5,002 Forum Posts by "TheMason"
At 2/6/08 06:10 AM, LinkSilvermane wrote:At 2/5/08 03:11 PM, TheMason wrote: ...unfortunately for LinkSilvermane these reasons have been shown to be appeals to emotion rather than objective observations of reality.Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
So this is an "appeal to emotion"?
Or, to a slightly larger extent,
this?
Got interupted...damn office hours.
But yes those are appeals to emotion. School shooting, while showing an upwards trend, remains a rare event that get plenty of media attention and obfuscates the issue. They are single, rare events that when employed sheds no light on the issue but their employment illicits an emotional response.
A better argument to start with would have been:
Under the 1994 assault rifle ban there was a decrease in the US murder rate. This is based upon trends over time rather than single, emotive case or outlining a series of rare events that are presented world wide (that they can be displayed case by case rather than by statistics is your first sign that it is rare phenomenon) that weakens your argument since it shows that these things happen even in countries with bans.
However, the assault rifle ban is shown to be spurious because you could still buy assault rifles (even those mentioned by name such as the AK-47 and M-16)...
So my point still stands...the anti-gun argument is intellectually bankrupt...
At 2/6/08 07:27 PM, AfroShine wrote: I think you should know that a huge amount of technological advancement came from the military, hell even the first video game, Pong, came from the military.
Came is the operative word here; not how it is in the past tense. Nowadays, everything is contracted out to private industry. Furthermore, internal combustion, the lightbulb, radio, telephones, etc all came from the private sector.
Right now the main scientists working on the problem of alternative is the auto industry. Furthermore, this is going to sound naive, but oil is also researching this because guess what...they stand to market alternative energy and make another shit-ton of money.
Until it is perfected in the civilian market, this technology is not going to be significantly studied by the military.
At 2/6/08 06:10 AM, LinkSilvermane wrote:At 2/5/08 03:11 PM, TheMason wrote:"A bunch of tired old reasons"? No shit, Sherlock. It's about as "tired" and "old" as AIDS and Hurricane disasters and Terrorist bombings.
On the whole there are about 16-18,000 deaths in America due to firearms each year. Other consumer goods such as cars result in more deaths and pose a more significant threat to the public good than guns.
Only in this case, theoretically, the death toll could be limited by a simple ban.
Prohibition proved to be a failure. Like booze guns can be smuggled, concealed and home made; by-passing the ban.
At 2/6/08 02:19 PM, Imperator wrote: Hope not. McCain's sane at least, those two are nuts. Religious nuts to be exact. Romney's dodging questions about whether he takes the bible literally, and Huckabee wants to put God in the Constitution.
To be honest here, you cannot say that Romney is a religious nut. In fact, I think his dodging of how literally he takes the Bible to be a good thing. It is an indicator that he thinks religion is something private and not something to be dissected in a public forum.
Furthermore, it dodges an entire intellectual/theological discussion that we should be hashing out as a qualification for public office.
On the other hand, you have this guy who wants to put God into the Constitution when we have a society that is supposedly founded upon religious freedom.
And as for the idea of putting a God-fearing man back into office, we had that with Carter and Bush...two presidents that 2008 voters are looking at as models NOT to follow...
At 2/6/08 12:51 AM, public-enemy1 wrote: Damn...with the super delegates, Clinton will have the lead.
This is what is so great about this primary season. The super delegates are a wild card, however if there is no change from what CNN et al are claiming, Obama could still pull ahead because he has thus far won 7 more primary delegates than Hillary (137 to her 130) so if he could pull ahead he could still win the nomination.
I think the Democratic nomination is far from won. However, the Republican nomination is looking like it will be wrapped up here shortly.
And I'm out until tomorrow...
Well CNN is calling Missouri for McCain over Huckabee by less than 1% giving him all 58 delegates (giving him 475 delegates). They are also calling California for him and Clinton.
Although, they have yet to award California delegates to either candidate. There are 370 for the Democrats (plus 71 Superdelegates not decided by the Primary) and 170 for the Republicans (plus 3 unpledged RNC not decided by the primary).
I do agree with Glenn Beck that it will probably be McCain vs Clinton. However, I don't think either one totally has a lock or owns the nomination.
At 2/6/08 12:07 AM, public-enemy1 wrote:At 2/5/08 11:51 PM, TheMason wrote:Will Obama win Missouri?
Doesn't matter, I believe Missouri is a proportional state on the Democratic side and at about 98% reporting it is 49% Clinton and 48% Obama so they will split the delegates evenly so it's more of a bragging rights victory rather than anything other than a null event.
What matters in this race in Missouri is the Republican side because the winner get ALL of our 58 delegates.
