Recent posts by thijser on Kongregate

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

If they would win or not is not really depended on their guns they could win it all depends on what faction of the soldiers decide that they wish to stay loyal to the government. I think that teaching the soldiers empathy as well as some indipandance and morals might help a lot more then giving guns to random unorganised individuals

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

They have a total ammo need per year let’s call it x and bought a amount of y.
Now this stockpile is going to last them y/x years. During these years they either keep buying ammo thus wasting resources and letting the market adjust their production (thus lowering prices by allowing for mass production) or they are going to stop buying more ammo until they have used their supply thus reducing price by lowering demand. It’s simply impassible to increase the long therm price of a resource that’s easy to mass produce by buying it in large quantities. If they wanted to increase ammo prices all they need to do is increase their import tariffs and impose higher health requirements for their workers (find dangerous gunpowder components and increase their safety requirements). Not only would this increase the price of ammo it would also earn money trough the increased tariffs and decreased healthcare cost (sure not much but it’s better then paying for a large amount of ammo).

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by jhco50:

Well, I personally think they may be trying to dry up the market on ammo. It would make sense since they can’t stop the exaggerated sale of firearms. I haven’t heard any of the people investigating it say so, but that would be my best guess. They may be succeeding too, ammo shelves are pretty bare.

That would only work for a very short time. What do you think ammo manufacturers are start doing when you buy everything they have? Capitalist forces mean that if you buy all available ammo then more ammo will get produced in the years to come.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

I can think of 2 reasons (that aren’t that suspicious)to buy a large amount of ammo 1 you found a good deal ammo can easily be stored and if you think you can buy your 10 year supply at say 50% off it sounds like a good deal and 2 Because it costs money government bodies often get their funding cut when they don’t use all of it and were still effective so in order to prevent this someone decided they had to get rid of a lot of money quickly and bought ammo (again something they likely needed in large supply and is easily stored for later). If this happend than that’s a case of minor corruption that should be looked into.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

OK you are right it might not work completely when people are willing to hand assemble the parts which is indeed not that difficult. An alternative might be to look at chemicals you can use to make the gunpowder with. Maybe we could limit those instead (I’m ok with people having guns if there is no way to get ammunition).

Topic: Serious Discussion / Global Climate Change - Get off our lazy butts!

Isendorf what did you expect from the kyto protocol? It basically stated that the CO2 output of the countries that joined should go back to their pre 1990’s levels. Most countries failed to reach this target and a large number of countries didn’t join. While it was a step in the right direction it wasn’t enough to have a meaning full impact. Climate chance is dependant on the total amount of green house gasses in the atmosphere this is based on the accumulated CO2 output humanity has generated from fossil fuels. By the 1950’s we began outputting CO2 in higher concentrations but it takes some time to build up CO2 in the atmosphere as well as the fact that while we began to increase output it wasn’t it wasn’t instantly at current day levels.

For an easy comparison say you have a leaky pipe and water in your basement. You can argue that it was always a bit damp down there and when the first small droplets of water began to form on the pipe nothing really changed so it can’t be the leaky pipe.

And look another graph try to calculate the total space under the graph for each year and see if you can see why CO2 wasn’t heavily impacted before the 50’s.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Global Climate Change - Get off our lazy butts!

But anyone who doesn’t believe there is a causation between climate chance and CO2 emissions? Or someone who doubts that we are producing a lot of CO2?

If the first can you point out what mistake is present in my previous post?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Originally posted by thijser:

You can also include something in the software. But until we reach that point why not make it difficult.

Because it defeats the object of having these printers in the first place. You’re limiting the possibilities for what people can produce ‘just in case one of these parts might possibly be for a weapon’. It makes no sense.

You need certain fairly specific parts we are not just talking about cylinders but cylinders with an internal screw so you shot will go straight and a reinforced end as well as some holes for the rest of the mechanism.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Global Climate Change - Get off our lazy butts!

Originally posted by issendorf:

Care to give the other cause?

Climates have changed since the birth of the atmosphere. Climates would change if we burned 100x more carbon. Climates would change if we burned 100x less carbon. Climates would change if we maintain the status quo.

