News Stories

[killer3000ad]

US Army shows off new exoskeleton suit

[Frenchie]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

There's little you can find on this planet that doesn't exist in far greater quantities elsewhere in the solar system.

And why would you need these quantities, exactly? You're not familiar with supply/demand, are you? The demand isn't exactly unsustainable to the point that it would warrant developing technology to support living 'offworld', the technology required to engineer/automate harvesting as well as the technology to ship it cost-effectively back to a home planet. Not to mention that we still lack the terraforming technology necessary to make uninhabitable worlds a bit more hospitable.

And when you complain about a 9.7% unemployment rate, I can tell you now that funding is not going to go into these things. Plus I think saving planet Earth is a better idea than trying to save/terraform worlds that don't support our basic needs for life.

The idea that planet Earth doesn't have enough space to accommodate us is ludicrous. Antarctica would be easier to settle than the Moon, let alone Mars. (And it has its fair share of extreme attributes.)

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Frenchie

Nice, guys, nice, I'm liking the bash.

I meant to say 'symbolically significant'. I've lost interest in what NASA was doing. Space exploration beyond the moon, given the technology at our disposal, is fruitless and wasteful.

I think you overestimate technology. We still can't build space railguns to launch stuff into space.

In fact, exotic technology is difficult to replicate properly - one such example is the Chinese attempt to reverse engineer a number of Russian military technology, only to come up with inferior mass-produced hardware.

Sending a satellite or shuttle into space isn't cheap. Most of the older satellites still use large amounts of gold foils and platinum plates in their construction, and try applying the concept of supply, demand and price over the last 30 years, with regards to all global economic shocks and hyperinflations taken into account, on the actual cost of sending something similar up there. Substitute for the materials are going to cost more for R&D and time involved because of the precise mass and inertness of the building materials involved - you can't just take any metal and replace the ones used to build the satellite.

Satellite technology was invented some time before the moon. That's why I'm saying nothing NASA has done since the landing has impressed me. At all. Rover on mars included.

By the way, give credit where credit is due. GPS technology was envisioned by the DOD (Department of Defense) and established in 1973.

Fixed for accuracy. It was actually meant as a spy satellite network that turned out to have a commercial application. The initial idea was to send an array of "KH-11" clones to track the Red troop movement (made impossible by unconventional warfare), but in the end it was used to guide missiles and serve as real-time navigation equipment.

Originally Posted by Frenchie

If you think space is running out on this planet, you have some severe delusions. Exploration beyond the moon is fruitless because there's nothing useful, at this point anyway, that you can find in the solar system that isn't already on this planet.

Did you get your certification from an online degree mill? You forget that China currently holds 97% of the world's rare earth hostage on their territory - and these metals can be found in abundance on asteriods beyond and after the Kuiper Belt. It can be used to rebalance the world politics as we know it (unless some nut decides to nuke a mining colony with a interspace ballistic missile).

Also, it could force the communications industry to invest in laser communications, reducing the reliance on current fibre-optics or magnetic-metal systems, which are not enviromentally friendly when it comes to renovations and overhauls.

Originally Posted by Frenchie

And why would you need these quantities, exactly? You're not familiar with supply/demand, are you? The demand isn't exactly unsustainable to the point that it would warrant developing technology to support living 'offworld', the technology required to engineer/automate harvesting as well as the technology to ship it cost-effectively back to a home planet. Not to mention that we still lack the terraforming technology necessary to make uninhabitable worlds a bit more hospitable.

In economics, there is another factor to supply and demand, and that is PRICE. The demand does not increase like a straight line graph, it increases exponentially as individual wealth grows around the world. Opportunity is another issue that is not factored in, but you should know that currently that majority of the world's wealth is held by 10% of the world population.

Shipping it back home is much easier than you think because of something called perpetual motion. I'll let you figure out how it works and can be applied to transportation - science fiction got it all wrong because they put their eyes too much into escape velocity.

If we want consumerism to be the mainstay of our lives, and continue to use the Internet, space exploration for the sake of resources is inevitable. Recycling is so much harder than you think.

Originally Posted by killer3000ad

US Army shows off new exoskeleton suit

It looks like an Manned Maneuvering Unit to me. A replicated NASA astronaut tech?

[Frenchie]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I think you overestimate technology. We still can't build space railguns to launch stuff into space.

