You need to do some more research, there are some terrible bills out there in addition to ones with straightforward good things like background checks. The ghost gun fanatics will end up banning aluminum stock and most 3D printers, they are so ignorant.
https://www.westernjournal.com/dem-reps-attempt-get-rid-ghost-guns-ban-common-tool/
Ghost gun "kits" like you say are blocks of aluminum or polymer partially machined that have to be further machined to be turned into a gun. Cad files for turning a rectangular block of aluminum into a gun are easily available. These are not guns, and treating them as such is simply stupid.

Firearm accessories like magazines are critical parts to a functioning weapon. People have already been successful in getting most people to think 30rnd mags for an AR-15 is "high capacity" when it's actually the standard capacity. They want to ban every removable magazine, with zero data that it will reduce gun crime. There have been bills to define any semi-automatic weapon an "assault weapon". Ludicrous.

I always wonder when we see these Mach Loop videos what it is like living in the valley with all these low flying aircraft, especially near Cad West which seems to be the most popular spot to shoot videos and take photos... so then you also have traffic...

EDIT: Then on top of all that... is there a particular farm that sells parking for all these people to use, or is there a public parking spot and is it public land that everyone uses?

That $5k Nvidia card is a quadro. It's a workstation card, designed more for CAD or 3d visuals. I'm not sure the difference would actually be that big for games.

I was kinda disappointed they didn't go SSD for the storage, but holy roller-blaing christ..... quad titans!!!

*backup=[...snipped...]

CAD West Low flying jet site in Wales - Mach Alley has been added as a related post - related requested by deathcow on that post.

CAD West Low flying jet site in Wales - Mach Alley has been added as a related post - related requested by deathcow on that post.

Where in this video is anyone actually designing anything? Anyone who has done 3D modeling or CAD will immediately recognize this as complete BS. Shame on Elon Musk.

I love how people here talk like they know this woman or her situation somehow. Have you considered that maybe she's just a bitch? People are assuming she has some kind of mental illness and are downplaying what she's doing based on their own limited knowledge of the situation.

Anyone who speaks out against her is surely a cad! How DARE you upvote this woman's poor misfortune!

This vid has a lot of comments on yt! Some of my favourites are:

• parque leptospirose (Leptospirosis park, like as in fun park, only not so much fun)
  
• Cadê a mãe dessas criaturas?É perigoso fazer isso! (Where is the mother of these creatures? It's dangerous to do that!)
  
• E do jeito que eu conheço os politicos brasileiros... não vou ficar surpreso quando oficializarem isso como transporte público. (And from the way I know Brazilian politicians... I will not be surprised when they formalise it as public transportation)
  

On the whole they are split between the sentiment of "oh let them be kids" and they shouldn't do it either from traffic, open manhole covers, or whatever. I admit that leptospirosis wasn't my first thought when I saw the vid, but it's a nasty disease and well worth avoiding, and since it is transmitted via animal urine I can see how it could be a risk. Many of the comments pointed out that risk, as well as typhoid and other bacterial infections. Others said they did it too and were fine

I was musing and found a link googling, "designer hot dogs" and found this:
http://www.dollarish.com/728050365/designer-hot-dogs-will-save-lives/

and if you wanna peruse the source I would guess it's here:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.entnet.org%2FHealthInformation%2Fupload%2FPr
eventing-Choking-in-Children-News-Article.pdf&ei=gi6XUeX0NMTAyAGOgIGACQ&usg=AFQjCNHOFGgshWiHWKp4cMeOdMWB7bBv6Q&sig2=6KjF0Jm3jNCypzCDi1XJhg&bvm=bv.4675
1780,d.aWc

Google℗ makes things pretty simple, and I'm too lazy to perform html hoo-nah now..

@SDGundamX

I cannot agree with that definition. The problem I have with the concept of "Islamophobia" is as I've stated above: it conflates the individuals and the ideology, thus causing those who use the term to be guilty of the error they are often accusing their opponents of. And that conflation lets it be used - by Islamists as well as by self-righteous (or ill-placed-guilt-ridden) lefties - to silence criticism of Islam. This term has been particularly abused in this manner in Europe, where the ghost of the Holocaust weighs a lot heavier on politicians and the media than it does in the US.

"Muslimphobia" may not roll of the tongue quite as nicely, but it would at least be a more honest and acceptable term to denote the irrational fear/hatred of Muslim people. Mostly, what people refer to as "Islamophobia" is a combination of religious discrimination, xenophobia and racism, and we should not be afraid to use those meaningful terms in our criticism of such discriminatory behaviour. It may even help to break it down in that way, instead of trying to wrap it up in a simplistic and ambivalent term.

There is another big problem with "Islamophobia" which I have already discussed here: http://videosift.com/talk/Dare-we-criticize-Islam, (the difference to be made between what one is and what one believes).

As for Harris' unfortunate and highly irrational/illogical defense of racial profiling, the Cephalopod Prof says it better than I can (as he often does).

edit: ach, how can I be such a cad and forget to thank you for the kudos? I still have much to learn, but thank you for taking note of my reduced antagonisation, knee-jerk reactions and general verbal belligerance.

