So this is absolutely true:

When I was 14, I wrote the (as far as I can determine) first parser-driven BBS in the world, basically creating the first purpose-driven, "multi-player" online adventure game, with the following caveats:

- Unis had such games themselves, but their access was limited to other university students and not the general public.

- It's also possible that someone else might have done the same thing before me, but I have never found any record of a such a BBS or online game existing prior to 1981.

The name of the BBS was 'New House of Wrath' and it featured a house that you explored via simple verb-noun syntax. Each room in the house was a BBS function (various text games which I wrote myself / a message base / a philez repository / a graffiti wall) as well as a simple underlying adventure in the style of Zork. The whole thing was written in sloppy TRS-DOS BASIC on a TRS-80 Model III and resided within 48k of memory including a primitive DB engine that I wrote. I still have a 8-pin dot-maxtrix print out of the code.

Shortly after my BBS went "online", a couple of multi-line BBSs sprung up, but these were straight BBSs without an overlying structure like mine.

At the time, I thought nothing of writing the BBS other than it was a fun thing to do. 80 Micro, the magazine that covered all things TRS-related, was going to write a story about my BBS, but nothing ever came of it. I ran it until about 1986 when I finally gave up because everyone was going to online service like Compu$erve and Prodigy.

I know I'll never get a single bit of credit for what I did, but I know what I did and I'm proud of my little contribution to the online world; that'll have to be enough.

I met a couple trek legends at the Star Trek Convention in Cleveland back in 1986. It was nothing like the spectacle modern conventions have become. I'm so sad we did not have cell phones with cameras back then. We stood in line just to get autographs.

It would have been hilarious if you did say "Bridge".

With the rad(ical) original 1986 movie soundtrack: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUdWxhfUGfE from http://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/gal4uw/animated_transformers_prequel_officially_in_the/fp1553w/.

You’re reading it wrong. The IPCC is showing temperature anomaly relative to a specific time frame, you have to compare against the same starting time frame or it is meaningless. Which is by the by an extremely frequently repeated trope used by the hard core denial side.

If you cant find comparable reference frames, use change from a common year. Go look at NOAA’s temps for 2000 and 2019 and take the delta, then compare that delta to the IPCC, you’ll find both fall around the sub 0.5C of change from 2000 to 2020, close ish at least to one another.

Edit:
That may have been a lazy explanation. I went and looked for your 0.83 for 2018, which looks like it is referencing a NOAA release, it lists it's values as calibrated against the 1951-1980 mean.
The IPCC however lists their own numbers as calibrated against the 1986-2005 mean.
Obviously, the mean temp from 1951-1980 is gonna be much lower than the the mean from 1986-2005, so you can't to a direct comparison. If you look at the instrumental portion of the IPCC results you'll see how much it 'under' hits the NOAA data too, just because it's calibrated to a warmer baseline.
Make sense?

It is relatively easy to get a quite common pre 1986 machine gun.

The whole process is cheap. $200. Fill out a ATF form 4 and attach a passport sized photo. There are only a few questions to answer (that take up about 2.5 pages). This took about 30 seconds on google to find out. It is not more difficult to pass this background audit than that of a federal agent. I've looked into applying to be a federal agent and their process is an order of magnitude more stringent.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/form/form-4-application-tax-paid-transfer-and-registration-firearm-atf-form-53204/download

"What you, me, or others consider firearms means nothing."

You asked me what I considered a firearm. I answered both my personal opinion, and then specifically said that what the government considers a firearm to be is what it is. I'm surprised you seem to have missed this.

Registries are a step towards being able to confiscate guns en-masse. If you know who has what it is much easier to take it away from them. This sentiment is well documented on pro-gun forums.

"It doesn't take any money to ban certain firearms, certainly not a boatload"

Very true. I was tempted to point this out but I didn't. I believe that this is one of the core reasons they want to do it. It makes you think they are doing something when they aren't, and it costs sweet fuck all compared to say, spending money on anything else that will genuinely improve the average man's lot.