In fact, exotic technology is difficult to replicate properly - one such example is the Chinese attempt to reverse engineer a number of Russian military technology, only to come up with inferior mass-produced hardware.

Sending a satellite or shuttle into space isn't cheap. Most of the older satellites still use large amounts of gold foils and platinum plates in their construction, and try applying the concept of supply, demand and price over the last 30 years, with regards to all global economic shocks and hyperinflations taken into account, on the actual cost of sending something similar up there. Substitute for the materials are going to cost more for R&D and time involved because of the precise mass and inertness of the building materials involved - you can't just take any metal and replace the ones used to build the satellite.

What this has to do with what you were quoting, I do not know. I said I was disillusioned with what NASA was doing.

Fixed for accuracy. It was actually meant as a spy satellite network that turned out to have a commercial application. The initial idea was to send an array of "KH-11" clones to track the Red troop movement (made impossible by unconventional warfare), but in the end it was used to guide missiles and serve as real-time navigation equipment.

My point was that NASA weren't the ones that thought it up and shouldn't be the ones to claim the idea as their own because it's not. Nor should you claim it was their doing.

Did you get your certification from an online degree mill? You forget that China currently holds 97% of the world's rare earth hostage on their territory - and these metals can be found in abundance on asteriods beyond and after the Kuiper Belt. It can be used to rebalance the world politics as we know it (unless some nut decides to nuke a mining colony with a interspace ballistic missile).

Also, it could force the communications industry to invest in laser communications, reducing the reliance on current fibre-optics or magnetic-metal systems, which are not enviromentally friendly when it comes to renovations and overhauls.

Refrain from insulting me if you want to have a conversation, please.

China has the monopoly on production of R.E.E. And what of it? Known deposits are in Inner Mongolia, China, India, Australia and South Africa, mainly, but it doesn't mean that's the extent of R.E.E deposits throughout the world. Why would you assume that? The Chinese monopoly is temporary, and they have issued statements that they would scale back production levels for its exports.

What this means: There will be funding for discovering new deposits and allow western companies to compete once more.

Beijing is limiting this year's rare earths exports to 31,300 tons, down 8.1 percent from 2008, the newspaper China Business News said. It said the proposed plan calls for capping exports at 35,000 tons per year in 2010-2015.

"With some consumers expected to struggle to secure supplies, the development schedules for several Rare Earths projects in North America could be brought forward to fill the void," said a statement by the Canadian mining company Matamec Explorations Inc.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

In economics, there is another factor to supply and demand, and that is PRICE.

Actually price is the result of factors supply&demand.

The demand does not increase like a straight line graph, it increases exponentially as individual wealth grows around the world. Opportunity is another issue that is not factored in, but you should know that currently that majority of the world's wealth is held by 10% of the world population.

I like quotes because I can then tell where the information came from. Please indicate your source. Also, I fail to see the relationship between what you wrote and my quote. Are you saying that because 10% of people own the world's wealth, we should go offworld to claim our own?

Let's partake in that image. Don't you think that the 10% of people funding this whole operation would be the one, as per usual, benefiting from such an expansion?

Shipping it back home is much easier than you think because of something called perpetual motion. I'll let you figure out how it works and can be applied to transportation - science fiction got it all wrong because they put their eyes too much into escape velocity.

As far as I'm aware, it costs hundreds of millions to setup a satellite in orbit around our planet. For example, this hurricane-watch satellite mission cost $290 million. This missile-warning satellite cost $682 million.

I don't think return trips to planets inside the solar system would be very cheap, even considering perpetual motion.

If we want consumerism to be the mainstay of our lives, and continue to use the Internet, space exploration for the sake of resources is inevitable. Recycling is so much harder than you think.

Confusing generalisation. The time of depletion of Earth's non-renewable resources is virtually impossible to predict. I do not believe this will occur in my lifetime or my grandkids' lifetime. I never said I didn't want the R&D to occur, I just said it was worthless to do it with our level of technology.

Recycling, while costly, isn't a space-faring endeavor and will remain a cheaper alternative for the near future.

[killer3000ad]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

It looks like an Manned Maneuvering Unit to me. A replicated NASA astronaut tech?

He's doing pushups with a huge load and not expending much of his own strength, or even breaking his own back. Essentially this prototype allows an individual to lift many times more weight than he normally could without tiring or injuring himself. An Adeptus Astartes type suit is still a century or more away in my opinion though, but it's enough to get the inner Power Armor nerd in me going.

