You seemed to entirely miss the point of that book. Apart from just being a fun read, it ultimately points out that we cannot create a flawless system of control over other intelligent beings. At first glance, the three laws of robotics are a fool proof system for keeping robots in check, so much so the three laws have withstood over half a century of scrutiny.

The anecdotes in the book are all scenarios specifically created to show the flaws of this system, concluding that we will undoubtedly create A.I. but never be able to control it.

Oddly enough, the last story of I Robot seems to have a different conclusion. It's as if Asimov accepted the outcome of that story as the best option for humanity, contradicting the rest of the book.

But that's just my two cents.

But on the flip side of that we also seem to have a resurgence of hard core single player games. For the longest time big block buster games had to have both, but now we are seeing a change in both directions. I am referring to Tomb Raider and Wolfenstein.

I, for one, am liking the shifting market, on both fronts.

You said exactly "I've never heard of a strong social community that also involved high weapon ownership" and I responded to that point alone. The rest of your argument goes to show that it is not in fact gun regulation that we need but a better education system and I agree whole heartedly on that point.

Switzerland?

Check out this TED talk. I'm agnostic and it almost made me hurl:

http://www.ted.com/talks/richa...

Stop swinging your political dicks around. Its not capitalism or socialism's fault. They are merely ideas. The problem is corruption and it can happen to any system. So advertently opposed party lines only helps one group of people, the politically corrupt and morally bankrupt.

This movement is trying to break ground on both parts: understanding and altering genes, and distributing those changes throughout a system. Its really not that infeasible.

Thats ok though, the white knight bio hackers are here to save the day!

Why should there be regulations put in place to protect someone from themselves? What right does the government have to intervene there?

Seat belt laws do just that. In fact, there is a strong correlation between the implementation of seat belt laws and car wrecks. Its theorized that because people 'feel' safer they drive more recklessly, so yes, seat belt laws have not reduced harm. Tell me more about this fantasy world I live in again.

That just helps prove my point. Regulation doesn't stop stupidity and in most cases is shown to increase it.

Public safety through regulation. What could go wrong there?

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean the sky isn't falling. Take off your rosy colored glasses and see the country for the police state it has become.

Video records that go away after x days and are not reviewed unless a complaint is filed. Problem solved.

Whether or not you agree with the initial finding of United States v. Reynolds, do you not remember this incident where blatant clerical error added someone to the no-fly list and it was denied up and down. When asked repeatedly why Rahinah Ibrahim was on a no fly list, the resounding answer was "its classified" when in actuality it was do to human error.

http://tech.slashdot.org/story...

There is a very definitive split of Ukrainians that like Russia and those that don't, hence the civil war that is occurring.