'your off hand assumption that, without your derisive "warning", he would be "dumb" enough to make an assumption'

Now that's the thing about warnings, you aren't assuming the behaviour of anyone. You only know it is a possibility that you don't want to happen. You don't know if it will happen or not. So you put up a warning. That's how warnings work.

But hey, this is your house right? Make no mistake, you've stamped yourself all over videosift like a dog marking its territory. Outsiders who don't comply with your way of thinking basically aren't welcome.

At best that leaves only the rare pre 1986 automatics already in private hands, only in some states (totally illegal under any circumstances in many other states), only if you can first pass an expensive background check more stringent than the one federal agents must pass. Sounds like some serious regulation to me.

What you, me, or others consider firearms means nothing. I gave you the law as written, it includes those, they are illegal, so there are effective regulations on firearms already....that doesn't mean they're sufficient. Those words are different words, that's why they're spelled and pronounced differently. Speed limits are effective laws, but not sufficient to regulate vehicle use.

Why do so many firearms lovers fear being on a registry? I've always found that insane, like every other purchase you make isn't tracked or something. There's no purchase privacy anymore, for anything.

It doesn't take any money to ban certain firearms, certainly not a boatload, and not the ocean of cash health care costs. That's a red herring. All it takes is for representatives to vote the way their constituents want them to by 98%.
Perhaps in that sense it would take money, because in order to get them to vote as the people want, campaign finance reform is necessary, and that will cost money, but it's the best thing our country could possibly spend money on.

I support a slightly modified second amendment and universal health care. My interpretation allows for regulations, registration, universal background checks even for family transfers, bans of certain types, seizure from violent convicts and mental patients (impossible without a registry, btw), etc. Yes, I understand that's not how the constitution is written today, but the constitution is a living document. In California, we have most of that as state law already, including an outright ban on fully or selectively automatic weapons.

Btw, you suggest....Try to make people feel welcome.
I was responding in kind to your off hand assumption that, without your derisive "warning", he would be "dumb" enough to make an assumption about you. Then you go on to say making assumptions is dumb. Care to rethink? Had you been more thoughtful and less derisive in making that point I likely would have ignored the hypocrisy.

Machine guns are firearms. You can buy pre 1986 machine guns in the USA (I'm not sure what form you have to fill out). The 1986 cutoff is fairly pointless.

I don't consider bazookas, grenades, mortars, etc. firearms. To me a firearm is essentially a rifle that fires cartridges. But if the US government considers them as firearms then that is what they are for legislative purposes.

I believe there is case law regarding what scope of arms they were referring to in the 2A and the result was any common firearm. This currently includes almost all pistols and rifles, both automatic and semi-automatic (with the exception being automatic guns must have been made before 1986 - I believe this limit should be removed).

I'm very much against restricting semi-automatic rifles. There are no good reasons for restricting them. It is unconstitutional. They are not the "weapon of choice" for mass shootings, pistols are. The lethality of them in mass shootings is the same as that of pistols (someone ran an analysis just recently). This last point surprised me a little.

https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/d7ypcv/no_mass_shootings_carried_out_with_semiautomatic/

I'm for background checks (i.e. for second hand sales which are the only sales left without a background check) as long as the service is cheap and no records are kept (i.e. it isn't used to create a de-facto registration database).

Public health wise, talking about firearms is a red herring. If I were to drop a bucket load of money into stuff in the USA it would be into making health care and mental health care cheap and available and reducing poverty. This would have more affect on mortality and morbidity rates then any gun legislation will. And yes, I would give fully subsidized health care to the poor.

By now you should be asking yourself what planet someone comes from where they support the 2A and free health care at the same time.

@newtboy said: "a 3' rise, which is all but guaranteed by 2100 under the most optimistic current projections."

Lies.