Clinton: 306
Obama: 235
McCain: 406
Romney: 151
Huckabee: 93
It does look like Huckabee is hurting Romney here in Missouri and McCain is starting to become a true frontrunner...
At 2/5/08 11:54 PM, EndGameOmega wrote: Not really, no. If the problem was one on engineering, then yes it would be short sited and arrogant. The thing is it's not a problem of engineering, but of physics.
... So far we've yet to find any, and if we did it would mean the our understanding of the four forces is fundamentally wrong as they literally fall apart if something can be accelerated beyond c.
And yet you're still being arrogant; what reason do you have to believe that our understanding of physics isn't fundamentally wrong? We thought we had a pretty good grasp on these four forces with Newton but then Einsteing came along in 1905 and put Newton on his head. Furthermore, we do not understand why the four fundamental forces behave differently at the subatomic level than they do with larger particles. That's why string theory is so interesting.
In short, if we did have a complete understanding of these forces then it would be reasonable to say something is impossible. But based upon our limited understanding of these forces it is arrogant to claim something is impossible for an infinitely more advanced civilization.
And then what about other technologies such as wormholes and other manipulations of space/time that we cannot even begin to think is possible?
Furthermore, imagine an alien civilization has a significant lead on us like say 500,000+ years and their planet is no longer inhabitable so they are space bound now?
1) We would not be able to detect it.
2) They would not necessarily have to travel faster than the speed of light.
But one other side not; many scientists did think it was theoretically impossible to go faster than the speed of sound...until we did it.
Well it's pretty close here in Missouri...between Huckabee and McCain.
Current Delegate Count per CNN:
Democratic:
Clinton: 299 (106 Pledged/193 Superdelegates)
Obama: 225 (119/106)
Edwards: 26
Needed for the Win: 2,025
Republican:
McCain: 383 (366/17)
Romney: 135 (126/9)
Huckabee: 87 (84/3)
Paul: 6
Needed for the Win: 1,191
On the Republican side I think it will be over once McCain+Huckabee=1,191. Or of course, Romney=1,191.
At 2/5/08 09:40 PM, public-enemy1 wrote:At 2/5/08 09:23 PM, TheMason wrote:Then I wont bother to bring up last nights game.You a Missouri grad?Current Grad Student...
Why did you guys win? To be honest I don't follow Basketball. Football, yes. Of course I want the Tigers to do well, but I don't really care either way!
At 2/4/08 04:13 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:And to say that intergalactic travel is impossible is not fair either.Yes it is. SR forbid FTL travel, and GR forbids FTL communication. It's literally against all of known physics to go beyond c.
The History Channel will be airing a show in the following weeks (The Universe I believe) talking about extra-Galactic travel. In their teaser they are talking about folding space/time to get past the Relativity obstacle. If a civilization has 1,000, 10,000, 100,000 or 1,000,000,000 million year head start on us don't you think it's a little arrogant to say intergalactic travel is impossible based upon our primitive, monkey experience?
At 2/2/08 05:17 PM, Christopherr wrote: You see, I don't think we should care about aliens. We've already concluded that our universe is impossibly large and that there are no signs of intelligent life within range of our equipment, so if we did find the technology to travel at warp speeds everywhere, we'd probably never find any aliens.
The thing I think about this is that the Universe since the Big Bang has been expanding outwards from the center. The Universe is estimated to be what, 13 Billion years while the Earth is estimated to be 4-6 Billion years old? This means that another intelligent civilization could have a couple of Million years head start on us.
So, while we may not have the technology to see them that does not mean they do not have the technology to see us. Furthermore, what if they know of us and has watched us and do not think we're important/relevant/threatening?
So...
Yes I believe they exist (the universe is too large for them NOT to) and I think it is possible that they could visit us.
Einstein once said:
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science."
I know I cannot experience aliens, but just pondering their existence is on interesting mental exercise.
At 2/5/08 09:21 PM, public-enemy1 wrote:At 2/5/08 09:14 PM, TheMason wrote:Here in Kansas, we are seeing a huge turnout, 3 or 4 times what was expected (2000 show up in Prairie Village when 500 were expected). I think we will go to Obama tonight.
I would like to see at least one party go to the convention...
You a Missouri grad?
Current Grad Student...
Missouri is going to be interesting. 72 Delegates for the Dems and 58 for the Republicans and right now Huckabee is leading 36% to McCain's 31% to Romney's 23%.
However, what's driving this right now is the rural counties are reporting in and they tend to be Evangelical (we have several Baptist Bible Colleges around the Missouri/Oklahoma border) and that could be skewing the results.
Hillary is leading 56% to 37% here.
It'll be interesting what happens when the Central, Northern and STL & KC parts of the state report in.
