zapatos

Of course not. That is why I don't understand why we should apply good judgement to guns but not bomb making instructions. If information is dangerous and guns are dangerous, why regulate one and not the other? That is essentially the question I am asking. You said "The purpose of a gun is to shoot living things." Just so I'm clear, you feel that the purpose of a target rifle is to "to shoot living things"? Or perhaps you are saying that a target rifle is not a gun? So then you feel the purpose of a nuclear bomb is to blow up, and not to deter the bad guys? It does seem fairly minor when compared to nuclear Armageddon. Then again, so does every single thing we discuss on this site. On the other hand, when you compare it to the normal injuries one encounters at a foot race (pulled muscles, blisters, etc.) it seems fairly significant.

I didn't know I was. Not in my opinion. I never said it should be. Yes, I know.

It is completely arbitrary in terms of gun control with the objective of making people safer. There are judgement calls and subjectivity in deciding that nine round magazines are acceptable and 10 round magazines are not. I am talking about being consistent. Being in support of gun regulations while opposing 'bomb making instruction' regulations strikes me as being inconsistent.

I don't know what you mean when you say I 'state it as if it were not'. I was hoping it would sound reasonable. My point was that if you don't mind regulating guns even if there are many already out there, then you shouldn't mind regulating bomb making instructions even if many are already out there. Or did I miss the point you were making... I don't doubt it would be difficult to regulate bomb making information. However, how is saying you can have nine rounds in a magazine and not 10, anything but completely arbitrary? I think it would be very difficult to provide evidence that supports the proposition that a nine round magazine is demonstrably safer than a 10 round magazine. And if you are going to be arbitrary with firearms, you can be just as arbitrary with bomb making information.

What about my dad's starter pistol? Or a flare gun. Or a target rifle? My shotgun I use on clay birds? Did the manufacturer intend those guns to shoot living things? Even if that was the manufacturers intent, I don't see how his intent can be transferred to me. The purpose of my guns is to shoot targets. Does this 'purpose' also apply to bombs? Is the purpose of a nuclear bomb to blow up, or to deter the bad guys? Your assertion seems subjective to me.

I was responding to your comment that "One has a sole purpose of killing". Neither one has a 'sole purpose of killing'. Yes. My point was that you can find some way to reasonably regulate bomb making instructions just as a way was found to regulate guns.

I'll concede the point, but why does information get a free ride? Certainly information can be quite dangerous in the wrong hands. Which one is which? I agree with not being able to fully answer the question until details of the statute are answered. But again, how is that any different than what you do when regulating guns? Do you limit the discussion of guns to firepower? Or single shot versus semi- or automatic? Then what about all the legitimate uses of guns? I still don't see a big difference between regulating guns versus regulating bomb making information.

Not obvious to me. Maybe we are looking at different aspects of the discussion. I find a discussion of whether or not a type of potentially dangerous information should be regulated on the internet, to be interesting. It also seems to be reasonable to compare it to regulation of hardware that could be potentially dangerous, such as guns, or bomb making materials. Can you elaborate on why you think it is silly?

Neither one I would say.

Good point.

I don't see how that means terrorists win, but to my point... I would suggest that the effect of requiring a nine round magazine instead of a 10 round magazine is a thousand time greater than the effect it would have on actual shooters.

Well, if we are part of a simulation, didn't the simulator program what we see, hear, and feel?

I think it is interesting that so many of the posters here that object to 'regulating' bomb making information, are very much interested in regulating guns. What is the fundamental difference? Both can be used for fun or sport. Both can be used for death and destruction. Saying you shouldn't regulate bomb making information because so many know how to do it anyway is not really different than saying we shouldn't regulate guns because so many have them anyway. Objecting to regulating bomb making information because it is hard to draw the line, is not really different than trying to draw the line on magazine capacities or what constitutes an assault style weapon.

If my simulator is reading this, I'd like him to do something about my back. Which brings me to my real question; why make a simulation that is so awful for so many? Sounds a lot like the Abrahamic god.

