• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!

Vorlonagent

Members
  • Content count

    1,413
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Vorlonagent last won the day on July 13

Vorlonagent had the most liked content!

About Vorlonagent

  • Rank
    Degenerate who wants to build a starship

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Santa Clara, CA

Contact Methods

  • Skype
    Vorlopnagent
  1. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    An article came across my FB about an offshore wind turbine farm being retired that has existed in Danish waters. The Old hack, being a Dane would naturally know everything about it. https://www.thegwpf.com/worlds-first-offshore-wind-farm-retires-a-post-mortem According to the article, the actual power generated by the turbine farm over its 25-year lifespan was 22% of its rated maximum. It would be unreasonable to expect it to constantly produce at its rated capacity for 25 years for many reasons. Still 22% still seems a bit underwhelming. Maybe the rated capacities of wind turbines need to come down to something more approximating their expected or likely performance? ToH, do you know of anything important that the article omits? Do you know of any factual errors in the article?
  2. Things you have no idea how to feel about

    [snicker] What's the elevator pitch for your book?
  3. Things you have no idea how to feel about

    Just shy of 3 years ago, I wanted to show a friend a video (mild NSFW warning) that disappeared off youtube. Since I had it downloaded, I uploaded it to my account. Not wanting trouble, I didn't give it any search tags or put it in any playlists. I thought "that should keep it nicely anonymous". Not quite. It got found (or gets periodically found) by a group of Japanese speakers. It has over 25,000 views. It has 38 comments (all in Japanese). A few of them are subscribing to my channel. I'm not sure what to do about that. Part of me wants to give them more content. Another part reminds me I don't owe anybody anything just because they subscribed. It's not like I'm monetizing my channel. I'm not looking for subscribers. These days I just collect videos I like and upload videos of my friends 4th of July fireworks. It's just odd.
  4. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    When I first got into this topic, I was not the most civil. But since I stopped myself, apologized and reset my rhetoric, I have not attacked you or in any way been rude or disrespectful to you. There doesn't need to be an evil dark shadowy "conspiracy" of any sort. There just needs to be a straightforward, push against gun rights.. The whole discussion is phrased in terms of what restrictions to adopt or not. There is no considerations for innate rights granted by the 2nd Amendment. There is no consideration for how to target people instead of classes of weapon. Solutions from gun control advocates have seemed to always turn to banning classes of weapons and otherwise tightening restrictions uniformly everywhere. If we accept that we cannot eliminate mass-shootings no matter what we do and also accept that each shooting will prompt calls for further restrictions and that some of these calls will succeed, there is only one endpoint. Total ban. I do not see how this labels anybody as an extremist besides those who can be counted on to demand restrictions at every turn and as you rightly point out those are a minority, not a majority. This is why "where does it end?" is an important question. If you have no clear idea what "too far" is, you can be moved there by people who know no such limits.
  5. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    Your ideas sound fine to me. The problem of course is the people who do not take the safety courses. That's where well-meaning people might demand the safety course be mandatory before purchasing a gun. I understand you were not proposing this. It's something that has been mentioned in this topic before.so it seemed appropriate to address since we were in the neighborhood anyway. To be honest I am not sure how effective an involuntary safety course would be in any event, for more or less the same reasons why any involuntary education, training or therapy is likely to be ineffective. At some point the individual has to choose to buy in or there's no effect. It might surprise you to know that I do not own a gun personally. My reason comes from understanding the responsibilities involved and respect for the inherent deadliness of the things. I [can't/choose not to] put the time into responsibly owning a gun, so responsibility dictates I forego. Doesn't mean my rights under the 2nd aren't important even if I am not currently exercising them.
  6. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    It's a good start. Education would probably bring down accidental gun deaths the most. I'm wary of it as a precondition for buying any gun (if nothing else it incentivizes selling the most certificates for the least education) but it's on the table. As I posted replying to Scotty, any measured response takes time, which means resisting the "Do something now!" impulse. Important questions are still unanswered in the wake of Vegas, such as how the shooter evaded detection as a problem case, which we need to know before we figure out how to plug that hole without creating too many false-positives. How do we target the people who are problems and leave alone the people who aren't? No system is going to be perfect. Any system we create is going to falsely point at some people and miss some others. It may well be that buying too many guns over too short a time should be a red flag to be paid attention to. Even here some care must be taken. Depending on how the system works, psychological examination of a potential buyer could be used as a way of blocking gun access.
  7. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    Not straw men. If you think so, explain how.