You point out rising carbon and climates changing. Those are two independent variables. If you’re going to claim causation, then you need the climate change to be dependent on the carbon. As it is, there is no knowledge how much, if any, current carbon levels are affecting climates and whether or not its a positive or not (there are some who see a coming ice age and think that the increase in carbon are completely necessary to maintain our way of life).

Oh and apperently we are now over 400 ppm http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/12/1993531/climate-sensitivity-stunner-last-time-co2-levels-hit-400-parts-per-million-the-arctic-was-14f-warmer/?mobile=nc

That moment someone links to think progress for scientific data. I guess that means I can quote junk science for you since you have fairly low standards for what sources you’re willing to put in play?

I just pointed out the first thing I found on google I could look up the origenal measuements from moa loa in 2012 as well if that makes you happy (just a little work for me).

the causation I just explained. Tell me where this logic goes wrong if you think it is wrong:
1 light from the sun goes to the earth
2 most of the energy in the solar rays is in the visible/UV spectrum.
3 CO2 mostly absorbs energy in the infrared spectrum .(http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v41/i3/p291_1)4
4 This effect becomes stronger the more CO2 is in the air.
5 combining 1 2 and 3 the amount of energy the earth receives is largely unaffected.
6 Light that hits the earth is mostly absorbed and converted into heat.
7 Heat is primarily radiated back into space in the form of infra-red light.
8 Infra-red light that has to pass the atmosphere to leave the earth.
9 Absorbed energy has a roughly 50% chance of falling back to the earth and 50% chance of being send into space.
10 Energy that is send back to earth heats up the earth.
11 combining 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 and 10 higher CO2 levels cause global warming.
If you think any of this needs an extra source tell me which one (I think they all use common logic and knowledge).

But if you have a better possible cause then “the temperature has changed before” please tell me.

By the way does this make you happy http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=BMW&program=ccgg&type=ts Or do you want another I can keep looking for more of an actual paper but those are often very difficult to read.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Originally posted by thijser:

By the time it becomes actual feasible to print weapons we can probably include software in the printers to scan for certain objects and prevent them from getting printed. If this is done using an properly embedded system it cannot be removed without damaging the printer. This seems like an easy fix.

Easy to workaround, yes.

Just have the printer print the parts for another printer. If your system doesn’t allow that, just print the pieces in stages, and assemble them yourself. Your new printer then works fully and has none of the nasty embedded code. Use that printer to print others.

EDIT: It’s not something that all that many people would do, but I can safely say that within six months of printers with the safety features you suggest coming on the market – cannot print triggers or hollow pipes, or any complex potentially moving parts say – there will be a grassroots movement to create printers without those restrictions. Once you have one fully working printer without those restrictions but with the same metal & circuitry printing ability, you will quite soon have many of those printers in circulation.

Not because people wish to print guns, but because any restrictions you impose to ‘prevent the manufacture of guns or gun parts’, will also impact the ability to manufacture countless other components that are not guns.

You can also include something in the software. But until we reach that point why not make it difficult.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by jhco50:

Thiser, do you really think killing babies would be considered a basic right? These are rights considered to belong to all human beings. It doesn’t matter how old the Constitution is. the way it was written allowed it to continue as is for all time. Read it sometime and you will see what I am talking about.

However just because the founding fathers decided it is a right makes it a right which is protected by the ideas by the founding fathers that these rights should be protected. It all seems kinda circular don’t you think? What if one of them was crazy and put something like killing babies in there? Shouldn’t we be able to chance it if the majority felt like it?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Global Climate Change - Get off our lazy butts!

Originally posted by dd790:

Originally posted by HolyLasagna:
I just don’t get why people keep doubting the scientific consensus without knowing jack-shit about the subject

Originally posted by HolyLasagna:
“Nobody except somebody said X.” Ergo, somebody said X. It was precisely because of dd790’s post that I made mine.

I guess all those years I spent on an honours degree for the very topic really were wasted then, someone on a forum thinks they know it all!

Global warming is a concept invented by governments to justify environment taxes, climate change is a real thing which scientists support the concept of, but don’t claim we cause. It is claimed we are accelerating climate change, but credible scientists don’t claim we are the sole cause.

