Seeking a partner to create something world changing - Page 2

[vegaseat]

How do you pack all of this into a computer program?
Better pick a good language or the code will be a billion lines.

[jwenting]

moving money from gov'ts to private companies & individuals.

best thing about war... The business of government should be to enable and encourage private enterprise, not to punish it.
Of course I prefer other ways than war to do that, but if war does it, it's a good if unintentional side effect of said war.

[Suzie999]

If there's going to be another war, then let's make it a proper one instead of picking on the same old countries.
A great big world war would be nice, conscriptions, the lot, no-one gets out of it, lets have one big winner and be done.
We could do that say every 200 years instead of picking a fight every 10.

No weapons firearms though, just clubs and catapults.
And axes.

[<M/>]

How about we have women run the world... we wouldn't have wars, just intense negotiations every 28 days. I rather see that than countries killing each other.

[Suzie999]

If a woman ruled the whole world, there'd be no negotiating.
Everyone is home for dinner and in bed before midnight or there's hell to pay.

[<M/>]

If a woman ruled the whole world, there'd be no negotiating.
Everyone is home for dinner and in bed before midnight or there's hell to pay.

Sounds like my home...

[stultuske]

No weapons firearms though, just clubs and catapults.
And axes.

There's a logical error in this, though.... The logic used to be:

Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

More recently (relatively speaking) this has become:

Those who live by the sword, get shot by those who don't

so, I wish those who enter a war with only clubs, catapults and axes much luck, they'll need it :)

[Suzie999]

I thing the addage you are looking for is "Never bring a knife to a gun fight".

[jwenting]

do bring a knife, but bring a gun as well. Gives you a backup to use when the other guy runs out of ammo :)

[vegaseat]

Let the computers fight the war. Let the best software win.

[ivan.moony]

Hypothetically speaking, what could we do to change the world? What could be that much important that needs a change? Is anyone interested in answering this question in public?

[diafol]

Banning ownership of guns would be a start. Another tradegy in USA. How many more?

[ivan.moony]

I meant from the aspect of programming. I'm just looking for fresh ideas.

[pixelsoul]

Banning ownership of guns would be a start. Another tradegy in USA. How many more?

I can understand how someone that lives outside of the US would think this should happen, as there are people here in the US that do as well.
But in short, it will never happen. There will literally be a civil war in the US if the government ever attempted to take the guns away from it's citizens.
That is something that I think a lot of people from other countries don't fully understand.
I know some people think it is crazy, but I fully agree that if you (try to) take the guns away from people, the criminal element will still have them.

You can't tell by watching the news but, the homicide rate in the US is actually down considerably, compared to the mid to late 90's, Along with gun violence.
In most major cities in the US, like Los Angeles for example, it is noticably much lower.
But it has also been rising in some other cities, like Chicago for example, it is still overall much lower throughout the US though.

In my opinion, what has gotten worse is mental health, and also the behavior that has seemingly become socially exceptable in the US these days.
I feel like the media (being the news, tv shows, movies, etc) contributes to that problem greatly.
Sometimes I feel like we're heading to the plot in the movie Idiocracy.

[Reverend Jim]

Sometimes I feel like we're heading to the plot in the movie Idiocracy.

Anyone can buy a gun. In some states, open carry, even of assault rifles in airports is protected. Every response to gun deaths is to further relax gun laws. In the mean time you can get 20 years for posession (in most states) of a plant that is responsible for no deaths.

Sex is being pushed in your faces almost 24x7 by all facets of mass media yet the fraction of a second of a glimpse of a nipple throws the entire country into a tailspin and wastes court time and resources for over four years. In the mean time it is quite permissible to show ever increasing amounts of violence and gore on TV because, unlike nipples, violence and gore never twisted anyone's mind.

Heading to the plot? I think that ship sailed long ago.

[stultuske]

PixelSoul: in one way, I think it's right to do so, they can have the right to own arms, for all I care. (note that I said: own, not carry around as some nice bling-bling), but they don't understand the point of the law that allows them to own them.

They are allowed to own weapons in order to defend themselves or their families, or, when needed, against a corrupt government that tries to suppress them.

They all seem to think they don't just have the right, but the duty to carry it wherever they go, and to go shoot cans every two days (damn commies might try to get in, better be prepared). The last few years, some "patriots" like Zimmerman had the brilliant idea "kid, wears a hood, better pop 'm before he does me in, 'cause I'm allowed to carry a gun."

It's not the ownership of the guns that cause the most problems, it's the fact that they're owned, carried and (ab)used (in a lot of cases, 'm not saying all gun owners are like this) by trigger-happy nut-jobs who would think of themselves as lesser Americans if they didn't carry 'ole Betsy around with them wherever they went(, and God forbid they would carry an unloaded gun,) and hardly rise over the level of intellect that is required to actually enjoy watching shows Like "Honey Boo Boo".
Unfortunately, the law doesn't say anything (that I know of) of having to be responsible before you're allowed to carry a gun. The licenses are passed out as if they were chocolate cookies, with very little control ... This is bound to cause trouble.