  8. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    This should already be illegal. It should constitute assault. But then US police have been way too lax in enforcing the law in the case of political protests. The problem here is without a clear idea of how much is too much restriction, the Second Amendment will continue to be eroded a little bit at a time. It's a "death of a thousand cuts" answer that will lead to an activist-driven total ban, which is the only thing you have said would be too much. There will be barely anything left by the time a true total ban will be in place. This is why the moratorium part of my proposal is important. It stops the death of a thousand cuts Your goal of "putting the brakes" on mass-shootings and gun deaths is noble but also undefined in practical terms. You're never going to eliminate these things, just reduce them. Even a total gun ban won't eliminate mass-shootings as the wave of terrorism across Europe these last few years amply demonstrates. So you have to do that nasty inhuman things of asking how many deaths is acceptable. Saying "none is acceptable" leads directly to death of a thousand cuts. We have to ask if this change some group of activists and media figures are screaming for is really going to do anything or if it's just "never letting a good crisis go to waste". There is also a question of trust. Setting an indistinct and ultimately unachievable goal combined with putting a low emphasis on 2nd Amendment rights means you can have completely good intentions and be swept up in each frenzy of gun restrictions to come down from those who really do desire a total gun ban. Your good intentions could not amount to anything useful to me. You do not mean to but you are essentially saying "you get what little rights (if any) that remain when we finally finish the gun control crusade." Which, given the activist mindset of always pushing and never accepting anything but total victory means I can expect to be left with nothing. This is why I was on about the activist mindset so much at the start of this discussion. The central thesis by which most gun control legislation operates seems to be, "guns are the problem". Eliminate guns and everything will be fine. I tend to think this is a faulty assumption similar to Prohibition or the War on Drugs, but as long as that is the received wisdom, we are at a stalemate.
  9. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    That's not my understanding. What I get is a strong distrust of government and its ability to become toxic and invasive.
  10. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    This is at least partly flawed in that there is no Constitutional Right to Drive. It is a privilege that can be given or take away entirely at the whim of the States. In 40 years, states may abolish driver's licenses for humans entirely and demand people utilize AI-driven vehicles exclusively. There are many ways that law could fail, but constitutionality is not one of them. Licensing as a precondition to any kind of gun ownership would have to pass a US Supreme Court test. At the very least SCOTUS would be asked whether licensing of this sort would put an "undue burden" on the 2nd Amendment and would have to rule "no it doesn't." There's a good argument to be made for "yes it does". Licensing, as I have noted before, can be used to create that undue burden in the same way poll taxes and literacy tests were used to create an undue burden on black voting in the South. Moreover, Free Speech can still lead to harm all the way up to loss of life. Directness or indirectness of the threat is not that important. The Supreme Court has hard limits on what a government can do thwart free speech and what kind of speech government can address. The Obama Administration went outside those boundaries by harassing its political opponents. Some were put on terrorist watch lists and others were audited by the IRS where practical. Either action could have and should have been challenged under the First Amendment, but that stuff takes time to push through the courts and is expensive to do, so it may never have been done. Now, then. You have a pretty complete idea of what gun legislation I would support and what I find acceptable and not. Can you now answer "where does it end?" What would constitute 'enough" gun restrictions to you? What constitutes "too much?"
  11. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    In addition to criminal penalties, mishandling, receiving or possessing database information is considered a violation of 2nd Amendment rights. Those responsible may be sued by anyone whose information is mishandled. The US government waives its usual "you can't sue me." privilege.
  12. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    Proposal: Federal rules should form a minimum standard. Individual states should have some freedom to make changes of their own Access to this system is blocked to anyone who has committed a violent felony for 10 years per violation, and they stack. Creation of an independent Federal Firearms licensing Authority, to be supported by licensing fees and government if necessary. It is a nonprofit corporation run in the public interest, but not under the command and control of the Executive Branch. Its exclusive function is to grant federal gun-related licenses and run federal background checks. All other government agencies are to cooperate with this agency are not allowed to duplicate its work and must defer to its authority keeps an encrypted database of background checks, current licenses and other information as needed to administer laws. Police and government must have a valid warrant or congressional subpoena to look at information and must have a separate one for each individual. Disclosing database information without a warrant is a felony, , fines, jail time, blah,blah, blah Government may not surveil this agency, interfere with its normal operation or compile lists that in any way duplicate this agency's. Felony, fines, jail time, blah,blah, blah for anybody involved. Individuals may request activity sheets which detail if government has been asking about them. Government may have specific queries temporarily sealed by court order. Rules for semi-automatic and slower-firing weapons at or under 10Kg unloaded weight. (Casual sport and self defense) May be purchased with a certificate of having passed a basic gun safety class within the previous two years, plus a background check, plus a minimum waiting period, no exceptions. The internet is everywhere people. There's no excuse. Weapons may not be modified in any way such that a trigger pull fires more than one round. Magazines for such weapons may not be sold with a higher capacity than 10 rounds. Ammunition may not be sold that has increased body armor penetration. Rules for weapons under 10KG in weight and accessories not covered above (Enthusiast) Illegal without a Restricted Weapons license. Can't use someone else's license, other commonsense stuff, violators get Felony, fines, jail time, blah,blah, blah Having a Restricted weapons license enables the purchase of Restricted weapons and accessories with valid confirmation of the license. No "yes" means no. Restricted