jQueryIsAwesome

No, is not very clear, they don't even mention firearm calibres, gun power, machine guns, the drug war, automatic weapons, chemical weapons, missiles, nuclear artifacts, criminals with guns, tanks and other kinds of military vehicles, grenades; basically because back then those things didn't even existed or where not considered relevant. Today is a very different world that they didn't imagine even in their wildest dreams; is a romantic but childish illusion that their words can be literally applied to a world so different to the one they saw.

I like to cherry pick data too.

USA is the developed country with more Gunshot deaths per capita http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-...

UK 7 consecutive years with murder rate falls after stronger gun control, UK have more in common with USA than Jamaica or Ireland

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-s...

The percentage of the crimes committed with firearms in USA is way higer than the half of Colombia, a third world country with multiple armed guerrillas for more than 40 years.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

> unless it is the same meaning as the authors of the amendment, you're wrong

Yeah, lets ask them what they mean... Oh wait, well, we will have to ask you right?

Those are quotations from really instructed people in the current state of the art.

> the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference

Any data on this, all data suggests that were there are more guns there are more deaths, apparently evil interferes can buy guns too.

The 2nd amendment is like a parabola from the bible, you can give it any meaning you want. I am pretty sure nuclear bombs are arms but nobody is crazy enough to pretend it includes those. But those would destroy a tyranny for sure (along with anything else).

He is really bad at titles[0] and he also seems to publishing one article every 3 hours. Journalism surely has changed.

[0]http://m.techcrunch.com/bloggers/darrell-etherington?icid=tc...

In this skeleton book he offers he does seem to imply that anyone can use similar names: https://gitorious.org/learn-x-the-hard-way/learn-x-the-hard-...

You can't stop corruption but you always create an App to make it more efficient.

The assets are all in the same site[0], even Photobucket as CDN could help here.

[0]http://www.jetbrains.com/specials/img/end/bgr_page.png

To keep it short too.

assert patients.satisfaction.relevance > efficiency.relevance

investment.efficiency => profit

investment.efficiency !=> patients.efficiency

investment.efficiency !=> patients.health

Long version:

I am living the consequences of this in my country itself; they make you wait months for one date, even if they suspect cancer; you know why they make you wait so much time? Because they want to make sure you health insurance payments are the ones pre-paying for the specialist service (or at least a good part of it) before you stop paying or before you die. There is people with cancer standing long hours in queues just because some guys through it was really smart to overprice common medical resources and lobby in the congress for laws that help them abuse their clients (aka patients) and government subsidies.

> and encouraging more competition to go for those treatments because they can make it profitable at a lower cost.

They can make it more profitable but only helps a smaller subset of people because is better to sell 1000 $10 needless than 10000 $1 needles (transportation, packaging, liability, etc); plus is a strong incentive to use any procedure that makes the patient believe that he is getting better even if he actually don't; because ultimately is the profit margin that matters. And that is not an exception; is the number one rule for business.

And data also goes against your view; the country I am talking is Denmark, the health system is 100% subsidized by the government itself; it haves a 95% health services satisfaction rate because all those events generated from the need to generate profits are non-existent.

By making patients pay as much as legally possible you are effectively denying medical attention to all the ones who otherwise could pay for it; not to mention many diseases come back (as cancer) so the patient may eventually run out of money for their treatment; making you partly responsible for their pain and death.

Not to mention the country with the best health care system is also the one with the highest taxes; so by increasing the cost for the patient and consequently decreasing the amount of money that he can pay in taxes you are indirectly hurting the quality of overall health services.

> Eh, actually they show up in homicide statistics as, you know, homicides.

Just like you have your own human rights maybe this is from your own statistics too because the cdc.gov and other recognized institutions show nothing about the legality of the weapons used in murderess.

Human rights are the rights that should be respected by anyone; if you need some sort of self-defense by definition you are taking actions derived from a violation of your rights; so your self-defense is already out of any kind of human rights paradigm.

And self-defense is one of the most ambiguous concepts there are; if Palestinians could use an atomic bomb in Israel it would be self-defense? I think it would be, but it also would be wrong, very wrong.

USA is the developed country with the highest death rate by gunshots[1]; as much as you like to believe your own words data is not at your side.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-re...

