    For instance, let's say an order for oil comes from a town (and for now let's just assume that the town can efficiently and honestly gauge how much oil they need, which in real life they probably couldn't) and goes to their regional office, the lowest level in the bureaucracy which deals with fuel. Now, it needs to pass through this office in order to move onto the next one; it acts as a filter of sorts as this information passes in a linear fashion up the chain of command, to continue with the military analogy.

    Now, the people managing this office understand that their position grants them power over the town, and that the only way the townsfolk can obtain oil from the central apparatus of distribution (which is perhaps a warehouse several counties away) is through this office's approval.

    Understanding this, the office usually expects the people to "grease their hands" so to speak, or to bribe them. This will decrease the overall efficiency of the system, either by depriving the townsfolk of resources (there's no money, they have to bribe them with material goods which have inherent value; perhaps food, which means they need to order more from another office) or by flooding a superseding office with complaints or orders from townsfolk trying to bypass the regional office.

    But how does the "beauracracy" stop electronically sent info? That's the government intercepting people's messages and withholding them for bribes. This doesn't happen in the 1st world.


    Information flow problem:

    Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that every level of the bureaucracy is squeaky clean, and that absolutely no fraud occurs (this is impossible, of course.) Even with this ideal moral character, the hierarchical structure of the system itself presents serious difficulty in the flow of information in a quick and orderly manner.

    Although the infrastructure connecting the offices is incredibly advanced (it'd only take moments for reports to reach different levels) the fact remains that humans have to review all of the reports given, to make sure they're accurate (this doesn't necessarily result from fraud, but human error) which in itself is an arbitrary process, given how detached these offices are from the people they're dealing with. After all, as the information goes from townsfolk to office to office to office, it can become garbled, like in a game of Telephone. As it reaches higher up, the people dealing with distribution may have a hard time finding out if the townsfolk truly need this much oil, food, etc., which is a problem in itself. But back to the issue at hand:

    With every different level put in place to ensure that the reports are accurate, the reaction time is slowed and so is the efficiency of the system. By the time the reports get to the distribution center and the resources are shipped out, the information could very well no longer apply. Perhaps the food needed has doubled in number because of a spoiling of their emergency grain, or maybe medicine is in greater demand because of a sudden outbreak of a virus. These new developments would have to go through the proper channels again, and, well, just like last time they may not remain accurate for long.

    Of course, when the problem of fiefdoms is compounded with the problem of information flow the entire thing becomes a mess. You already referenced the USSR, I think that's a good example of how this can end up.

    To remedy the human error, I'd suggest computers to process the information. They can handle 2 quadrillion bits per second, no group of humans can do that.

    In the game Hearts of Iron 3, logistics and resource distribution plays a huge part in keeping armies operational. The AI that works this is actually very intelligent. When there are supply surpluses, it will store them for distribution later. In shortages, it will prioritize which units will use it better in their field of combat, not "who will pay more for it". It even recognizes more efficient routes for moving the supplies, going along routes that have 80% infrastructure as opposed to 50%. In the USSR areas, it can recognize the Trans Siberian Railroad as superior infrastructure to get supplies to east Asia and as roads were rebuilt in previously battle damaged areas, supplies started moving along these routes again. Only problem with the AI is, it can't figure out how airborne supply drops work.


    Why are evacuated tube transports limited to centrally planned economies and cargo ships limited to markets? Surely the ongoing competition for better service would require that firms constantly increase their means of producing goods and delivering them to their customers; there's really no reason for them to stagnate.

    Tankers consume vast amounts of fuel over a long period of time, this keeps up energy consumption and revenue for energy and oil companies. When consumption is the priority, they have an incentive to get their customers to consume as much as possible. This means withholding tech that would decrease consumption.
    Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
  • 1

    posted a message on Economics
    Quote from Machiavel

    How is money unnecessary? It's probably the most efficient price system in existence, and is one of the best ways to distribute goods rationally.

    Perhaps you're referring to wealth? Or private property? Things which aren't necessarily money, that is.

    You wanna know the method for distributing goods and services efficiently without using money? Logistics. You don't see the military asking economists where they ought to send how much of what kind of ammo. Or on what front a certain kind of battalion ought to be sent to. Prices, I think, could be outdated with information technology, something, also, the USSR severely lacked.
    Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
  • 2

    posted a message on Why is everyone so quick to jump on the "**** THE POLICE" bandwagon?
    Quote from lotlat

    Tell me the difference again between a policeman and a normal human being?

    The stress of the responsibility of maintaining peace in your community and a gun. That's it. Anyone can get a heavy stick. Anyone can get a shiny piece of metal and glue it to their shirt. They're just like us but the prospect of power does attract some psychos.
    Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
  • 1

    posted a message on My Little Pony : FiM (All Pony-related things go HERE)
    In the birthday scenario game, I'm stuck on an island with Fluttershy... FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
    Posted in: Culture, Media & Arts
  • To post a comment, please .