CNN's delegate count:
Democrats
Clinton: 253 (60 Pledged/193 Superdelegates)
Obama: 199 (93/106)
Edwards: 26 (All Pledged)
Republicans
McCain: 190
Romney: 99
Huckabee: 54
Paul: 6
At 2/5/08 05:30 PM, Christopherr wrote:At 2/4/08 11:03 PM, TheMason wrote: 2) China last year successfully tested an anti-satellite missile. What this means is they have the ability to effectively neutralize US bombs and air-to-ground missiles and cruise missiles by taking out our GPS systems.Yeah, temporarily. They would not be able to defend against our full power.
That would probably seriously degrade about 80% of our bombs and cruise missiles.
3) I hate to play the "if you only knew what I knew" card, but the reality is China is actively pursuing anti-missile technology.
I'm talking about the current situation, not the future.
As am I. Your source may be correct on China's official doctrine...but doctrine does not always reflect actions.
At 2/5/08 03:59 PM, public-enemy1 wrote: Looks like Huckabee has won West Virginia. Not many delegates up for grabs there, but a win is a win.
Yes and no. WV was not a primary; it was a convention where only 18 of 30 delegates were awarded in a winner take all scenario. However, there are 9 delegates up for grabs in a May primary and 3 RNC delegates. What is interesting is after California and Texas; if McCain or Romney does not have the threshold then these small states and Ron Paul's 6 delegates matter.
But then again, Huckabee is probably going to try to have his delegates go for McCain...
At 2/5/08 10:32 AM, LinkSilvermane wrote: A bunch of tired old reasons for banning guns...
...unfortunately for LinkSilvermane these reasons have been shown to be appeals to emotion rather than objective observations of reality.
At 2/5/08 06:18 AM, RommelTJ wrote:At 2/4/08 11:11 PM, TheMason wrote:Yes, but Republicans use the winner take all system, so it's pretty much a count of states and districts.
Remember, this is about delegate count...not an electoral college count of states.
A count of districts: in some cases.
A count of states: in some cases.
The thing is there is about 52 different primary/caucuses and 52 different ways of allocating delegates. Some states (the minority I believe) are winner take all for the state. Other states are proportional while other are proportional in that they are winner take all by district. I'm just saying that we will not know for certain who Huckabee will hurt or if McCain's frontrunner status will survive today's balloting.
Think about Superbowl Sunday. Everyone who knew anything about football was giving convincing reasons and analysis on why the Patriots where two touchdown favorites to win. The result: the Superbowl Champion NY Giants.
All I'm saying is we won't know what happened until happens.
At 2/5/08 03:19 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: First off, China doesn't have an effective anti-ballistic missile system.
I don't think we'll be able to say that 10 years from now.
The US controls the air, and it controls the oceans. There would be no need to position ground assets in China, none whatsoever except maybe special forces.
One problem here is their anti-satellite missiles. If they could knock out enough of our GPS satellites we our ability to target and navigate becomes exceptionally limited and reduces our accuracy down to 1991 Desert Storm levels (ie: this puts our Air Force, USAF/USN close to par with the PLAAF).
At 2/5/08 01:30 AM, TheMason wrote: The Expected Result: Huckabee takes away votes from Romney keeping him in second place...or even worse in third place.
I should add: assuming McCain comes in first and Huckabee or Romney does not carry many states.
At 2/5/08 12:17 AM, public-enemy1 wrote: Do any of you think we will have both nominees after tomorrow?
I'm 60% sure that we will NOT.
At 2/5/08 12:13 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:At 2/4/08 11:57 PM, TheMason wrote: I don't think he'll win, but if he wins a few states and Romney comes in second he'll be a spoiler for McCain...possibly loosing McCain the nomination.Wait... I don't know if you just worded it weird, but people have been saying that Huckabee would be a spoiler for Romney, stealing away his votes, even though he himself (Huckabee) has little chance of winning.
Yeah I know what the pundits have been saying. The Colbert Report did a montauge of correspondants saying a vote for Huckabee is "...a vote for McCain". But how many times has the media been wrong in the primaries?
What I'm saying is there are two likely scenarios:
The Expected Result: Huckabee takes away votes from Romney keeping him in second place...or even worse in third place.
An Alternative Result: Huckabee carries a few Southern States and Romney comes in Second. In this way Huckabee is hurting McCain because he's taking delegates away from the Senator because in these states Romney would be gaining delegates while McCain is not.
Who Huckabee will hurt will come down to who comes in second or third...not first.
At 2/5/08 01:02 AM, Imperator wrote: That essentially neutralizes our capability to do anything but be a harassment, doesn't it?
Well...there is using our B-1s and B-2s to carpet bomb a la WWII...