The most recent IPCC report(AR5) has their section on sea level rise here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

In the summary for policy makers section under projections they note: " For the period 2081–2100, compared to 1986–2005, global mean sea level rise is likely (medium confidence) to be in the 5 to 95% range of projections from process based models, which give 0.26 to 0.55 m for RCP2.6, 0.32 to 0.63 m for RCP4.5, 0.33 to 0.63 m for RCP6.0, and 0.45 to 0.82 m for RCP8.5. For RCP8.5, the rise by 2100 is 0.52 to 0.98 m"

And to give you maximum benefit of doubt they also comment on possible(unlikely) exceeding of stated estimates:" Based on current understanding, only the collapse of marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet, if initiated, could cause global mean sea level to rise substantially above the likely range during the 21st century. This potential additional contribution cannot be precisely quantified but there is medium confidence that it would not exceed several tenths of a meter of sea level rise during the 21st century. "

So, to summarize that, the worst case emissions scenario the IPCC ran(8.5), has in itself a worst case sea level rise ranging 0.5-1.0m, so 1.5 to 3ft. They do note a potential allowance for another few tenths of a meter if unexpected collapse of antarctic ice also occurs.

Let me quote you again: "3' rise, which is all but guaranteed by 2100 under the most optimistic current projections"

and yet the most recent collaborative summary from the scientific community states under their most pessimistic projections have a 3 ft as the extreme upper limit...

You also did however state "IPCC (again, known for overly conservative estimates)", so it does seem you almost do admit having low opinion of the scientific consensus and prefer cherry picking the most extreme scenarios you can find anywhere and claiming them as the absolute golden standard...

Your video, Space Dogfight - Enemy Mine (1986), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, David Letterman visits a viewer in person - 1986, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

@eric3579 -- I agree that that is a sticking point. I have trouble buying it because there are already limitations on the "right to bear arms".

The 2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Certainly, one could argue that licensing / registration of firearms would count as infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. However, "arms" is rather unspecific. Merriam Webster defines it as "a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm".

The government has already decided that limiting the access to some "arms" is fine, and doesn't infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. For example, in many states it is "legal" to own a fully automatic, military use machine gun. BUT:
1) It had to be manufactured before 1986
2) Said machine gun has to be registered in a national database
3) The buyer has to pass a background check

So there's 3 things already infringing on your constitutional right to bear a specific kind of "arm". A firearm -- not a missile, grenade, or bomb or something "obviously" ridiculous. And actually, even "destructive devices" like grenades are technically not illegal to own, but they require registration, licenses, etc. that the ATF can grant or refuse at their discretion. And their discretion generally leads them to NOT allow civilians to exercise their right to bear that particular sort of "arm".

If those limitations / exceptions aren't an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms, certainly reasonable expansion of the same sort of limitations might also be OK.

I empathize with pro-gun people's fear of "slippery slope" escalating restrictions; the potential to swing too far in the other direction. But at some point you gotta see the writing on the wall. To me, it seems like it would be better for NRA-types to be reasonable and proactive so that they can be part of the conversation about where and how the lines are drawn. In other words, accepting some reasonable "common sense" limitations (like firearm licensing inspired by driver's licensing) seems like a good way to keep any adjustments / de-facto exceptions to the 2nd amendment reasonable (like the laws about machine guns). Otherwise, you're going all-in. With a not particularly good hand. And that's when you can lose everything (ie., 2nd amendment removal rather than limited in sane ways that let responsible people still keep firearms).

I saw them play this when they opened for Simple Minds in San Antone back in 1986. They sounded great but most of the crowd was teenagers who were only there to hear Simple Minds play that Breakfast Club song.

You're actually calling the Democrats in congress obstructionists? I'm reasonably certain we have as many federal vacancies as we do largely due to the Republican congress of the past several years doing their damnedest to block every single thing Obama tried to get done. That accusation is phenomenally hypocritical. I certainly acknowledge the current congressional Democrats have been voting no or voting to not proceed quite a bit lately, but they've also been cut off from the process of lawmaking to the highest degree possible. You can't expect cooperation from people that you don't even let sit at the table while laws are being drafted and discussed.