Care to give the other cause?
By the way earlier you claimed the CO2 level graphs goes up almost straight virticaly in the near future. Good to know you live in the 18th century


ok to be fair the axist aren’t labeled with 0 on the bottom so it’s not really a 10 fond increase but still a strong increase as around the year 1000 we were at around 280 ppm and around the year 2000 we were close to 330 ppm and by march 2004 we were at 380 ppm. Oh and apperently we are now over 400 ppm http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/12/1993531/climate-sensitivity-stunner-last-time-co2-levels-hit-400-parts-per-million-the-arctic-was-14f-warmer/?mobile=nc

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by jhco50:

I have explained it a few pages back. I will give a brief explanation. Our basic rights are enumerated in our constitution as the bill of rights. They are rights given to us, as we say, by god. God given rights. The Bill of Rights were put into the Constitution to protect American citizens from our government.

A privilege is given to us by laws created by our governments. Our rights cannot be legislated away (supposedly) while a law can be changed with the stroke of a pen. When our government was created, the people of the original 13 states insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would sign on to the Constitution. The Constitution limits the power of our government. In other words, the Constitution is the rule of law for the United States.

Because we have our basic rights enumerated in this document, our government cannot just take those rights. Driving, being allowed by legislation can easily be taken away by that same government by changing the law. I hope I made that clear enough for you, it’s kind of hard to read.

But why do you think these rights should be basic aside from the fact that it says so on an old document? Would you also protect to murder babies if it said it was a right in the bill of rights?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

By the time it becomes actual feasible to print weapons we can probably include software in the printers to scan for certain objects and prevent them from getting printed. If this is done using an properly embedded system it cannot be removed without damaging the printer. This seems like an easy fix.

Anyway jhco I believe you haven’t yet explained the fundamental difference what makes driving a car a privilege and owning a gun a right (of course only a right you have if you can pay it).

Topic: Serious Discussion / Global Climate Change - Get off our lazy butts!

It also has to do with a well known principle of energy absorption of gasses. Every gas can only absorb light of a few select wavelengths. Now if we look at CO2 it mainly absorbs in the infra red wave lengths. So what happens is that a ray of sunlight falls from the sun onto the earth. Most of it passes because most if it is in the visible wavelengths. Then it hits the earth and heats it up a little. So far everything is normal. But then the heat generates light in the infrared wavelengths which is normally radiated out into space (this is how the earth loses it’s heat). So from the ground a ray of infra red light is shot upwards it hits the atmosphere and because the amount of CO2 has doubled from what it normally is most of it get’s absorbed by the atmosphere. Now what happens is that since it can’t only really radiate out again as infra red it can either go up or down. So half of this goes down again to earth. This is why global warming heats up the earth in general. We know the total amount of CO2 output of humanity and we know that this is upsetting the balance. What is ill understood is the actual consequences of this. Are we expecting rains and floods or droughts in Africa? But the existence of global climate chance is not really in doubt. Unless someone can point out where my explanation goes wrong.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Global Climate Change - Get off our lazy butts!

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Originally posted by thepunisher52:

I can tell you with certainty that plans are under way n saudi arabia to switch to solar energy in next 20 years. Not only becoming self sufficient, but exporting it to europe.

Unless you are also solving the broadcast electrical power problem, I don’t see this occuring. You’d wipe out your current in friction over the tens of thousands of miles of cabling necessary to transfer power across the EU that way.

I’m not even going to touch on the infeasability of using photovoltaic as the sole energy source for the entire country.

Originally posted by bmxracer23:

Does anyone think that we could actually get off our lazy butts and actually do something about the Earth’s global warmth?

What global warmth?

There is global climate change, yes, but ‘global warmth’ is a myth. Some parts are warming, others are getting colder precisely because those ather parts are warming. Major ocean currents are shifting or shutting down and taking their heat transfer with them.

Weather in many places is becoming more extreme, not necessarilly warmer. We still don’t know what’s going to happen to the world’s weather systems in full; we have neither the computation power nor the necessary approximation algorithms to simulate climate change on a global scale at this present time.

We could try to ship high pressure hydrogen tankers (like the oil tankers we have now) or otherwise use pipelines of hydrogen otherwise we would be looking at superconductors to prevent energy loss in long wires.

