Slashdot Mirror

Oh yes, because violent crime is something I worry about on a daily basis. I know zero people in my family that have been victims of violent crime. ZERO. I have not been the victim of violent crime, and I have spent many a day and night in Detroit (concerts, bar visits, driving through, etc) which is a city known for it's crime (though I feel like it's overblown quite a bit unless you're counting gun nuts who shoot strangers for being on their front porch).

People who feel the need to carry a gun at all times to "protect themselves" need a few lessons in risk management and statistics. I'm certain if you live in the U.S., you don't have any sort of tiger-attack insurance, nor do you take medication to keep you from getting malaria, because those are simply not things you need to protect yourself from. The chances of either of those things happening in the US are so small as to be something you don't need to worry about. The same goes for violent crime. Pick your friends well, don't hang out in high-crime areas waving around wads of cash, and don't go into ethnic neighborhoods different from yours and scream racial slurs and I think you'll be fine.

> Please cite a source for that

Hard to find a non-biased source for this, most of my searches pulled up anti-gun advocacy pages whose figures wouldn't stand up to scrutiny, but I did find this article from 2009 that cites a CDC report stating that around 100 children annually, on average, died from accidental shootings between 2000 and 2005.

What, they only charge $32K to have a private conversation with the country's most important public employee? *Pfft* Clinton raised $5.4 million with the Lincoln bedroom. These guys are such pikers.

Another article: http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/09/...

"The pilot reported that the small unmanned aircraft involved looked similar to an F-4 Phantom jet, and not like a helicopter that might hold a camera that many associate more closely with drones. Such planes have gas turbine engines and can fly higher than an average drone, according to the FAA. Neither the drone in this case, nor its pilot, have been identified.

Why does the media insist in calling everything from model airplanes to 747's "drones". I think they're the real (mental) drones...

Don't know why you got scored funny, it's actually true:

He's a billionaire straight outta Compton -- or so Dr. Dre says, anyway.

Not that CNN is the most reliable source.. but I wonder if there is any follow up in this debacle - http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/...

Well, one example would be this gem of a piece: http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/29/...

Sure sure. Here's a Boeing concept from the 1960s for a supersonic passenger transporter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

Oh, here's a concept for a 1997 Space Hotel:

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9705/2...

Well? Look out your window. You see any of that? And these ideas come from a time of cheap energy and optimism.

I wouldn't book my flight to Elon Musk's 3D printed condo on Mars just yet.

Yep perfectly safe indeed.

I am sure all those users were running admin with no security software in government and corporations right? This is the just the begining. MS wont patch these forever. That security expert should be fired.

You are negligent if you still use it for a regular non embedded use and call yourself an IT professional.

They were warned for years and years and years to upgrade.

It is their fault. Home users yes I can see a message telling them to upgrade. But corporate IT departments these getting hacked deserve some firings. Accountants included if they were the ones who did not give IT the resources to upgrade. Idiots.

No it is time to move on as running a full security center 24 x7, with hackers, security engineers, software developers, and kernel developers for 13 years costs billions for a silly $130 paid 13 years ago.

If you want security you need to pay for it. 13 years is plenty of time. It is 2014 now and time to move on if you knew about this.

Yep keep staying on XP.

Times change man. It costs billions to have a 24x7 team of security engineers, developers, hackers, and os writters around the clock for that 13 year old OS. MS has a right to not support unless you have big bucks

Yep perfectly safe.

Especially since all these customers had big IT departments, firewalls, and corporate security software installed.

I'm curious, how did you know that the guns that they used were illegally purchased? Were the assailants both caught and convinced of illegal possession of firearms? Did you manage to look at and remember the serial numbers or something? This just smacks highly of a hypothetical anecdote; not that you weren't robbed, but that your assertion relating this to gun control holds any water.

That aside, how exactly how those weapons were procured? Were they stolen? If so, from whom? Wouldn't it have been nice if there were some law mandating that the person from whom the guns were stolen had to keep them stored safely so that maybe they wouldn't have been stolen? Wouldn't it be nice if the guns were registered so that when the police recovered them, they could track them back to the original owner and possibly take away his permit so that he doesn't let even more guns flow into the hands of assailants? Would it be nice to have a law mandating that all gun owners prove their proficiency in the safety and use of firearms, like a driver license but for gun owners, so that maybe the original owner would have been more responsible?

