Your video, Monkey with an AK-47, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^chilaxe:

"20th Century Fox Research Library"
Ha... and all this time I thought they made movies, not science.
Isn't there a Planet of the Apes movie coming out soon?


Yes and it is related.

>> ^Issykitty:

Whatever that was, it was LOL


I want to see cats using guns. I have seen cats as guns though. Pew pew!

*cinema related for the upcoming Planet of the Apes movie.

>> ^Ti_Moth:

KILL IT!!!!


Being someone with a spec of foresight, I say give'em an extended clip and send small groups into action.

Give a man a fish he eats for a day. Give a man a crazy ass basket and a sacred lake and well, apparently he still only eats for a day.

@MycroftHomlz There are so many reasons "local government" can't/won't help in many African countries. To understand we first have to try to put aside our First World mindsets.

The first is that everyone in the impoverished countries are in continual power struggles thus there is no solid government to speak of. We often see kids with AK-47's because one faction came to him while he was out playing and said "Fight with us and you will get food and clothing, if not you and your whole village will die." Unfortunately a massive number of people are going to suffer at either decision that child makes.

The second is most of those same countries are in debt to the World Bank. So when a stable government is put in place the first thing the World Bank takes away is social assistance programs. The World Bank cares about one thing, it's "mutha fu*king money". They don't care how or why they get it. Africa has comparatively few natural resources for export and the ones they do have they either don't have the technology to harvest (oil), are owned by DeBeers (diamonds) or run by Christopher Walken (gold).

There are many other factors but these are some of the biggest reasons why there are no government programs. Thus it is left up to you and me. Or if that sounds to big a task we can always let the big businesses in to take care of them. They probably aren't that greedy, right? *cough Goldman Sachs

*end thesis

How is it that people cannot defend themselves right now? We can still purchase a wide variety of weapons, including firearms. Do you need an RPG to protect your apartment?

I'm trying real hard to understand your moral vs. immoral approach to crimes. You seem to be claiming that it is immoral for the government (representatives of the collective public) to throw a person in prison for breaking the law. Tell me if I'm wrong, because I don't know how else to interpret that weird "stabbing you with a knife to quit smoking" example.

Incentivize people using fear and violence? What does that even mean? Fear is a good thing. Fear of consequences. Whether there is a government around or not, there will be consequences for actions. Either from a neutral party (like police and the courts) or from vigilantes (the family and friends of the victim). From my point of view, there's more violence in your proposed world.

Your entire argument is beginning to sound like "I can't smoke what I want where I want so let's burn this whole mutherfuker down!" and "I can't buy a guy without a three day waiting period so let's burn this whole mutherfuker down!"

You have no clue what would even happen if you got your way, and you act like we are crazy for defending a system that at least functions a little bit. We're not crazy, we have a pretty good idea how fucked up the world gets when there is no functioning government. It's like those African countries where they don't have any roads but they've all got AK-47's. Where entire villages get wiped out by roving mercenary gangs. Where hundred or thousands of women get raped and nobody does a damn thing about it. I don't want to live there, and I don't think you do either. It's fucking hell on earth, and you think everybody is suddenly going to start being nice to each other? Because there is no government to "incentivize violence"?

I'm trying real hard not to start throwing insults, so please tell me why you think I am wrong. Aside from allowing you to buy more weed and guns, how would a lack of government be better?


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^MaxWilder:
I think we're stuck on the word "prevent". Nothing can prevent crime, only discourage it and punish people who are caught committing crimes.
So the real question is: would your system do a better job discouraging people from harming one another? And when someone inevitably does, what happens when they are caught?
Currently, we have courts and police to discourage crime and attempt to punish those who commit crimes.
I see no alternative, other than vigilante justice, which in my humble opinion would suck balls. Please explain how it would be better!

Yes, "prevent" was the word dystopianfuturetoday scrawled above as some sort of ham-fisted challenge as if there's any proof the current system prevented anything. No law (no matter the number or the severity of the draconian punishment) will prevent a crime. If it did, then today we'd have no murder, no rape, theft, etc.
Would a voluntary society discourage crime? Maybe. Who knows. If you mean discouraging the more egregious crimes like murder and rape and theft, I feel confident it would help to allow people the right to self defense by allowing them to arm themselves if they chose to do so. I can guarantee a voluntary society would not have that horrible '3 strikes' rule we have here in California where receiving the third felony nets you a mandatory life sentence. Has it been successful in preventing or discouraging crime? I don't know, but people are still committing felonies.
The real difference is in having a moral vs. immoral approach to crimes. For instance, if you wanted to stop smoking I could come to your house and threaten you with a butcher knife. If I find you smoking then I stab you. Would that prevent you from smoking? Would that discourage you from smoking? And would that be moral even if I did in fact effectively stopped you from smoking?
Voluntary societies would morally deal with drug addicts, jaywalkers, etc. As long as people are not hurting others, then they won't be harmed. That's the motto. We don't want to incentivize people using fear and violence. We want to do it voluntarily.

I remember watching Jackie Brown on TV. Sam Jackson's lines with M* F*ers all got turned into increasingly ridiculous things that follow the same pattern:

Mother's Father
Maryland Farmer
etc.

AK-47 - for when you absolutely, positively have to kill every last Maryland Farmer in the room: accept no substitutes.

>> ^choggie:

Ok-Something has to be done about these auto-play plugs for that sheit film-The onions fun and all. BUT..FUCKING OBNOXIOUS ADVERTS!


What ads.? [pats his adblocker] J/K! Yeah, annoying but they have to make money.