[SSIlanya]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I think you overestimate technology. We still can't build space railguns to launch stuff into space.

In fact, exotic technology is difficult to replicate properly - one such example is the Chinese attempt to reverse engineer a number of Russian military technology, only to come up with inferior mass-produced hardware.

Sending a satellite or shuttle into space isn't cheap. Most of the older satellites still use large amounts of gold foils and platinum plates in their construction, and try applying the concept of supply, demand and price over the last 30 years, with regards to all global economic shocks and hyperinflations taken into account, on the actual cost of sending something similar up there. Substitute for the materials are going to cost more for R&D and time involved because of the precise mass and inertness of the building materials involved - you can't just take any metal and replace the ones used to build the satellite.



Fixed for accuracy. It was actually meant as a spy satellite network that turned out to have a commercial application. The initial idea was to send an array of "KH-11" clones to track the Red troop movement (made impossible by unconventional warfare), but in the end it was used to guide missiles and serve as real-time navigation equipment.



Did you get your certification from an online degree mill? You forget that China currently holds 97% of the world's rare earth hostage on their territory - and these metals can be found in abundance on asteriods beyond and after the Kuiper Belt. It can be used to rebalance the world politics as we know it (unless some nut decides to nuke a mining colony with a interspace ballistic missile).

Also, it could force the communications industry to invest in laser communications, reducing the reliance on current fibre-optics or magnetic-metal systems, which are not enviromentally friendly when it comes to renovations and overhauls.



In economics, there is another factor to supply and demand, and that is PRICE. The demand does not increase like a straight line graph, it increases exponentially as individual wealth grows around the world. Opportunity is another issue that is not factored in, but you should know that currently that majority of the world's wealth is held by 10% of the world population.

Shipping it back home is much easier than you think because of something called perpetual motion. I'll let you figure out how it works and can be applied to transportation - science fiction got it all wrong because they put their eyes too much into escape velocity.

If we want consumerism to be the mainstay of our lives, and continue to use the Internet, space exploration for the sake of resources is inevitable. Recycling is so much harder than you think.



It looks like an Manned Maneuvering Unit to me. A replicated NASA astronaut tech?

Looks good enough for me.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Frenchie

If you think space is running out on this planet, you have some severe delusions. Exploration beyond the moon is fruitless because there's nothing useful, at this point anyway, that you can find in the solar system that isn't already on this planet.

Call me back when we find tiberium

A huge percentage of the Earth's population is starving and don't have the resources to live beyond what we would consider a young age. Fossil fuels as well as other sources of energy are fast running out. The population is estimated to continue to swell to as much as 9 billion in the next coming decades. So you think it is delusional given our current difficulty in supplying our population with the resources they need to live? You think it is delusional that I suggest we need to find alternative sources of energy elsewhere, when our already beyond-the-brim population is continuing to rise, as resources continue to fall? And why do you keep bringing up terraforming? That kind of technology isn't necessary (at least not for another billion or so years if humans are around that long), what we need are more resources. And you saying that this process of extracting resources from space is currently inefficient is kind of the point, more research needs to be put into this field so we can make it viable. Otherwise, in the long run, the population of Earth is going to swell to a breaking point then plummet in the next century by several billion people.

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

A huge percentage of the Earth's population is starving and don't have the resources to live beyond what we would consider a young age.

This is more due to economic factors, not a lack of resources. In Africa, lack of food is due to constant warfare and gross mismanagement, not a lack of ability to produce food.

Fossil fuels as well as other sources of energy are fast running out.

If the environmentalists didn't oppose nuclear power (and if power companies can prove themselves trustworthy to manage it), then there should be enough fuel to last quite a while. The sun in particular should continue to provide energy well after humanity destroys itself.

The population is estimated to continue to swell to as much as 9 billion in the next coming decades. So you think it is delusional given our current difficulty in supplying our population with the resources they need to live? You think it is delusional that I suggest we need to find alternative sources of energy elsewhere, when our already beyond-the-brim population is continuing to rise, as resources continue to fall?

Frenchie's point is that resources spent on NASA and space exploration are better spent on fixing problems on Earth first.

And why do you keep bringing up terraforming? That kind of technology isn't necessary (at least not for another billion or so years if humans are around that long), what we need are more resources. And you saying that this process of extracting resources from space is currently inefficient is kind of the point, more research needs to be put into this field so we can make it viable.