Or maybe the guns were bought at a gun show, where in many places you can buy firearms without so much as even showing an ID. CNN recently did a segment in which they sent a reporter out to some gun shows to do precisely that, and he was extremely successful. Wouldn't it be nice if we had universal background checks to makes sure that even when Bob sells a gun to Steve, we have some assurance that Steve hasn't recently been convicted of mugging BronsCon in a parking lot? Or to keep Steve from just going to a gun show and buying military-grade weaponry?

Even most liberals I know aren't against "legal gun ownership." All we want are some common sense laws to ensure that the people who are buying guns are mentally competent and aren't violent criminals, that people who own guns are proficient in their safety and use, and that when guns are used for crimes, they can be tracked back to find out where they're coming from so that, hopefully, the flow of guns into the hands of lawbreakers can be stopped. If you really are a responsible gun owner, you should support these laws too.

When right-wing gun nuts and the NRA oppose things like universal background checks, training and/or testing to obtain a license, registration, and bans on military-grade weaponry, it makes people like me EXTREMELY skeptical that all you're interested in is being able to protect yourself. None of those laws would prevent you from doing so, unless you're not mentally competent, a convicted criminal, grossly irresponsible, or you think you might have reason to shoot up an elementary school someday. And if that's the case, to be blunt, yeah, I don't think you should be able to own guns.

And please, don't start with the "first step to confiscation" bullshit. We require no less to legally drive an automobile; in fact, there are thousands more regulations on that activity. Yet somehow for more than a century, we've managed to keep the government from confiscating all of our cars, go figure.

This decision won't stand. The DOD will not let some meddlesome judge stand in the way of a security need, and friendlier judges will quickly overturn it. (It was a temporary injunction anyway).

Who would have known this is exactly like the Pirker case on Drones. Basically the little guy trying to be responsible (and have some fun) but the lobbying powers pushing for their agenda (Pirker case has FAA appealing to the NTSB).

Note, I'm sure this case gets appealed to some gov't dept. which was outsource to some DoD contractor. Gov't loves to outsource to contractors for critical functions remember? Conflict of interest?

nobody is mandating anything!

Wrong.

A company that manufactures guns, by the way. they should be allowed to develop products and bring products to market without the interference of gun zealots.

Oh, absolutely. As a gun owner and gun rights supporter, I do not condone the kind of harassment that is described in the TFA.

if it turns out that these gun accessories meaningfully contribute to gun safety, then as a society it behooves us to encourage their adoption.

The track record on gun control is not particularly encouraging in that regard. Out of all the laws regulating the kinds of guns and their features that we have on the books, something like three quarters serve no meaningful purpose and does not improve safety of anyone. E.g. most of the NFA-regulated items (short-barreled rifles and shotguns, as well as suppressors - basically everything except for machine guns) falls in that category. Most of those laws were put in place not through careful deliberation of safety implications, but as a knee jerk reaction to a moral panic - e.g. NFA directly followed from the mob violence of the Prohibition.

You're missing the bigger picture. After all new guns are "smart" guns, the next step is a remote kill switch.

The NRA already strongly advocates for remote kill switches in the form of other gun owners.

You don't see posting someone's cell phone number or taking a picture of their P.O. Box as threatening?

The threat doesn't have to be explicit to still be a threat, as in the stereotypical Mafia line "Nice little restaurant you have here. Hate to see anything happen to it."

Really motherfucker? Where were you when this happened? There are still lefties who see no problem with this.

We already have proximity keys on automobiles. How often do they let people down? How often are people locked out of their car because the key doesn't work? Not often enough for it to be an issue. But then car owners aren't nearly so hysterical as gun nuts.

You're missing the bigger picture. After all new guns are "smart" guns, the next step is a remote kill switch.

Over a year ago, there were more smartphone subscribers in China than the entire population of the US. And that represents just a 22% market penetration in China. Between China, India, and SE Asia there are over 3.3 BILLION people - and they are rapidly moving into smartphones.

The future of smartphones is NOT the US, and the US is not even a decently large slice of the pie even in the high end (most mobile phones in China sell for over 3000 RMB - $500). It resides in Asia. Come on over to Shanghai and you'll see what smartphone penetration can be.

it doesn't matter what they were doing with the cell phone but disrupting the disruptive behavior may just shake the retards into at least focusing on the actual task at hand, which is driving. I can't tell you how many times I get cut off or have to deal with retarded drivers who are too involved in the secondary task of fiddling with their cell phone. Not signalling, pulling out without looking, cutting people off and wandering in the lane. Frankly I believe if you get caught using a cell phone while driving talking or texting you should get your license suspended or at least pay a heavy enough fine to deter the behavior. Even the NTSB says hands free isn't enough and it's time that states and the federal government need to stop bowing down to cell phone companies in this matter, just make it illegal and start suspending licenses or imposing fines because distracted cell phone abusers are as bad as drunk drivers on the road.

all you can do is try to supplement your child's education by homeschooling them out of school, and putting pressure on the schools to improve as much as possible (which should be done anyway).