At any rate the cost of solar panels is falling quickly while their efficiency is growing fast. I heard somewhere (but can’t quite remember where) that in 20 years they will be more cost efficient then coal.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should the Law have some control over what is done to one's own body?

I would say that these actions should be possible but they should be taxed to the level that the total damage of these actions can be recouped from those who partake in them. This means that if 100.000 drug users cost a total of 100.000.00$ then each drug user has to generate 100$ in taxes in order to pay for the damage he might cause.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

So you argument is that if in your state anti gun laws are enacted the industry might move elsewere. So if these laws are enacted everywhere these businesses either start making something else(after all they still have machines that with some work can produce something else) or move somewhere I’m not sure where. And you haven’t answered the question as to what makes driving around a privilege that’s requires a permit and what makes owning a gun a right that doesn’t require you to show any skill or ability to handle such a dangerous object (and no if the people need to rise up they will certainly fail if they don’t have cars so that can’t be the reason).

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by jhco50:

Originally posted by thijser:

So can anyone explain why it’s never questioned that you need a driving licence to drive but not a gun licence to own a gun?

That has been explained several times, stop using augments that are baseless.

As I have no complete oversight of all 68 pages can you give me a quick overview of the argument as to why you need to have a driving licence and no gun licence (as well as having your car registered ext.). Both are dangerous when misused and per hour of use I think a gun is more dangerous.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

So can anyone explain why it’s never questioned that you need a driving licence to drive but not a gun licence to own a gun?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Well as we know all crime caries the death penalty….

Topic: Serious Discussion / Clean, renewable ENERGY

Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

I remember that China is still one of the biggest polluters in the world.

Oops. Said too much.

Well china is quite polluted but this is mainly around it’s city centers Take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita. They actually produce less than for example Switserland which isn’t know for it’s polution. They are currently investing heavily into the solar panel industry both because it’s a high growth market and because they need them to keep their cities clean (China’s weather is very unforgiving to pollution).

Topic: Serious Discussion / Clean, renewable ENERGY

Originally posted by beauval:

thijser, I understand your point, but the initial investment still has to be found from somewhere. No politician on earth is going to support numbers like that, and private enterprise will need a very long time to come up with that kind of money. Add to that the political difficulties of using the Sahara to power Europe, and that whole idea becomes a non starter.

It can be done over the years. If you invest say 1 trillion every year (worldwide) then after around 15 years we will have the world hooked on renewable energy. Additionally even if the sahara isn’t the greatest place we can easily either stabilize that region (with this kind of money… or move it to slightly less effective places in Europe (say the south of Spain)).

And remember if Asia can support itself and Europe and America each shares half of the remaining burden we are talking about far something in the order of 0.4 trillion (quick estimate). So while this remains a fairly large amount it can be raised by cutting military spending (in fact the US would remain the country with highest military spending if it paid it’s 0.4 trillion and Europe is probably also going to be able to raise this kind of money). And let’s not forget that after the first year these solar plants are going to produce energy which can be sold at market price(solar plants are already close to profitable).

Topic: Serious Discussion / Clean, renewable ENERGY

However at the current rate the cost of solar panels is halving around every 6 years. Current predictions make solar panels more effiecent than coal in around 20 years. So investing in keeping up with this tech can make sure that the western world stays on top instead of giving this lead away to China.
Beauval you have to define this number by about 20 in order to get a by year cost. So 13.3/20=0,665 trillion(I take 20 while most reacters will likely run for 30 years but with some maintaince which I’m ignoring but it should be less then 1/3 of the build cost of the gernator if we use solar power). The US millitary budget is currently more then 1.030. So the US allone spends more on it’s millitary budget then what is needed to supply the entire earth with power.

Topic: Serious Discussion / SOCIALISM: the pros & cons

Originally posted by AllStarDominatio:

Originally posted by tenco1:

Originally posted by AllStarDominatio:

I’m against socialism, period.

Well, I guess retirement isn’t for everyone.

…Okay.

Maybe you should explain why you are so against it? After all like all political systems it has it’s advantages and disadvantages. The way I see it we should pick the parts of any political/economical system that are better then the rest and try to combine them.