Considering the efficiency of rockets and how far away asteroids usually are, it will be a very long time before getting resources from space is considered viable, while there are immediate problems on Earth to be fixed without waiting for generations worth of research.

Otherwise, in the long run, the population of Earth is going to swell to a breaking point then plummet in the next century by several billion people.

How do you know that it would plummet? It's far more likely that people will simply have less kids when it becomes more expensive to have families if resources run low, and that population growth decreases. Any drastic population drop should only occur in communities stupid enough to continue breeding while starving.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

This is more due to economic factors, not a lack of resources. In Africa, lack of food is due to constant warfare and gross mismanagement, not a lack of ability to produce food.

That plays a part, but with global warming and the fossil fuel squeeze the ability to produce food (which is intrinsically tied to resources due to current farming techniques) is going to be more and more difficult in the coming century.

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

If the environmentalists didn't oppose nuclear power (and if power companies can prove themselves trustworthy to manage it), then there should be enough fuel to last quite a while. The sun in particular should continue to provide energy well after humanity destroys itself.

Until farming techniques adapt to nuclear power it won't be a viable solution. As well as solar powered. Now I agree with the idea that we need to improve methods on Earth first, but I don't follow the logic that the huge amount of resources in space shouldn't be looked into simply because it is difficult. Researching the process will make it less difficult. We have to continue research now, so 50-100 years down the line when we inevitably need more resources, we will have new options at our disposal. It is an investment in the future.

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

Frenchie's point is that resources spent on NASA and space exploration are better spent on fixing problems on Earth first.

This would apply to the majority of expenditures around the world. Why is NASA the one that is getting the blame when we have so many other wasteful processes?

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

How do you know that it would plummet? It's far more likely that people will simply have less kids when it becomes more expensive to have families if resources run low, and that population growth decreases. Any drastic population drop should only occur in communities stupid enough to continue breeding while starving.

There wouldn't be enough food if we have a severe global energy crisis, because again food production on the scale that it takes to feed the current global population requires a lot of energy.

But anyways I don't want to get into a debate about research of alternative energy versus 'space energy.' I think we should do both, with the former as our main focus but continue to put research into the latter. Like I said above, it is an investment for our grandchildren and further descendants. All I've really taken issue with is the idea that it is a fruitless venture to explore and research our options in space, when in reality it is not.

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

That plays a part, but with global warming and the fossil fuel squeeze the ability to produce food (which is intrinsically tied to resources due to current farming techniques) is going to be more and more difficult in the coming century.

Until farming techniques adapt to nuclear power it won't be a viable solution. As well as solar powered. Now I agree with the idea that we need to improve methods on Earth first, but I don't follow the logic that the huge amount of resources in space shouldn't be looked into simply because it is difficult. Researching the process will make it less difficult. We have to continue research now, so 50-100 years down the line when we inevitably need more resources, we will have new options at our disposal. It is an investment in the future.

I agree with all of this, and with NASA's usefulness, but I have to point out that dependence on fossil fuels is one problem that cannot be solved by going to space (since there are no fossil fuels in space). This is a separate problem that is not relevant to space exploration at all.

This would apply to the majority of expenditures around the world. Why is NASA the one that is getting the blame when we have so many other wasteful processes?

Because most people don't realize the other research NASA conducts, and there hasn't been any "spectacular" success from the public perspective, while there have been high profile failures.

There wouldn't be enough food if we have a severe global energy crisis, because again food production on the scale that it takes to feed the current global population requires a lot of energy.

An energy crisis will come gradually, not suddenly, giving the population enough time to adapt (by having less kids).

But anyways I don't want to get into a debate about research of alternative energy versus 'space energy.' I think we should do both, with the former as our main focus but continue to put research into the latter. Like I said above, it is an investment for our grandchildren and further descendants. All I've really taken issue with is the idea that it is a fruitless venture to explore and research our options in space, when in reality it is not.

Of course scientific research is never fruitless. However, resources and energy from space is a very far off dream, and it is not wrong to suggest that fixing our current problems first might enable us to better pursue that sort of exploration later.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Frenchie

And why would you need these quantities, exactly? You're not familiar with supply/demand, are you? The demand isn't exactly unsustainable to the point that it would warrant developing technology to support living 'offworld', the technology required to engineer/automate harvesting as well as the technology to ship it cost-effectively back to a home planet. Not to mention that we still lack the terraforming technology necessary to make uninhabitable worlds a bit more hospitable.

