Saryctos

Out of the millions of possible situations that can arise, if having a fire arm in so much as one of them would benefit me , it is worth the investment if I can afford it...which I could, and thus I own a springfield XD.

Well, he had a good explanation...

You know, an interestign thing about this bill is that it only offers to get more people into classes. There is no funding to improve the quality of the math and sciences departments. I bet if you got more funding for these subjects on a lower level, say grades 7-11 to make the classes teach more effectively, you'll see more people going into those fields of study. It seems to me like the reason that most people don't persue math and science isn't a lack of interest, they just shy away from wanting a career in what they see as hard subjects. I'd suspect that's mostly because they didn't do well in those classes during early schooling, and offering incentives to people for choosing this field, will probably only sway the borderline people who were already thinking about doing it anyways, just because it's easier on the wallet. Also, I'd like to add that women are on average paid more, than men. They just, on average, don't recieve as many promotions due to quitting from child birth.

Well as long as people are getting killed by something else it's ok right? Gotta maintain that murder per capita. Glad you cleared that up for us.

Expect it all you like, it won't happen. ?

Plenty of evidence to the contrary.

The real problem? This ain't no war. We let the big dogs go play in the yard, then put the leash back on. We need to stop ***** footing it and kick some more ass rather than be lead around by the politicians.

The kids over 21 and have a clean background check, yes.

did the delete post button just up and dissapear? or am I going blind @_@

The reasoning behind this statement is a *slap* to the face. The war was far from over, and I'm quite sure that the fire bombings could be considered more of an act of terror than the use of the mystical power that is the A-bomb.

Iranian gov't "keep ignoring us"

Perhaps the problem comes when every argument is only broken into 2 sides. There are many reasons to be for or against any 1 issue, why not categorize based on them?

I'm not even going to attempt a guess at this one =P So unless you'd like me to say them for insight into my thought process, just ask. Otherwise, an explanation would be much appreciated =)

Jack Thomson is a tool of the highest caliber. Almost everything he uses to 'back' his arguments, any form of factoid is a fabrication of the truth.

Communism threatens the ability to even become rich.

Dropping food is a great way to combat terrorism. This way, the places they used to be won't be in danger while they're on their way to snatch up the food drops. Rewarding terrorist activities is the best way not to recruit?

ORLY? Video games you say? It's local, so I thought I'd share it with you all.

Well that just presents a direct fit into the main question, right or privilege? They had the privilege of working so long as they did because you didn't complete your software to obsolete their position quicker. If something can automate your position, then be glad you have work until such automation becoems cheaper than you.

Fisrt, sorry about the blanket misrepresentation* of what you were meaning towards Paranoia's comments(I guess I misread you). Secondly, in reply to the quote; Technology wise it is already here, infact it's my field of work(data fusion). The far off comment was one of law making and politics. I would imagine that the same kinds of restrictions on information would still apply. Like say, needing a warrant before investigating someone. The information is there, but the courts won't let you look at it, for legal reasons. How long would that kind of restriction hold? If there was a murder with no suspects, would you be allowed to scan through the data on everyone looking for the murderer, or would that be an invasion of everyone else's privacy? What if you found a new murder that hadn't been discovered yet in the data while looking for another case? Would you be allowed to use that data in court to convict said 'new murder'? Or would he go scott free because all the data required to convict him had to been thrown out due to accessing it without a warrent? These sorts of questions aren't old, however most legislation is. The stigmas towards new technology of the older generations, I think, are holding back real questions that could use some looking into before the relavent* technology arrives on the scene(tech is here, just not implemented due to legal restrictions). An example would be of one of these servailance networks in a city. The supreme court won't hear hypothetical cases, so you'd have to get the thing approved, funded, and built before they'd be able to that you can't build one due to privacy violations and then tear down the whole expensive thing.

That's exactly the poitn he made. The survailance* tech will exist where you will have to deal with the fact that you can be monitored 24/7. It's what is done to protect this informaiton, and what is done with it that is important. I think once people are being monitored 24/7(looong way off) you'll see a lapse in the restrictiveness of laws. Knowing what someone is doing all the time makes it easier to justify what they've done. You won't need witnesses, big brother can take the heat.

The funny thing is, this issue is actually going to show up in main stream media in the next few decades. I can feel it. With minimum wage increasing, and prices for automated systems decreasing, you'll see more automation out there 'taking their jobs'. Then there will be a debate about how, "You can't automate this or that, because you have to maintain the unemployment rate!" It's coming, just you wait and see. I remember my economics teacher trying to tell me that the system will always adapt to a massive loss of available jobs, but I just gotta wonder. what would happen if the US lost over 50% of it's services jobs to automation? Also, for more than just a economic question, we have a philisophical question too. What jobs would fill i nthe gap? If their was no replacement, what would all these people do when jobs no longer exist for that much of the population? Would we fall into socialism, communism, anarchy? Just what could a society do to cercumvent* a 30% unemployment rate? Would we even have to do something about it? Jobs are not a right. You have no claim to any salary out of the womb. To survive, that is your job.

Or seatbelt laws?

I guess I'll have to give points to Iran for this one...their ruse has gained them more clout than is due, and the best part is most won't even realize it.

Actually that happened minutes ATFER reagan took office. Once we got a republican in office they knew not to **** around.

I would have no qualms about using nuclear weapons if the rest of the world wasn't so bitchy about it. If there's a military installation with thousands of terrorist/soldiers in a remote region of a country, and it's large enough that conventional bombs can't take it out in one go, then I'd say nuke it. If the precautions are taken to minimize the collateral damage, a nuclear weapon is no different than a conventional bomb other than the size of the effective area. If we don't have weapons that can take out any kind of installation, then there will be a rapid increase of the kind you can't destroy. Although the main reason we still have nukes in my mind, is that it is far more cost effective to keep them around, than it is to dispose of them. With the added benefit of everyone thinking twice about attackign you.