items include but are not limited to Automatic weapons 10Kg or under Magazines with a capacity above 10 rounds round types not listed above. modifications to semiautomatic weapons 10KG or under to make them fire faster Purchaser is responsible for any damage or loss of life related to items purchased using the license. Private sale of Restricted stuff are identical to those of a new sale. The parties must use a 3rd party broker to run background checks, hold weapons for cooling off periods etc. Once the selling party releases control of the Restricted stuff, they are no longer responsible. Must renew license each year or certify that all Restricted items have been sold or destroyed. Rules for weapons over 10Kg unloaded weight (military grade) You need a damn good reason to want a working one of these. Exceptions include museums and very SERIOUS private collectors. Not going to go into detail here because it's really outside the scope of the current discussion. Just note there are some special cases I'm not covering. National Concealed Carry License Only covers carrying Self Defense grade weapons. Wearer is licensed with one weapon. Additional weapons are licensed individually Valid within the borders of the US, supersedes state carry laws. Issued after owner demonstrates ability to shoot well, good knowledge of state and federal laws that have jurisdiction within 50 miles of their residence, knowledge of safety and maintenance. State law may restrict concealed carry on transports such as (but not limited to) planes, busses and trains. A concealed carry does not mean the licensee can ignore reasonable "gun-free zone" rules or laws. Moratorium For the next 10 years, no law may be introduced, regulation changed or introduced or executive order enforced that impacts the 2nd Amendment or laws pertaining to it without a 60% consenting vote from both houses of Congress, or 50% congressional vote plus president's signature After 10 years the threshold drops to 55%, or 50% congressional vote plus president's signature. The idea is to give something to get something. Restrictions tighten for self defense uses but open up for enthusiasts. Gun owners concerned about being on lists know that at the very least, the lists aren't in easy reach of the government.
  13. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    Of course. That's not in dispute. What that means in practical terms is the issue, You wouldn't. Because Kaepernik wasn't doing anything new. The US became drenched in the race issue since early into Obama's first term. Kaepernik did not add any new insights to the discussion. He simply made race that much more inescapable (and preserved his "starting quarterback" status through the 2016 NFL season. He's out of work now because he put in a dismal performance) There's no easy fix. Inner city blacks are poor. The poor get lesser treatment regardless of skin color. That's not changing any time soon. If I'm black and I'm conditioned to see any slight as racism, slights that occur to me because I am poor will look like racism. This is not to say that there is no racism in the US but that not everything perceived by blacks as racism need be racism. The high black participation in many sports argue for an advantage to blacks in some kinds of athleticism. No matter how we slice it, no two humans are equal, let alone two races. We have to navigate advantages and deficits in upbringing, education and talent every day. There is no way to make things come out even that doesn't do more harm than good. Bullies are also something that are always going to be there as long as humans are humans. Some people with power will abuse that power, and some abusers delight in harming others. This is the first time I have seen gun legislation that expands rather than contracts the rights gun owners have. The trajectory of the last 40 years of gun legislation has been toward more restrictions. Questions to ask are what actual "silencers" and what "armor piercing" ammunition are being allowed. Past gun legislation has famously played fast and loose with the definition of "assault weapon" and "assault rifle." because they were scare words for a while. I do not know definitions are being massaged in this case but it is a common opposition tactic. Who initiated violence last time neo-nazis and KKKers marched? The extreme-left "anti-fascist" activists. They were absent this time, and a non-violent demonstration resulted. Activists hate being ignored too. Activism also escalates provocation until its desires are met.
  14. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    One can argue there is a matter of degree. Neo-nazis are an extreme fringe group. The neo-nazi/KKK march only had long legs in the 24-hour news cycle because a liberal group decided to commit assault and battery on a large scale turning the protest into a riot. The kneeling thing is in-your-face and is so not just once but every sunday. We can hypocrite-hunt all year if we want and I can give as good as I get because hypocrisy is a universal. It happens to liberals and conservatives in equal measure. But playing the game is divisive so I'd rather go elsewhere. I think the NFL as an umbrella organization is non-profit. I believe NFL teams are for-profit and players are simply employees. Are we talking about gun rights or racism here? Or both? Open carry is not a universal right in the US. AFAIK, states and localities can ban open-carry and do. There are states where it is allowed, such as Washington or Texas, but I doubt you could do it in California or New York. To understand police reactions to blacks one must look at the plight of blacks. Their situation is messed up in about every way they could be and one of the side effects is police are conditioned by a combination of received wisdom, confirmation bias and genuine experience to look with greater suspicion on blacks. It's a rift that won't easily or quickly heal. I completely agree with Martin Luther King's dream of judging people by the content of their character not the color of their skin. But people are people and human brains make decisions on more than objective logic. That's not what I said. I was asking what you thought the obligation would be because it was unclear. So what obligations (legal or otherwise) do you see for a gun-owner in the wake of the vegas shooting? I've done my best. The NFL players kneeling is intrusive, directly and pointedly disrespectful and ongoing. Charloteville occurred once, was only in the news, and offered no commentary on the nation. I can go into detail but I don't really see other reasons.