And when they graft your face into photos that are not real you will do the same? This has already been done for political purposes (see Ross Perot) and used as blackmail.

Then you either lied, or purchased a degree and did not do the work.

The problem here is that Literature != Liberal Arts, even though some wish to classify it as such. A Liberal Arts degrees should require Philosophy I and II, Ethics, Logic, and Symbolic Logic. Not that long ago, the heavy focus on Philosophy was what defined the degree.

If a person has Liberal Arts degree with all of the Philosophy classes they do get better at critical thinking and detecting irrational and illogical thought. Just like a person with a Math degree gets better at solving equations. I have a degree in both Liberal Arts and Mathematics, and yes my Liberal Arts required everything I stated above.

A "STEM" degree on it's own presents some basic critical thinking problems, as I would say all education does. These are not exercises focused on critical thinking in a broad sense, but rather linear logic. "Critical thinking" in a traditional sense is not the same as the critical thinking in Math. For example, in politics one must take into account human nature, which is a variable set of rules. People often lie, tell partial truths, and use broken logic to make conclusions. Critical thinking in Math always works toward a single mathematical truth. With that in mind, a person can be very intelligent in programming logic, but be very poor in overall critical thinking abilities.

Many of the current non-lethal weapons have long lasting side effects. Such as severe pain lasting up to a days after the person is exposed (Lasers/Taser), vomiting and nausea (LRAD), loss of equilibrium (Lasers/LRAD), and if you read warnings you will find more. Side effect durations often vary, so giving 24 hours was not intended as a literal (we know bob can't fight for 23 hours and 59 seconds after he left the field).

Tear gas as a non-lethal weapon is actually not that bad assuming exposure is short and concentrations don't remain consistently high. Long term exposure can cause tissue damage in high concentrations. Short term exposure to tear gas actually gives many people an energy boost due to increased oxygen levels and adrenaline. It's amazing how much fluid your body can hold in the lungs and sinuses, and tear gas causes it all to be expelled.

Fine, I'll take you as literally as you claim. Your claim, even as a potential is completely without basis. I have worked extensively with VR technology, including motion tracking so can back my perspective.

First, shame on you for not reading. Second, the education system in the US is a horrible mess. Every time some new technology arrives, someone attempts to claim that it benefits education without any proof (and I'll add tremendous evidence to the contrary) and "sells" a sham system to the US Government. These are then sold to the public under a "save the children" fallacy to ensure that some people make lots of cash while the system continues to deteriorate.

These false claims started with radio, extended to television, then again with computers. Funding some new VR initiative will surely make some company money on the tax payers back, but won't correct issues with education.

There is enough material out there where you don't need to take my word for it, and I sure hope that you will go investigate.

Right, because the military is the worst possible place to learn about the military. I'm better asking Richard Jewel about 2 man tactics than I am reading a military TM, which provides the history and theory as well as the tactics.

Just like your stupid ass bayonet claim, it's fucking wrong. The US Military does not have any serrations on their weapons because of Geneva conventions. It can not be used as a multipurpose tool, and has not been issued as a multipurpose tool for that exact reason. If you need to saw rope, you have to use an entrenching tool.

Contrary to your pathetic attempt at an ad hominem, the source is usually the best way to get information. Not always, but military doctrine and principles are very well documented and available to every soldier that wants to go read. Those same books are not always available to the public, so your Wiki page != US Military Libraries.

Lastly, before you go another round of pathetic fallacy, learn what "one of many" means and then reread the post.

Your troll does not make sense. If ball ammo has longer range how the fuck can this possibly relate to close quarters combat? Fuck you are stupid.

The Geneva convention explicitly restricts the use of a serrated blades in combat. It has nothing to do with sticking in enemies, sorry.

From a law enforcement perspective I absolutely agree with you. From a military perspective, this is not true. You don't want to blind someone for 24 hours and have them back on the battlefield (as one example of obviously many).

I'm happy to share knowledge and ideas with you, but we should set terms and ensure that we are discussing the same subject. I posted this due to someone presenting a false military doctrine. If we attempt to merge military and law enforcement doctrines we end up with conflicting ideology in the same generalization because the goals are not compatible. Reading what you wrote above, it appears that you are trying to merge the two hence. I have concern in continuing dialogue.

Prior to typing next time, join the Military or ask a Veteran. The military taught us in boot camp why it was selected over a heavier round. Tumbling rounds are able to travel a farther distance than a hollow point round, and hold more energy at a longer distance. In two sentences you managed to fabricate two fairy tales. What an outstanding example of a moron you are, no wonder you post anonymously.

One of the primary reasons that the US Military went with a 5.56mm round instead of the standard 7.62mm is because it does not kill, it wounds people more often. Military Philosophy is that if you wound an enemy, it takes 3 soldiers out of commission and demoralizes them. The wounded soldier, a medic, and someone to carry the guy to the medic. Killing someone only takes 1 person out of commission, and will often make enrage their companions.

The convention against certain types of weapons had nothing to do with not wounding someone, it had to do with humane ways of wounding and killing people. This is why it's perfectly fine to stab someone with a smooth bayonet but you can not stab someone with a serrated bayonet, even though death from serrated bayonet was more likely. You can stitch up a wound from one pretty easily, the other is going to leave a big mess that probably won't be closable..

The type of behavior that a "tax" attempts to modify does not matter. Study history and economics. Taxes do not work, and have never worked in any history or economics system as an attempt to modify behavior. Those types of taxes only harm consumers (see slavery and force toll roads)

Or don't and continue to believe in some fantasy world that does not exist. You can believe in your fantasy, but that does not make it real and should not be expressed falsely as any reality.

A Pigovian tax is a subset of taxes claiming it will modify a specific behavior. You somehow believe that it will work, even though taxes have never changed any other subset of bad/immoral business behavior. In general terms, your pigovian tax is no different than a slavery tax and would bring the same result. No end of bad behavior, just higher cost to consumers and increased revenue for the people that own the companies behaving badly.

As stated, taxes are not enforced regulation. Historical attempts to use taxes as enforced regulations have all failed.

Pt. 1. Al Gore started preaching exactly what Agenda 21 is. If you don't see the relevance then you are really not looking.

Pt. 2. Al Gore received a Nobel prize for his position on both Global Warming and Carbon Taxes. As with above, if you don't see the relevance you are not trying.

What you need to prove the claim I quoted and disapprove of. You claimed, and I'll add incorrectly, that VR corrects all of the other problems with media as an education platform. This would be easily proved if it was true, but the fact is that VR is going to add about as much as TV to education.

No, you can't move the goal post to technology that is not here. The TFA is not a concept based on future technology, it's about current technology and false claims.