Well; you say that guns are good because if a revolution is needed is better if the citizens have guns; the problem is that in revolutions the civilians who doesn't want it also have guns; so it gets really violent without affecting any "tyrant".

At least you didn't fork it to kill it with a simple move.

How many times a gun has ended in murderer's hands after being bought legally? That doesn't show up in homicide statistics either, does it?

Human rights as popularly known are the global rights established by the UN and I am pretty sure they don't mention guns. Or it must be a list of human rights you created yourself that I am not aware of.

>As if you could actually know something like that better than I.

The level of arrogance is too damn high.

And you avoided many points, like civiliant against civilian violence in the scenary of a civil war.

> the game is unplayably choppy anyway so it doesn't even matter.

My point originally was about this statement of yours, that is purely conceptual and you skew the discussion to address the other part of your comment (or you through that was the point but didn't explain so in your answers)

But anyway, one assumption is that every game should have a fixed gamestep, in many single player games (real single player games) you don't want to do that, because is preferable that the user can see the ball coming to the player than to magically appear behind the player even if that is "timely correct"; the ball/interface going slow is a lot less frustrating that losing without realizing why. Platformers for PC with (virtual) high speed movements come to mind as a common example of this.

Even multiplayer games suffer of this; in most online FPS if the server suddenly slows down all the players start experiencing lag and everyone looks like they are "teleporting"; with a not-fixed-timestep you could slow everyone down so the problem becomes a lot less frustrating because the player still have complete control and understanding of their in-game character; just a bit slow-mo until the server speeds up to normal. The teleporting should be used only to sync with the server when the client connection is the one with problems updating.

Mexico's problem is drugs, the guns are just a consequence.

Check your data more closely.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Ush...

>"it just doesn't happen often enough"

There is nothing positive about guns; your group illusion of "self-protection" is quickly diminish by the fact that legal guns many times end up in the hands of the criminals, provoking accidents or in hands of mentally unqualified people... so even 1 death is enough.

If you were still interested in having a fruitful conversation you could had ask what data do I have to confirm Americas wouldn't make successful revolutionaries; or at least you would try to explain me why citizens against and pro-government would't kill each other. But instead you decided to call me names.

Let me give you a history lesson; the people you call "drug traffickers" were actually formed as guerrilla and is still called a guerrilla today (FARC and ELN groups); to start a revolution against the government, unfortunately it didn't go so well so the years flied by and they slowly became a rural mafia that kidnap and kill anyone that gets in their way and had long forgot what their purpose is. Another situation that can happen in any country, including America. So yeah, you are very naive about the possible conclusions of an armed revolution.

Changing the discussion from conceptual to technical making assumptions in the latter just to win an argument. I like that.

Funny you mention my country; because just here in my City, the 3° biggest of South America, the amount of murders have reduced significantly since the ban of weapons in the streets; its called Bogota.

And you can keep playing to the hypothesis that someday you will need a revolution and guns will be useful, in real life in the present there is just people dying because you have associated your national identity with abusing gunpowder.

You are very naive; take a look around, unless somehow most Americans stop being fat slow ignorant arrogant elitist self-rightous fools you have a pretty incompetent guerrilla; wish most likely would use the guns just to kill other citizens who disagree with the revolution and many would die because those have guns too. The 2nd amendment was wrote in a time were the enemy was an external entity (Britain), now it would be pointless and more nasty... well, actually it already is.

"freedoms"; what a concept, freedom to what exactly? freedom to easily kill I am guessing... because that being the case you should allow the posetion and creation of nuclear weapons by any USA citizen; those things give a lot of freedom to kill.

Yeah, in the perfect world all your buyers will have them. In real life sometimes don't.

Plus there is a lot of things you don't know; maybe he haves the minimum requirements but he is running a lot of background process because he installed a bunch of things he doesn't use.

The point being that it doesn't matter if you believe people will not play the game because game performance; if they really like it the will ignore it. And if they paid for your game you should at least try to give them an experience as good as possible.

You wouldn't believe the amount of people who plays Sims 3 at 7 fps.

I did mention that; anyway; nobody is asking to ban weapons for the military so what is your point?

You see; the amount of surveillance and military resources exponentially exceeds the ones from the countries you are talking about.