You're the one who is apparently not familiar with supply and demand. Or at least too short sighted to consider beyond the present and very near future. next few years at most. Demand for these resources is growing at an alarming rate. The Earth's supply is shrinking by a similar rate.

Also why would you terraform other planets? Space habitats are far superior.

And when you complain about a 9.7% unemployment rate, I can tell you now that funding is not going to go into these things. Plus I think saving planet Earth is a better idea than trying to save/terraform worlds that don't support our basic needs for life.

Yes, because an expanded space program couldn't possibly create jobs.

Also, you're showing your short sightedness once again. As long as humanity is stuck on this ball of rock, we're a single large asteroid away from the end of human civilization.

The idea that planet Earth doesn't have enough space to accommodate us is ludicrous. Antarctica would be easier to settle than the Moon, let alone Mars. (And it has its fair share of extreme attributes.)

Cool strawman bro.

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

(since there are no fossil fuels in space).

There are lots of hydrocarbons that could be refined though. Like I said, there's little that can be found on Earth that cannot be found in space.

Of course scientific research is never fruitless. However, resources and energy from space is a very far off dream, and it is not wrong to suggest that fixing our current problems first might enable us to better pursue that sort of exploration later.

The two are not mutually exclusive though.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

I agree with all of this, and with NASA's usefulness, but I have to point out that dependence on fossil fuels is one problem that cannot be solved by going to space (since there are no fossil fuels in space). This is a separate problem that is not relevant to space exploration at all.

No, but any alternative is eventually going to necessitate alternative resources that are in abundance in space.

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

An energy crisis will come gradually, not suddenly, giving the population enough time to adapt (by having less kids).

I doubt it. Look at the current reaction to global warming. Unfortunately, humans aren't wired to react to global problems so far off issues generally get looked over. Even discounting that fact, if a global energy crisis erupts, simply having less children won't be enough. With food shortages, we wouldn't even be able to replace the population thus why I say it would plummet.

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

Of course scientific research is never fruitless. However, resources and energy from space is a very far off dream, and it is not wrong to suggest that fixing our current problems first might enable us to better pursue that sort of exploration later.

But that's not what he suggested. Go back and read his post, he outright stated it was fruitless. Besides, I already agreed with this point in my last post.

[Frenchie]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

You're the one who is apparently not familiar with supply and demand. Or at least too short sighted to consider beyond the present and very near future. next few years at most. Demand for these resources is growing at an alarming rate. The Earth's supply is shrinking by a similar rate.

Give me the numbers and change my mind.

Also why would you terraform other planets? Space habitats are far superior.

And are ridiculously costly at our current level of tech.

Yes, because an expanded space program couldn't possibly create jobs.

Also, you're showing your short sightedness once again. As long as humanity is stuck on this ball of rock, we're a single large asteroid away from the end of human civilization.

A space program isn't an infrastructure program. You're talking about highly educated job positions, and while they'll certainly contribute, the numbers involved just won't affect that unemployment rate. If you want to reduce that rate, you need to look at level-entry positions: Small businesses, retail industry, infrastructure projects.

There are lots of hydrocarbons that could be refined though. Like I said, there's little that can be found on Earth that cannot be found in space.

Sigh, and at our current level of technology, such exploitation and refining (Which could also be done on Earth, btw) wouldn't be worth the risks involved (No atmosphere means you can't rely on debris burning up before they reach you. You need to have some serious asteroid protection), not mentioning the costs involved.

The two are not mutually exclusive though.

This is going to get old real quick. I was replying to the griefing going on about cutting funds to the space program. I don't disapprove of NASA R&D, I just don't think it's realistic or productive to look into offworld life, especially when we've got problems that need solving right here on our planet. To me it feels like trying to invent highways without thinking of finding out about the automobile first.

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

No, but any alternative is eventually going to necessitate alternative resources that are in abundance in space.

But why would you go to space? Alternatives to energy that are being looked into are all renewable. Ie there's no chance of running out of those means of production, unless you're implying that we're going to run out of space. And, as I said, overpopulation isn't yet a factor and won't be several generations down the line. Megacities and their numbers will just keep growing.

What, you really think planet Earth is anywhere close to this (Coruscant)?