Indeed, if you all hand in your guns, only the criminal element would still have guns. Then again: so would the cops, and they would have much less problems distinguishing between "criminal element" and "law abiding citizen just carrying a gun". it would, however, minimize the home-accidents of kids "hey, I just found daddy's gun, let's pose for a selfBANG " or actions like Zimmermans.

In a lot of cases, knowing how to shoot is clearly not the same as knowing how to handle a gun, and that's a very sad thing.

[diafol]

We have huge issues with mental health in Wales, but to my knowledge we've never had a mass murder. Why? Because our mental cases are less mental than yours? No, ours are absolutely insane too, but less of them obviousy. I'd wager it's because we have absolutely no access to guns. And BTW I do recognize the issue that banning gun ownership in the USA would have. Listening to NRA supporters, I came to the conclusion that if you're all like that, then you deserve everything you get. But you're not, thankfully, you deserve better.

[SalmiSoft]

The Welsh, being inventive people, don't need guns to perform mass murders: 5 killed by fire in Prestatyn

That is of course unusual and I don't mean to suggest that mass murder - or murder generally - is commonplace in Wales, but I am not convinced that lack of guns has too much to do with it. For example I suspect that access to guns in Wales is similar to access to guns in Scotland, but Scotland's homicide rate is 2.33 deaths for every 100,000 people each year, compared with 0.7 in England and Wales, giving Scotland the second highest murder rate in western Europe (behind Finland). This suggests to me that if people want to kill each other they will do so, with or without guns, so banning guns may not do much to improve the murder rate. What it would surely do is eliminate a significant cause of accidental death & injury.

[diafol]

See 'Dunblane' for Scotland. BTW 0.7 for England and Wales - not Wales alone. As for being inventive (heh heh - made me laugh +1 for that), of course, same as everybody else - we can set fires, poison, hang... - but what we can't do very easily is go into a Junior school and start blasting little kiddies and their teachers. Sickeningly, this is bringing me back to Dunblane again.

... banning guns may not do much to improve the murder rate ... What it would surely do is eliminate a significant cause of accidental death & injury.

So you reckon the perennial high school massacres would be just as bad if kids didn't have guns? Not sure about that. People kill people using guns. Take the guns away, and people will still kill people, but because it's that much more difficult without a gun, they'll kill less.

[Reverend Jim]

If the government outlaws tactical nuclear missiles then only criminals will have tactical nuclear missiles.

That should point out exactly how insane the "if the government outlaws guns..." argument is. By definition, if the government outlaws anything then only criminals will possess it. Otherwise what would be the point of having any laws?

[SalmiSoft]

So you reckon the perennial high school massacres would be just as bad if kids didn't have guns? Not sure about that.

I'm not sure either. Intuitively I would agree with you but it would be nice if the statistics were more cut and dried. There are probably multiple other factors involved.

[diafol]

Agreed. Not a simple matter.

[jwenting]

Banning ownership of guns would be a start. Another tradegy in USA. How many more?

when guns are banned, only criminals will have guns...
Guns are banned here. Still there are more people killed by guns here per year than in a similar sized area of the US where guns are fully legal.

And oh, most gun crime in the US is already committed by guns that the shooter wasn't supposed to have (iow, had stolen) so banning them wouldn't do anything.

The only thing that banning guns (or any weapons) does is turn law abiding citizens into helpless victims. Not just of crime but government oppression as well.
Which is exemplified by both the USSR and Nazi Germany. In both countries among the first things the regime did when taking power was to ban and confiscate guns.

[jwenting]

I'm not sure either. Intuitively I would agree with you but it would be nice if the statistics were more cut and dried. There are probably multiple other factors involved.

They'd just use other things. Last year a guy in China went on a rampage and killed something like 30 people before he was stopped. With a kitchen knife...
Street gangs in the UK commit horrific crimes using crowbars, hammers, axes, screwdrivers.
A guy in the Netherlands famously killed someone using a ballpoint pen he had converted with stronger springs and a pointed steel spike. He rammed it into someone's eye socket and launched the spike into the victim's brain.

[SalmiSoft]

They'd just use other things.

Agreed. That was exactly my point in quoting the case of Scotland which has a high murder rate despite guns being (I believe) banned.

[Suzie999]

Sorry to stray back on topic, but would anyone care to give me their million dollar ideas for free please?

:)

[Reverend Jim]

Start your own religion. I hear there's big money in that. It's like the ultimate vapor-ware product.

[stultuske]

true. better yet: have a friend start his religion, and become the first follower.

At least Saint Peter made it to pope before being crucified, no matter how you want to look at religion or the position of the title/person: organized religion is big bucks nowadays. Just find someone willing to die for mankind, and you're golden.

[ivan.moony]

Suzie999, I could give you nice ideas (not sure about a million), but not for free, you have to give me your soul.

[ivan.moony]

don't worry, just kidding (although not that much successfully) :)