Entertaining, but that has nothing to do with the word "reinforce."

If the writers or producers had looked up the word in a dictionary of synonyms, they'd see "reinforce" discussed under "strengthen," not under "protect," or under "pad."

*fail on the part of the writers and producers.

@shinyblurry

The facts are simple: the existence of God explains everything that you feel about wanting to do good, and the love that you have for people and life, and your atheism denies it. Yet you embrace what is contrary to your own experience.

AND from farther down

… your atheistic presuppositions about reality. You say no one has come back but one man has, but of course you dismiss the account as fantasy (again because of your atheistic presuppositions).

Those aren't facts though. Those are your opinions and conjectures. Your theory of God may explain a greater number of things around me than science, but it also raises more questions than it answers, which makes it a horrible theory. "My atheism" doesn't exist as a concept. I don't subscribe to any belief about Gods any more than a monkey does. Are monkeys atheistic? I'm like a monkey. I have no "-ism" that "denies" anything. I happen to lack belief in any supernatural deity. *This lack of belief defines my atheism, rather than atheism defining my lack of beliefs.* I can't believe you still don't understand my position (or lack thereof). I have no idea what you mean by embrace. Nothing about my experience with "meaningfulness" requires me to believe in any gods, particularly not Yahweh.

So if it makes you feel good its okay to be a slave? You don't mind being enslaved to a mindless irrational process because you get rewarded for it like a rat activating a feeder?

Chemicals in my brain cause me to feel hunger and crave food. I follow them because doing so makes me feel good. I don't consider myself weak for being driven by those chemicals in my brain. To really feel like a slave, I'd have to be compelled to follow the commands of a sentient being, like a plantation owner with a whip, or a god of love threatening me with eternal torture, for instance, not chemicals in my own brain. Can there be shame in being a slave to yourself?

So I will modify this and say that you're living like a theist does but denying it with your atheism.

You changed one word, but missed the point of mine, so I've changed the same word: So I would turn it around and say instead that it's Christians *theists* who go about their lives living like normal humans, but thinking they're being good because their religion tells them to.

Now what?

Therefore what you're talking about is a herd morality.

Yep. Pretty much.

The entire point of my example was to show that if we simply have a herd morality where the majority tells us what is good and evil, then if the majority ever said child rape is good it would be.

If your whole final end goal is to prove your child rape hypothetical is internally consistent, and not to extend it into the real world, then yep, that's logically quite true. However, if you want to use it make any point about proving my beliefs to be somehow wrong, then you'll have to give me reason to believe it could ever possibly happen in a sustainable way.

My point was that we all come pre-programmed with a need for worship, which you apparently agree with. That is what is natural to us … It is actually more natural for us to rebel against God because of our corrupt nature.

Are we programmed to worship, or to rebel against God? Which is it? I propose that we're genetically designed to do exactly what makes us happy. Being good to others makes us (non-psychos) happy. Worship also makes many of us happy. Cognitive dissonance does not. I don't believe in any god, so I can't possibly worship one with a straight face. That would be cognitively dissonant and make me unhappy. I see no need to introduce the concept of "corruption".

The sense we agreed upon and have been discussing is that that life without God is meaningless … Therefore the meaning you derive from your feelings is only an illusion created by chemical reactions in your brain.

All cognition, from self-awareness, to thought, to the senses, to desires, to emotions, to numinous experiences, all of it is 100% chemical reactions. It's only fair to call my conscience an "illusion" if I also consider everything else that I perceive to be an illusion created by the chemicals in my mind. My feelings are as subjectively real as my senses.

There are other causes of depression but you see my point. Hope is the solution to depression.

That can be true. It's human nature to want to worship, and worshipping something can give hope. So for some people, if they can convince themselves to believe it, worshipping a god can lift them out of depression.

On what basis do you say your belief is more likely?

Occam's razor.

You say there is no reason to speculate (ever); now that is an interesting statement from someone who believes in open inquiry. What you've said is actually the death of inquiry. And let's be clear about this; you have speculated.

If there's no way to establish the truth of something, then there's no sense in trying to do so. There are no reliable records of the afterlife, so hoping to reach a conclusion is a vain pursuit. You can imagine hypotheticals, but you can't give any rationale for preferring one over another. Except by Occam's razor. What you consider "speculation" is just me saying, "nothing disproves anything about the afterlife".

Of course anything is possible when you summon your magic genie of evolution. "Time itself performs the miracles for you."

It's scientific fact, not mine, not anyone's. It's yours too, if you want it. You just have to go and learn about it from an unbiased source, not from uninformed people with pre-conceived ideas about what it is and isn't.

So no one is really bad?

In the relative non-objective morality sense, no, nobody is inherently bad or "evil" apart from our judgement of their actions. We often call people "bad", but that's just shorthand for what I said, or for having difficulty accepting that another person can do something so contrary to our concept of good.

Well, I'm fairly sure you've told me before that you hate the idea of God telling you what to do.

True, I would resent anybody giving me free will, then giving me a choice of doing what they say or accepting the worst conceivable torture for eternity. Did I misunderstand something?

