compee

So would life be nothing more than universally good local viruses within the universe?

You say this and you don't give him a serious response.

>As someone with physics training I do not see physicists having this trouble

What is definitively known about mass besides E = mc^2 and the limited information we now about the Higgs Boson?

>Most the physicists I know use it often I'm glad the physicists you know use it often. Why is it used so often? If it was known what matter and mass was there would be no need to discuss it.

I would imagine because if you don't have a product completed before Demo Day (even a completed prototype that works, of sorts) there is no value to show potential investors.

I work with mathematics applied to various applied computer science problems with a couple startups.

If anyone is interested in learning a bit of mathematics to structure programs (for real-world usage, even!) feel free to let me know what you'd be looking for. I'd love to help!

You are stating all of this within the context that the governments should have nuclear weapons. The people (around the world) should have free and open nuclear power. Just because we have nuclear weapons does not mean we should have to use them in negotiations. Sure it helps to have power in any negotiating situation but why do we even get to a point? Isn't that akin to saying "We have power. You don't. Do what we want." This is not how government should be run.

Feel free to message me to continue discussion.

Would you mind explicitly stating the flaw in my argument instead of directing me to some website? I can (and often do) read articles of this nature but with a title of "Pro Gun Myths" I'd rather cut out any potential bias and hear your direct argument.

I honestly don't see any direct correlation with regards to what you are trying to say. Could you elaborate?

The only reason to have weapons (in a primitive sense) is for killing animals for food and for certain games related to specific types of weaponry (and wars, but why do we want those?). If some individuals feel the need to own a firearm of any kind to protect themselves (or to protect others from the dangerous people out there), then they should be able to buy the weaponry they feel they need/want to protect themselves and the people most important to them.

If it is understood in American culture that anyone around you may be carrying a gun at all times (or perhaps maybe not); it creates good behavior within society through induced paranoia toward people who have a mindset toward committing crimes.

It would be worth mentioning that to develop nuclear weapons there would be a need to develop them, for something. If we could just step back for a moment and ask the simple question of "Why do we need nuclear weapons?" there is no good reason for anyone to have them.

The question to ask from here (for you US readers) -- why ban american civilians from owning the same types of weapons as the government allows the military to? In the spirit of the constitution it seems as though our founding fathers would have wanted us, the american people, the same rights to own any type of weapon the government has access to^ for reasons of protecting the people against (potential) attacks from our government; if there is an inequality in weaponry available there is an induced inequality of power.

^Fixed typo