|
Post by evilcrash9 on Aug 25, 2006 20:17:46 GMT -5
agreed
|
|
|
Post by Raistlin Majere on Aug 25, 2006 22:31:37 GMT -5
Alright, it sounds like we've stretched this topic to its limits, does anyone have another weapon-related topic? What about the obsession with laser-based weapons? I have heard a while ago that scientists are venturing into laser technology (Also transportation, I heard that they were able to transport a beam of "light" from one point to another. Weightless, but a promising start.), how far behind could weaponry be?
|
|
|
Post by buttonpresser4815 on Aug 26, 2006 8:37:33 GMT -5
I asked my physics teacher about lasers once, they said that laser's are against the code of ethics. Then, i aksed my physics teacher the next year and he says that atomic weapons are too, but we used those. I imagine that laser technology will be emerging soon, even if in small ways. As for the transport, i heard it would take the force of 20 atomic bombs to move a person 5 feet, but we have alot....
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Aug 26, 2006 21:24:18 GMT -5
It's not as though all lasers are condemned. They are still used for persicion whole cutting. Commander Sergi came up with an interesting laser idea: He has some sort of glass that intensifies solar rays. With further inhancesments it could melt metal away. It's his "Solar Death Ray" as he calls it.
|
|
|
Post by Raistlin Majere on Aug 28, 2006 22:14:32 GMT -5
You refer to the code of ethics, BP. Is that your teacher's personal code of ethics, and, if so, why would lasers be condemned?
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Aug 29, 2006 21:15:52 GMT -5
They shouldn't be condemned. They are great for persision cutting and would make excellent and later painless weapons. In a time of war we might need them.
|
|
|
Post by buttonpresser4815 on Aug 30, 2006 15:26:46 GMT -5
Im not sure about the code of ethics, but it seems that code is not reated very well.
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Aug 30, 2006 23:21:12 GMT -5
I don't think there would be so much for lasers considering they arn't that advanced yet.
|
|
|
Post by Raistlin Majere on Sept 1, 2006 22:59:13 GMT -5
True, for now. But who knows what research is kept from the general public?
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Sept 1, 2006 23:49:57 GMT -5
And why shouldn't it? There are somethings that could be dangerous if the pulic knew.
|
|
|
Post by Raistlin Majere on Sept 4, 2006 22:14:07 GMT -5
If you mean "the public" as in the regular fool, then I suppose that might make sense. But how and why would you just accept that? You'd rather have the government determine what you should know?
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Sept 5, 2006 20:10:55 GMT -5
Not at all, but you have to give them some credit that they know how dangerous some things could be in the average joe's hands or even the knowledge of such things. Clever on their part.
|
|
|
Post by buttonpresser4815 on Sept 5, 2006 20:20:40 GMT -5
If everything was known about governments, all of their conspiracies, secret research, was made public, we would have now respect or fear of it.
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Sept 5, 2006 20:25:01 GMT -5
True, it would be destructive to just reveal that now. It's done so might as well finish it. It would make one heck of an election campaign though.
|
|
|
Post by Raistlin Majere on Sept 6, 2006 22:37:26 GMT -5
I have to "give them credit" because they hide knowledge? Not likely, but I suppose your point has merit. If, for example, 9-11 was allowed to happen by the US government, that they knew it was coming, would people really want to know?
|
|