Hey that's a really good idea. Why not restrict gun ownership in the US to members of the militia? So you have to join the militia and receive training on proper gun ownership and the responsibilities of being in the militia before they let you have a gun. Doesn't that kind of more closely follow the intent of the constitution, you know, the whole 'well regulated militia' bit?

Hmm, I guess hunting rifles could be acquired without being a member of the militia since hunters will probably never give up their rifles, and a bolt action hunting rifle is not exactly an UZI anyway.

Okay two main problems with the audio:

The interviewer breathes loudly into the microphone while the interviewee is talking. It's kind of gross.

Secondly, when the two different scenes are mixed together (interview and in-class video) the speaking in one distracts from the other.

Let me know when they build a full-scale replica of the TARDIS.

A lot of kickstarter (and indiegogo) projects already have funding or development costs raised through other sources, using the kickstarter as publicity as well as extra funds raising. In many cases the games in question are being made anyway, the kickstarter is just security or feature expansion.

That said, some of the low-funding-goals kickstarters are done by 'ramen and coke' developers who want so badly to make their games they are willing to live on breadcrumbs and hope while coding. These are people so desperate to make games they pay themselves next to nothing so they can get it done.

Not saying it always turns out rainbows and sunshine for all involved parties, but it's accurate.

I agree with you in sentiment but wanted to point out that there is nothing inherently religious about meditation. A lot of religions have meditation as a component but a lot of religions also have specific clothing, chairs, tables, buildings and other trappings, but textiles and architecture aren't religious by nature either.

And you are so ready to declare these people monsters? The people in the Milgram and Stanford experiments, every military man and woman following orders? 60% of the population, amoral beasts? Any viewpoint founded on the idea that the majority of human beings are evil is nauseating and no rational argument could touch such a belief, I won't try.

You seem to be speaking from an ideological standpoint. I don't know how involved your examination of the source of your 'certainty' about normal human behaviour being evil is so I can't really offer a counterpoint since you didn't present an argument to counter.

I agree with you in that authoritarianism is a wrong and that those with power should justify it and its use, but I do detest your accusation about my character and my tendencies of which you know nothing, and I suspect I would disagree with your solutions to the problem of misused power as well.

Shedding of moral responsibility and burdening an authority figure with it is an observed universal human behaviour. If it's 'evil' or not I cannot say, but the behaviour exists. It's the way we respond to situations of moral conflict with authority.

One of the interpretations of this behaviour by Milgram himself: "the essence of obedience consists in the fact that a person comes to view themselves as the instrument for carrying out another person's wishes, and they therefore no longer see themselves as responsible for their actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred in the person, all of the essential features of obedience follow".

And in this case I agree with Milgram, if it is the case that people shed moral responsibility and adopt the aspect of a tool, instrument or cog in the machine when dealing with an authority figure demanding they do something they find personally amoral then it seems to me to be a defence mechanism to protect and preserve their own moral viewpoint as the other alternatives are:

1. Defy the authority figure, possibly be fired, suffer a court martial or be shot depending on the situation
2. Change your moral beliefs to match those of the authority figure

Since, I would argue, most people have a preference for not being shot and an affinity towards good moral thought and behaviour they can't reasonably choose 1 or 2 and so are left with:

3. Shed moral responsibility for the action and leave that responsibility to the decision maker and authority figure.

It shouldn't be inferred from the Milgram or Stanford experiments that all humans are evil given the right circumstances, but rather, that given the right circumstances good people can do evil or amoral things.

Don't be so pessimistic!

The Milgram experiment shows us not that people are inherently evil, malicious or spiteful but that in the right social context people will follow an authority figure's instructions even if it overrides their normal moral response. The origin of the experiment was as a response to the question of if Nazi soldiers were responsible for their actions in war or if their superiors should be held accountable.

The Stanford prison experiment showed that when given a 'role' such as prison guard people will begin to 'act' as befitting their role, behaving as they think they should behave and becoming mentally trapped by the subjective experience of the situation as opposed to the objective reality.

The truth is as always more complicated than 'people are just evil'. It's a matter of context and the situation we find ourselves in as much or more than base nature and upbringing are concerned.

But don't just trust me, keep and open mind and investigate for yourself. As a matter of fact the two linked Milgram and Stanford studies are VERY interesting reading!

There needs to be a +1 Terrifying.

The obvious problem is when you take that same principle and apply it to 'sub normal', normal and advanced people equally. If they all have 80, 100, and 120 IQ respectively prior to treatment then afterwards they would have 100, 120, 140 IQ respectively. Yes they would all be improved but the difference remains. Of course I want to point out that IQ scores are a relative thing anyway, and there is no 'objective' IQ value. The average IQ will always be 100, it's just measured based on the rest of the population.

The real issue however arises if you develop a treatment that has a multiplier effect. If you develop a drug that has an effect of 50% increase in intelligence (let's simplifier to IQ for now) then the person with 80 IQ is left with 120, the person with 100 is now left with 150, and the 120 IQ individual now has a score of 180. Prior to treatment there was only a 20 and 40 point difference for the lowest IQ individual compared to the normal and advanced individuals. After treatment the distance has grown to 30 and 60, *increasing* the relative differences in intelligence.

This is of course a massive oversimplification and relies on theoretical assumptions of what can be done to the brain and mind through pharmaceutical or other treatment. I have no idea what the truth would be like, but I think it is important that we look at what it *could* be like.

I just wanted to mention that the Boys and Girls scouts of America do not allow homosexuals into leadership positions, youth or adult.

Moreover they completely bar atheists and agnostics from membership of any kind.

Support them if you so desire but do so with full awareness of what you are supporting.

Like all things in life, the solution to this problem can be found through eating (beneficial gut bacteria)

This is exactly analogous to purchasing a microwave which, two years later, has its firmware updated to remove the defrost feature.

Judge is stupid and megacorporation is evil, news at eleven.