Good thing they don't have the naval capabilities we do, otherwise we'd lose all hegemony in a heartbeat......
Damn straight. As much as my USAF pride makes me hate to say it...the most intimidating symbol of US military power is a supercarrier group...
At 2/5/08 12:42 AM, Imperator wrote:At 2/4/08 11:37 PM, TheMason wrote:Unfortunately in Michigan, outsourcing Mfg jobs is precisely the problem. GM has more plants in Mexico than in Michigan, meanwhile Granholm makes an idiot of herself and Honda opens up some plants in Ohio instead of auto-mfg-friendly Michigan......
Part of the problem with domestic auto-manufacturers is the UAW. My grandfather and two of my uncles are retired (in the case of my uncles, retired in the past year) making $65-80K a year with a pension plan that is so much better than my mother's teacher's pension (a person who has her Masters plus 24hrs). Not bad for jobs that require education no higher than HS.
Honda, Toyota and other Asian auto makers are coming to America for skilled labor but building plants in Ohio and South Carolina to avoid the UAW because the union is one of the things that are making US auto makers uncompetitive making demands that make union workers unattractive to potential employers.
At 2/5/08 12:04 AM, Korriken wrote:At 2/4/08 11:37 PM, TheMason wrote:The problem is not outsourcing. We have an employment rate above 95%; which means we have full employment. If anything there is too few workers...not too few jobs.Or collect more taxes. If we had them jobs over here in America, then the paychecks would be taxed, which in turn means more revenue. Bring the jobs back to America, ...
The problem is that our government is selling bonds to China to finance our spending. What we need to do is cut spending.
Okay, I'll try to say this a little more simply. With a 95% employment rate...those jobs going overseas are excess jobs.
Collecting taxes takes money out of the economy. Our problem is Social Security and Medicare has been mismanaged and when anyone tries to get it back on track the opposition party and the AARP uses scare tactics too keep reform from saving these programs.
The answer is simple...we need to do things that are painful (reducing government spending) to save our public economy (government budget).
At 2/4/08 11:20 PM, LordJaric wrote:At 2/4/08 11:11 PM, TheMason wrote: Huckabee could still prove to be a spoiler if he picks up one or two states in the South.I hope he doesn't win.
I don't think he'll win, but if he wins a few states and Romney comes in second he'll be a spoiler for McCain...possibly loosing McCain the nomination. However, if he wins a few states and McCain comes in second...then Romney is out.
Otherwise it is a straight delegate shoot-out between Romney and McCain.
At 2/4/08 11:12 PM, Korriken wrote: wanna turn the economy around? Stop outsourcing our goddamn jobs! They wanna bitch about our debt, and our reliance on China, then we should bring our AMERICAN jobs back to AMERICA!
The problem is not outsourcing. We have an employment rate above 95%; which means we have full employment. If anything there is too few workers...not too few jobs. Furthermore, most companies are finding that even though American factory workers earn more than Chinese counter-parts; there is no discernable difference in the cost of production. The Chinese produce less widgets per hour than American workers, which in turn means they have to work say three hours to produce the same amount of product as an American makes in an hour. Furthermore, manufacturers have to ship those products across the Pacific which increases cost. Then there is the fact that by manufacturing so far away reduces the time it takes manufacturers to respond to changes in what the consumer wants.
The problem is that our government is selling bonds to China to finance our spending. What we need to do is cut spending.
I voted absentee about two weeks ago.
Huckabee could still prove to be a spoiler if he picks up one or two states in the South.
Remember, this is about delegate count...not an electoral college count of states.
At 2/4/08 08:01 PM, 0peth wrote:
Very off-topic...but do students get off on Super Tuesday?
Not very off-topic. However, in most places students do not get off. My school does not let off and I've never gone to a school where they let the students off.
At 2/4/08 07:55 PM, Christopherr wrote:At 2/4/08 12:20 PM, TheMason wrote:
Even at fifty bucks a gun, supplying the army would cost trillions... Which China would have serious problems paying. When I said that they would have to be on the dollar menu, I meant it.
I agree that it is a better gun, but the AK relies on huge state-run factories, whereas the M-16 is more suitable to a market economy, as production can be spread out. If they even tried to make huge numbers of AK's, we would probably just blow up their factories, because they are basically big targets due to China's negative attitude towards missile defense systems.
1) One of the great things about a country like China is that if they wanted to they could press prisoners into all sectors of producing an AK possibly reducing the cost to less than $10. Downside: quality goes down.
2) China last year successfully tested an anti-satellite missile. What this means is they have the ability to effectively neutralize US bombs and air-to-ground missiles and cruise missiles by taking out our GPS systems.
3) I hate to play the "if you only knew what I knew" card, but the reality is China is actively pursuing anti-missile technology.