That last word was a joke of course - there's been damn near no discussion of this bill. The last time the United States had a major tax overhaul was also under republican oversight, in 1986. During the course of creating that legislation they took over 6 months and had more than a dozen hearings on it, ensuring reasonable transparency. This latest bill was slapped together over a few weeks and had a completely opaque process.

You claim the Democrats "fucked Americans" because they added 8 trillion to the debt. My understanding is this bill, over the next 10 years, will add a minimum of another trillion. The fact that it's so negative overall will also, due to existing law, require a balancing by way of cutting other programs - Medicaid at the least is expected to see major cuts, just as a side effect of this bill. Of course, it isn't really a side effect per se, they just couldn't get enough R votes if they either made the necessary changes to keep the bill deficit-neutral or included the provision that would've waived the mandatory cuts. So it's laughable to claim the current Republicans in congress really have an interest in being fiscally conservative or even moderate.

I'm likely wasting my time here though, as I don't think you're actually interested in engaging in an honest conversation, nor do you seem to be open to changing your viewpoint at all. I wonder though whether you know enough about politics from the last several decades to have a guess as what Republicans from the Reagan era would think about how things are being done today. My guess is they'd be appalled, but perhaps I'm overestimating them.

Hmm. I disagree with your description text, @ChaosEngine.

I've never shot something fully-automatic. I have shot an AR-15 semi-automatic, and I know where you're coming from when you say that hitting a target on full auto would be difficult, especially for a relatively untrained person (recoil control).

However, I think Vox and others are basically correct when they say that this modification (bump stock) contributed to the Las Vegas shooting being so deadly. Specifically in that sort of scenario.

The dude wasn't picking targets and sniping, going for accuracy. He picked an ideal shooting location (elevation with clear LOS) and sprayed into a crowd. He'd have been more accurate by keeping the weapon on semi-auto and actually aiming carefully, and certainly would have gotten more hits per bullet fired, but on the other hand the rate of fire difference would have so different that people would have had more time between shots to scramble for cover, etc.

He had position, an abundance of bullets, and lots and lots of time. Given those givens, having a rate of fire approximately equal to fully-automatic means a much higher body count than if he'd have been limited to traditional semi-auto.


The NRA is being more cunning than I figured they would, and has come out in favor of banning bump stocks. I agree with you that they see that mostly as a pointless concession, and a distraction from additional / better stuff that needs to happen.

But it isn't a pointless concession. If banning fully-automatic firearms in 1986 (minus the ones grandfathered in) was the right thing to do, extending that to include bump stocks is also the right thing to do. For the same reasons.

@newtboy is correct to note that technically, a rifle with a bump stock isn't a fully-automatic "machine gun". The user's finger still pulls the trigger once for every bullet that comes out -- semi-automatic.

However, I think that the "spirit" of the distinction is that with semi-automatic firing you have to think and consciously decide to pull the trigger each time you want to shoot a bullet, whereas with fully-automatic you consciously decide when you want to start and stop shooting. By the letter of the law, weapons with bump stocks are semi-automatic. But by that definition of the "spirit" of the law, they are fully-automatic. Pull the grip/barrel forward to start shooting, pull it back to stop.

It's a pretty frequent occurrence for technology to outpace the law. The definitions of semi vs fully automatic include the word "trigger" because they didn't anticipate this kind of conversion that makes the trigger sort of one step removed from the conscious decision to fire. The law would have similar hiccups if a weapon was developed that used a button or switch to fire, rather than a traditional trigger.

When those hiccups happen, the solution is to clarify the intent of the law and expand or clarify definitions as necessary. I'm pleasantly surprised that many legislators seem willing to do that with bump stocks, and that the NRA seems like it won't stand in the way. Mission accomplished, situation resolved? No. But a step in the right direction.