Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Annoyed]

You brought laser gunz into the equation, so don't cry goalpost moving now.
Oh, and Auto's are NOT an evolution of gatling style weaponry, that would be gatling guns, which had a different design trajectory.
Again, as I said to Annoyed, you certainly can project weapon evolution, but only to a certain point. Past that point it becomes a far more far-fetched a notion.
If you told a FF that one day, a soldier with a gun could shoot at roughly 80 times the speed of a musketman, I doubt they would believe you.
If you told them you could buy them as a private citizen because of how people interpret what they wrote, I think a certain amendment would have gotten a re-write.

And if I told them that people would carry a device in their pocket that would instantly allow them to communicate with people and obtain information from all over the planet instantaneously, they wouldn't have believed me, either.

[Gatefan1976]

And if I told them that people would carry a device in their pocket that would instantly allow them to communicate with people and obtain information from all over the planet instantaneously, they wouldn't have believed me, either.

Exactly.
You can foresee or project trends, but you cannot see where they will end up.
The FF can conceive of "better" guns, they would not conceive of "80 times better" guns.

Again, thank you for proving my point.

[Annoyed]

Actually, the point is that they could be expected to foresee better guns, regardless of how much better. And they did not include any additional restrictions on firearms of the future.

This effectively neutralizes the argument that the 2nd amendment applies only to firearms of their era.

[Annoyed]

And the Democrats just keep getting loonier and loonier. And of course, it's coming from a California congresscritterette

Speier introduces bill to end the 'pink tax'

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) introduced legislation Tuesday aimed at preventing companies from pricing similar products and services differently based on gender.

Twenty-seven of Speier's Democratic colleagues signed on to The Pink Tax Repeal Act, which would allow "the Federal Trade Commission to enforce violations and gives State Attorneys General the authority to take civil action on behalf of consumers wronged by discriminatory practices."

Citing a 2015 New York City Department of Consumer Affairs report stating women's products were on average 7 percent more expensive than male versions of the same item, the Californa Democrat argued the bill is necessary to even the playing field for females and prevent what she sees as gender-based discrimination against female consumers.

A: The govt. doesn't have the right to set prices for products and services.
B: Why can't women just buy the product from a different vendor?
C: How will this affect brand snobbery? A lot of people, male and female will pay a premium price for an object just to say to their acquaintances "Look how rich (or whatever) I am, I can afford to pay extra for this"

[jelgate]

No one tell Annoyed that the government already controls prices for some products. I want to see him go nuts

[Annoyed]

No one tell Annoyed that the government already controls prices for some products. I want to see him go nuts

Oh? And what products would they be?

[thekillman]

Absolutely, handheld lasers and the like are beyond us at this time. The key restraint is energy storage or generation. The equipment to store or generate the kind of energy required fills a room.

So did computers back in the 60's and 70's.

It doesn't really work that way. Computers were bulky because the required components were bulky. They cost a lot of energy because of that bulkyness. They were expensive because of those big components. What changed this was transistors, which are tiny and can fit a billion on a square centimeter.

No such issues or replacements exist for lasers. Industrial lasers have efficiencies in the low percents, but special lasers have been built with low wattage and extremely high efficiencies (~80% or so). But that still means that if you have a kilowatt laser, you're shooting kilowatts of heat back at the user. The laser design itself by necessity requires a partially transparent mirror (because that's how lasers work), but such mirrors are fragile. The energy required only makes energy density problems worse, going from holding a live grenade to holding a C4 pack and higher. Smaller, better batteries only create worse problems (you're carrying less of a battery and more of a small bomb).

Handheld lasers aren't an engineering problem, they're a physics problem. It would make infinitely more sense to replace battleship guns with lasers than handheld guns with lasers. The airforce even tried a Boeing 747-mounted laser (AirBorne Laser or ABL), but that failed too. A chemical laser could fix many issues, but then you'd have to carry many pounds of dangerous chemicals around.

Now, i can foresee various ways in which the laser problem can be solved, by mounting it on a car or boat. But handheld? no.