[me:]Does the bible that say that rape is wrong? Does it say you cannot marry a child?

[you:]I've covered this above, but I will also add that if we had evolved differently, then in your worldview, all of this would be moot. We are only in this particular configuration because of circumstance, and not design. It could just as easily be 1000 different other ways. There could easily be scenarios where we evolved to exploit children instead of nuture them.

For a species to evolve to exploit children rather than nurture them is nearly impossible. That gene would get weeded out of the gene pool very quickly. Maybe I'm missing your point, and what you're really trying to say is that according to me, human feelings about right and wrong are, at their essence, random, because humans could have developed different feelings about right and wrong. I agree.

Back to my question: Does the Bible say that rape is wrong? Does it say that you cannot marry a child? To save time, could you point me to a neat summary of all the biblical rules that still stand? The Commandments were given in the Old Testament. I thought that law was struck down and there was a new covenant now, no? No sex before marriage is one, I'm assuming. Do you have to attend mass on Sundays? What are the others? I'm surprised to hear that you don't think the Bible suggests any position on condom usage. Is that just a Catholic hang-up then?

[me:]In both cases, you didn't address my point. 1) I'm stating that Yahweh's laws are far, far more complex than secular morality. You countered that Yahweh's laws were as simple as Jesus' two rules.

[you:]Romans 13:9-10

I agree that the rules in that verse are clearly derived from "love your neighbour", except maybe coveting, but that's not the point. Once I see the summary of biblical edicts, I'm sure I'll be able to point out that "Love your neighbour" isn't enough, that there are rules you would only follow because they're stated in the Bible, not because they obviously flow from the concept of neighbourly love.

So, when we think about doing unto others, we would think about it in the context of how Jesus taught us to behave.

So you're saying that we have to adjust our conscience first to align with the Bible, and then follow it. I'm saying we can just follow it according to what is bad for people.

abortion statistics

Good point. Foetal rights/women's rights is the moral debate of our times, IMO, maybe of all history. I haven't found any solid position on that issue. I've thought a lot about it, but this isn't the place to debate it. Suffice it to say I don't see abortion as a good thing, but not equal to infanticide either.

So your answer is yes? You think that without religion, society may decide torturing babies is good because it decided that killing Jews was good?

Yes, I think an entire society could end up agreeing on something that depraved, just like the ancient Greek society approved of paedophilia.

You know Germans were 94% Christian during WWII, right? And that the Greeks had those relations consensually? I'm against legalizing sex with children because it would be abused and children would be victimized, not because I think it's impossible for a child to enjoy and benefit from sex. I did it when I was underage and it was nothing but good.

You also act as if I am trying to defend all religion, which I'm not.

The thing is, you regularly invoke the 85% of humans who are theist when having a large number bolsters your argument, yet you disassociate yourself from most of them when their behaviour weakens your argument. I can never tell who you're talking about. Clearly identify the people you're talking about at all times, and we won't have this problem.

In any case, there are many examples of non-believing societies doing sick and depraved things to their populations.

And many Christian societies too, but I'm sure you'll disassociate yourselves from *those* Christians.

Tortured for Christ

According to Jesus, the Romanian government was appointed by God, so those Christians must have been doing something wrong, perhaps rebelling:

Romans 13:1-5

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.

That passage, BTW, makes my stomach turn for all the people (Christian or otherwise) who have been tortured and killed at the hands of immoral rulers. And Jesus says might makes right. Go Jesus go. Prick.

[you:]… logic, rationality, morality, uniformity in nature …

[me:]You're slipping back into solipsism. We agreed not to go there. I'm not going to answer any of those things.

[you:]Now you're just trying to duck the issue, and perhaps you don't understand what solipsism is, because this is not solipsism. Solipsism is the belief that only your mind is sure to exist.

What I am talking about is right in line with the video. Without God you don't have any ultimate justification not just for any kind of value, but even for your own reasoning. It is a direct implication of a meaningless existence. This is what I mean about a justifies b justifies c justifies d into infinity. You have nowhere to stake a claim which can justify anything which you experience, or even your own rationality. If you feel you do, please demonstrate why you believe your reasoning is actually valid.

Then you've entirely missed the point of me making those rules back at Qualiasoup v. Craig.

We agreed not to question the validity of our senses. If I can trust my senses, then I am self-aware. I must assume I'm a rational agent, since it was my own rational awareness that defined my self. If I'm a rational agent, then I can trust logic, which Craig tells us in the same video is a rational thing to do.

If your whole argument is, "a god must exist for you to be able to use logic" then I put it to you to show me logically (and not tautologically) why that must be true. To me, there's no connection.

I still don't see the infinite regression. Give me a real example of it in the form a justifies b which justifies c....

Also, what's "uniformity in nature" and when do I ever appeal to it?

In reply to this comment by Fletch:
In reply to this comment by Payback:
Rockets, schmockets, I want my own CAD/CAM table in my workshop!


I had the same reaction. "Oooh, I want one of those!"

Yeah, I'm sure it's only good for wood or non-ferrous metals but DAYMN! That was secksi.

Rockets, schmockets, I want my own CAD/CAM table in my workshop!