I've never seen a RPG with a telephoto lens before this video. Hell, I've never seen a rifle swing like a camera does on a sling either. When they said he had an AK-47, I thought, "Well that's a fucked up looking AK-47, why is it swinging like that next to his hip? Fucking thing must be bore heavy." The point is, the fucking camera was swinging at an axis with the strap it was connected to, simple laws of physics. A rifle has a stock, well most of the AK47s I've seen, and is not bore heavy.

What I saw was escalation based on assumption. You know what they say about assumptions? They make an ass out of you and me, and in some cases they kill people.

Now, I empathize with the pilot, and gunner at 4:01 in the video. One of the guys appears to be carrying a long object of the cylinder variety. If the video is any indication of what the gunner is seeing then how is he to know that the cylinder isn't a camera tripod?

I've watched this video multiple times, and I have to say given the right primer a person can imagine that they saw an AK-47.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_%28psychology%29

One person's fear, stink, or demeanor can cause a whole shit storm. For instance humans can smell the fear stench of anotherContagious gunfire?

Millions of dollars spent on this technology and a simple problem like contagious gunfire can't be solved. It can't be solved because it is a sociologically evolved symptom of contagious fear, fear is beneficial to genetic survival. That's my observation anyway.

Detach yourself from emotions, think critically and with the mindset that all people are innocent until proven otherwise. That is the only way to minimize innocent death, or capture. That's called a black-list, meaning that something has to be explicitly denied given a certain body of evidence. Conversely a white-list give special privileged to only those that are safe and supported by a body of evidence. Given that the real world is not electronics a white list is not possible, because it philosophy, and inherently denies every one until otherwise. That does not engender itself to support from the masses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitelist

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/dec/04/smell-fear-research-pheromone


I honestly cannot say that I saw weapons in that footage, because I cannot trust my eyes.
For this I cite the Mind Hacks by Tom Stafford and Matt Webb. Specifically Chapters 2 and 3.

Ok. So that shooting was justified. How about shooting people coming to their aid. Are you a combatant if you try to pick up wounded? Only the police can help them? I mean couldn't they follow the van?

ALso did you see the hellfire missiles? How many innocent people died because they think they saw someone with a gun enter a bldg. You can count in that video at least six innocent people blown up without any warning.

Also, why can't they shoot some warning rounds, then if they get up or point a gun, you kill them. WHy couldn't they wait for the police to arrive.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> I'm kinda puzzled that they say the "tone" is all it takes to declare it "junk".
Among the things claimed in the report is that there were indeed people carrying AK-47's and an RPG launcher in that crowd of people around the journalists, and that they found the weapons on the scene afterward.
They also claim that journalists are supposed to be wearing specially marked body armor, and are to have their work cleared through the military first so they at least know you're in a particular area, and these two did neither.
They also admit that what was aimed at the helicopter was a camera and not an RPG, but that the furtive nature of how the photographer was acting (tenatively poking his head around the corner, and then leaning out around it with minimal exposure) made it look like it was a weapon being trained on the helicopter, not a camera (a sense I had myself watching this video).
They also say that camera equipment alone doesn't identify individuals as non combatants because insurgents will sometimes bring camera crews to document their attacks.

>> ^radx:

Tweet by wikileaks a few hours ago:

US mil releases Iraq massacre investigation doc; note the tone. its junk http://bit.ly/cP9eoN

In case you don't trust the short url: PDF, p. 11ff.


I'm kinda puzzled that they say the "tone" is all it takes to declare it "junk".

Among the things claimed in the report is that there were indeed people carrying AK-47's and an RPG launcher in that crowd of people around the journalists, and that they found the weapons on the scene afterward.

They also claim that journalists are supposed to be wearing specially marked body armor, and are to have their work cleared through the military first so they at least know you're in a particular area, and these two did neither.

They also admit that what was aimed at the helicopter was a camera and not an RPG, but that the furtive nature of how the photographer was acting (tenatively poking his head around the corner, and then leaning out around it with minimal exposure) made it look like it was a weapon being trained on the helicopter, not a camera (a sense I had myself watching this video).

They also say that camera equipment alone doesn't identify individuals as non combatants because insurgents will sometimes bring camera crews to document their attacks.

I'm not sure I believe all of those 100%, but they do also include still shots with circles around what they believe are AK's and an RPG launcher in the hands of people in that crowd.

I notice, however, that they manage to redact the bulk of the picture that supposedly shows the RPG launcher at the scene afterward, to the point where you don't see even a piece of the supposed RPG launcher. However, they do clearly show an AK on the ground.

Seems to me that the right response from Wikileaks should be to try to enhance the video to see if they can validate the assertion that the other people in the crowd were armed. If they're not, it calls the whole rest of the thing into question.

Reuters can probably also provide documentation on whether their journalists had notified the military where they'd be that day or not.

It's pathetic that their magnification isn't good enough to tell the difference between an AK-47 and a camera.

It's pretty worrisome how much they trust the technology - they get a grainy image of a dark blob with a shoulder strap and decide it's a gun, and not just a gun but an AK-47 (and then an RPG).

Nikon et al ought to make a bright orange line of cameras for use in conflict zones, so they have less risk of being mistaken for guns.

- And the pilots ought to be court martialed of course.

>> ^therealblankman:
>> ^honkeytonk73:
MAGIC IS REAL!
Jesus prefers high powered rifles, especially when used against heathens! PRAISE THE LORD!

Jesus prefers the stopping power of the AK-47.


I beg to differ. Jesus wouldn't use something that couldn't dismember with a single round. No, I believe that Jesus would pick this. http://www.videosift.com/video/Barrett-M95-Divine-intervention-not-included

>> ^honkeytonk73:
MAGIC IS REAL!
Jesus prefers high powered rifles, especially when used against heathens! PRAISE THE LORD!


Jesus prefers the stopping power of the AK-47.