I doubt it. Look at the current reaction to global warming. Unfortunately, humans aren't wired to react to global problems so far off issues generally get looked over. Even discounting that fact, if a global energy crisis erupts, simply having less children won't be enough. With food shortages, we wouldn't even be able to replace the population thus why I say it would plummet.

During the first financial crisis, single-child families boomed to 30~ something %. Food shortages do much of the same. And population growth in European countries was roughly 1.6 child/family on average. With effective birth control and contraception, why would you worry about overpopulation?

But that's not what he suggested. Go back and read his post, he outright stated it was fruitless. Besides, I already agreed with this point in my last post.

Are you often this literal? Considering the things I said about the current circumstances and the current level of technology being insufficient for the effective extraction and refining of 'off-world' resources, I am of the opinion that the money spent on that space program would be more relevantly spent on actual problems that our planet has.

@justsomeguy Thank you for your support, I was feeling a little bit attacked. :s

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Frenchie

Give me the numbers and change my mind.

If you can understand what is being written here.

Otherwise, you can always use this.

[Frenchie]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

If you can understand what is being written here.

Otherwise, you can always use this.

This was most informative, thank you. On the other hand, you're not getting my point at all.

Biomass: Renewable.
Fossil fuels: Replaceable by renewables. (Biofuel, biomass, wind, solar, hydro)
Metals: Non-renewable.

Ind.&Con. Minerals: Slag is recyclable and can also be made into concrete.

From the data I'm being shown, there's a need for greater efficiency, less waste, more recycling in order to make the most out of the resources at our disposal (Which are all things I fully support), but nothing mentioning impending doom if we do not start up a space program and start mining offworld in the next... what was it again?

Originally Posted by Kamui3456

next few years at most.

... How can you possibly believe that?

Demand for these resources is prompting better management, renewables and recycling, not space programs, and I believe that's the right direction. I said it before and I'll say it again, we're nowhere near the depletion of resources on this planet, and those graphs are only talking about the amounts that we're currently exploiting, not the amounts lodged inside our earth that are still waiting to be discovered. These are an unknown variable. (From your links)

"Since the amount of oil is in principle unknown we can never know how big the resources are. What is relevant is whether we can find more oil or not. A rise of oil prices will motivate people to develop new methods to find more oil, to extract more oil from known wells, or to make development of shut-in wells economically possible."

I believe that statement can be applied to metals, R.E.E or whatever finite resource you want.

It will be a long time before our demand for metal is strong enough to warrant off-world exploitation. Ie I don't believe it is a waste of dollars to redirect funding to other endeavors in the aftermath of a financial crisis.

[killer3000ad]

Student commits suicide after his sexual encounter was webcast

In a nutshell:
-A roommate and another friend placed a camera in his room which recorded a sexual encounter between the victim and another male. They streamed via a webcam.
-He jumps of the George Washington Bridge

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by killer3000ad

Student commits suicide after his sexual encounter was webcast

In a nutshell:
-A roommate and another friend placed a camera in his room which recorded a sexual encounter between the victim and another male. They then released it on the net.
-He jumps of the George Washington Bridge

It's been news in NYC for the past couple of days. What an absolute disgrace. I still can't get into Ravi's and Wei's minds to see what the two idiots were thinking.

[Langus]

Sounds like a practical joke gone to far? What a bunch of assholes. Though they couldn't have known he'd kill himself over it.

I really hate suicide. We've had a few in my family and it pisses me off every time. In most cases it's a permanent solution to a temporary problem and such a fucking waste.

[cors8]

Originally Posted by Langus

Sounds like a practical joke gone to far? What a bunch of assholes. Though they couldn't have known he'd kill himself over it.

I really hate suicide. We've had a few in my family and it pisses me off every time. In most cases it's a permanent solution to a temporary problem and such a fucking waste.

Just goes to show some of these idiots don't really understand what putting stuff up on the internet actually means.

[chikorita157]

Originally Posted by killer3000ad

Student commits suicide after his sexual encounter was webcast

In a nutshell:
-A roommate and another friend placed a camera in his room which recorded a sexual encounter between the victim and another male. They streamed via a webcam.
-He jumps of the George Washington Bridge

Heh, it was done in the same college I am attending, but a different campus... I find the whole thing to be very idiotic and I hope the other two gets severe punishments for this horrible act...

In addition, I give my full condolences to the victim's family...