I think that intellectually they believe the person is in a better place. Emotionally it is a different story. You miss the person. If they were looking at eternity in heaven, why not stay here on earth with me for a few mores years? What difference would it have made in scope of things? My son moved out of town to go to school. I know he is in a better place, and am overall happy for him, but emotionally I still miss him. When he left I was still sad, and in that case I knew he would be back for Thanksgiving!

It is possible for any theory to be proven wrong, but as more observations are found to support the theory, and the theory is further refined, the probability that a theory will be found wrong decreases. Some theories have a relatively small amount of support and other theories have a great deal of support. Theories that have a great deal of support, such as the theory of evolution, are so unlikely to eventually be found wrong, that they are the equivalent of what lay people would call 'facts'. It is quite probable that the theory of evolution will be further refined, and that some aspects of it may be found to be wrong, but the overall concept is as close to a 'fact' as you are likely to find anywhere. I agree. But I'll also say that any theories that have been simply thrown out eventually, did not have the support found for them as you find for the theory of evolution. A change is random, which means many different things could happen. It is possible for an animal to develop a new trait unaffected by the environment, but is it uncommon. The reason it is uncommon is because if it confers no benefit to the animal, yet costs the animal in some way, the animal is unlikely to out compete its rivals. Using the triceratops example, a lot of energy would have to go into the growth and maintenance of those horns. And if it attracted no more females, did not provide defense or the easier gathering of food, then what you have is a net loss for the animal. Greater energy requirement and no added benefit. Therefore its rivals would likely out compete it and the trait would disappear. One way a trait might remain in the species even with no added benefit, is if it happens to occur in tandem with another trait that did provide a benefit. For example, if an animal gains a trait that allows it to better mate, at the same time it develops a trait that is useless, it may keep the useless trait because it shows up with the useful trait.

It has never before been observed and there is no theory that suggests you can do it. No, all these things are behaving the laws of physics. I think you are confusing 'physics we don't fully understand' with 'laws of physics that are changing'. Again, we are just observing events that are not fully understood. No one likes deductions. It is possible though that if people are disagreeing with you that they feel that YOU are the one who has misunderstood. I am unsure what you mean by "this board deducted two points from me for my previous post". You lost two reputation points because two individuals objected to your post for some reason.

People really don't have much control over their emotions. Even Christians. Not really that puzzling I would say.

Oh, okay. I see what you are getting at.

I claim complete ignorance on this one. Would an ostrich egg work do you think? Do different types of eggs have different contents? Is what is needed for an ostrich to develop the same thing needed for a dinosaur to develop? If any types of proteins are missing or of the wrong quantity, is that likely to impact development? And just to compare two somewhat similar species for reference, could an orangutan carry a human embryo to term? (I can take this elsewhere if necessary as this certainly isn't a philosophy question.)

How is something going to evolve from cockroaches if cockroaches aren't 'current' (i.e. Dead)? If I took some cockroaches and put them on an island, you may very well get yourself a different species, even though you still have the 'current' cockroach population on the mainland. Animals are always competing to survive. Doesn't matter if it is doing well or not. If an animal gains a trait that let's it compete better against its fellow species, it will likely evolve. They can adapt to different climates, to expand their territory, to out-reproduce their buddies, to deal with global warming, to thrive as building codes change, to adapt to invasive species, to adapt to the creativity of exterminators... How could you bring a dinosaur back if you did not have the mother to carry it? I would assume the environment the mother provides to the embryo is crucial to how the dinosaur develops.

Questions 3 and 4 do not allow you to skip the suggested responses and fill in the 'other' fields.

Yeah, I was not trying to support the OP. I just saw an article on the laser and thought it might be of interest.

Sorry, the systems are related. You need to follow the Free Electron Laser link in the article. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/02/unexpectedly-navys-superlaser-blasts-away-a-record/

Here is an article on the system with a video of it in action (if you don't mind watching a commercial first). http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/04/laser-warfare-system/