[Gatefan1976]

Oh? And what products would they be?

Look into how much harvested product is destroyed to keep prices the way they are.

[Falcon Horus]

But how much of this problem is behavioral, rather than racial?

I don't know, you tell me...

[from the Criminal Justice Fact sheet]

In the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, about 17 million whites and 4 million African Americans reported having used an illicit drug within the last month.

African Americans and whites use drugs at similar rates, but the imprisonment rate of African Americans for drug charges is almost 6 times that of whites.

[Ian-S]

This is by far a different stance than the one Ian-s or Annoyed are making. They are of the "I can't wait until I can kill someone" variety.

Nope, I didn't say that, you assume I meant that.

I don't know why, but you still don't seem to understand that there is a fundamental difference between "I will defend my property and/or family as best I can should someone be threatening them" and what you think I said, like Annoyed, at no time have I ever wished to kill someone.

As I think I've said before, I hope you never serve on a jury, as you seem incapable of being able to tell the difference between fact and imagination.

[Gatefan1976]

Nope, I didn't say that, you assume I meant that.

I don't know why, but you still don't seem to understand that there is a fundamental difference between "I will defend my property and/or family as best I can should someone be threatening them" and what you think I said, like Annoyed, at no time have I ever wished to kill someone.

As I think I've said before, I hope you never serve on a jury, as you seem incapable of being able to tell the difference between fact and imagination.

You don't "wish" to kill someone, it's that you both sound like it is A-OK to do so based on what you "feel", and what you "feel" is not based on law.
Tood and others can only -reflect- what you say, and you say if someone broke into your house, I can kill them, or they "deserve what they get"
That's how YOU GUYS phrase it, don't blame Tood or others for believing what you say, or how you express yourselves.

[Annoyed]

It doesn't really work that way. Computers were bulky because the required components were bulky. They cost a lot of energy because of that bulkyness. They were expensive because of those big components. What changed this was transistors, which are tiny and can fit a billion on a square centimeter.

No such issues or replacements exist for lasers. Industrial lasers have efficiencies in the low percents, but special lasers have been built with low wattage and extremely high efficiencies (~80% or so). But that still means that if you have a kilowatt laser, you're shooting kilowatts of heat back at the user. The laser design itself by necessity requires a partially transparent mirror (because that's how lasers work), but such mirrors are fragile. The energy required only makes energy density problems worse, going from holding a live grenade to holding a C4 pack and higher. Smaller, better batteries only create worse problems (you're carrying less of a battery and more of a small bomb).

Handheld lasers aren't an engineering problem, they're a physics problem. It would make infinitely more sense to replace battleship guns with lasers than handheld guns with lasers. The airforce even tried a Boeing 747-mounted laser (AirBorne Laser or ABL), but that failed too. A chemical laser could fix many issues, but then you'd have to carry many pounds of dangerous chemicals around.

Now, i can foresee various ways in which the laser problem can be solved, by mounting it on a car or boat. But handheld? no.

And if there is some giant leap forward in energy storage or generation?

[Annoyed]

I don't know, you tell me...

[from the Criminal Justice Fact sheet]

In the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, about 17 million whites and 4 million African Americans reported having used an illicit drug within the last month.

African Americans and whites use drugs at similar rates, but the imprisonment rate of African Americans for drug charges is almost 6 times that of whites.

None of this is a blanket statement covering all whites or blacks. These are merely theories I've read about in various articles about the discrepancy.

Maybe because the white suburban user gets high in his living room, without bothering anyone and the black user indulges in public settings and / or causes trouble while buzzed? The type of drug would make a difference, too. Maybe crack cocaine which is more prevalent on the streets is more addictive than say, marijuana? As I understand it, crack is far more likely to result in behavioral problems.

Or maybe it's a crime issue; Maybe the suburban white user can afford his drug, while the urban black user has to engage in some criminal enterprise to get the money to buy it, and the actual cause for the arrest is that crime, and the drug charges are just an add-on 'cause he was carrying at the time?

[LtColCarter]

[Gatefan1976]

He's not dead, just "resting"