I'm not sure how feasible that is when the public schools have shown a history of having "engendered a negative attitude toward family and parents and would tend to turn their children against Christian values," according to the story "Homeschooling family loses asylum appeal" by Bill Mears.

Dozens of what? Bankruptcies in the program that helped fund Solyndra? Where on earth are you getting that from?

The real number is five, and that's between two programs, the one that gave funding to Solyndra and another similar one. That is an excellent failure rate, beating the market. As I said, the program that funded Solyndra wound up beating it's own expectation by $2 billion.

You are aware that the top 10 percent pay some 70 pecent of taxes right now correct? Oh, of course not http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/1...

The Republicans are why the software industry was destroyed here in Seattle. http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/2...

Too bad Seattle is such an Republican enclave - you should try to get more Democrats to move there if you prefer their tax policies.

Not that the article doesn't use some pretty skewed statistics. It compares the tax burden with 4 exemptions to that of 1. Hey, guess what, if you're supporting 1 person on 6 figures you pay more taxes than if you're supporting 4. That's what progressive taxes are supposed to do.

Well I can't speak for parent, but honestly this has been the case since political power overtook that whole tribal test of strength thing back in the days. Submit a single instance where those who held the highest concentration of resources (money, slaves, oil (crude or olive), land, etc...) didn't use them to get favorable status from those who represented the people and then we'll talk.

Why should we talk to you? You may claim not to speak for the (G)P but it's obvious you engage in the same apologetics for wealthy.

History has plenty of examples of rich people acting seemingly contrary to their interest with regard to politics. But you want just one? Let's start with Warren Buffet, whose wealth-position enables him to pay a lower tax-rate than his secretary, yet he has been outspoken about eliminating this imbalance.

All the study proves is that which we've already known. Maybe it might incline some to give money to the underdogs, but to stir the population into change is way not on the plate. Even if a government is over thrown, eventually another props up and rich people (in resources not just money) just dig their claws in again. So since talking about something that's never going to go away no matter how much bug killer you spray on it, why not talk about something else?

Right... "Citizen, you can't win, so don't try. [And besides, it'll cost me a lot of money if you try, and a lot more if you do win.]"

If you don't talk about the problem, it will get worse. Discouraging people from discussing it amounts to encouraging them to accept it.

The whole idea should be let's make the solar companies rich so that they can do attack ads on coal, oil, and all them other folks. The only way anyone will make headway is to play the same game that's been played for the last six to ten millennia. Maybe in another ten to twenty millennia we will be ready to address this whole facet of humanity.

Wait. You say we shouldn't bother to try and get the government to help us (because they're bought.) But instead we should put our money into another titan to clash with the older one?

Okay, fine: we all benefit from a fight (free market, blah blah...) But there's more at stake than just a fight. There's the environment, there's the economy, there's security...in both the local and global senses.

We need the government (the one you want us to believe is bought and will never be on our side) to ensure that the fight benefits everyone and not just the victor of the battle.

...anyone working there is knowingly helping evil prevail.

So, you think that anyone attempting to protect citizens of the US and its allies is engaged in "evil"?

It is as I suspected then.

Tell me, what do you think about the following item? Is it the NSA and FBI engaged in evildoing? Or are they stopping evildoing?

NSA helped foil terror plot in Belgium, documents, officials say

Before the ACA, insurance premium increases were just insurance premium increases. About a few years ago they were "due to expectations about the ACA" and now after the ACA and henceforth they will be "due to the ACA we will have to ask you for more money we are totally sorry about this and it's out of our hands."

No. You've missed a very important part of the ACA. If the insurance company makes over 20% margin beyond actual healthcare costs, they have to refund it to the customers. Last year, the first time that was in effect, the refunds totaled over 1.1 billion dollars. Again, the days of them increasing premiums for no good reason other than profit, and the days of them making massive margins by fooling people, are over. Over.

Here's a reference for you:

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/...

The ACA just requires a policy to cover some basics -- and there were a lot of policies that were junk. Insurance companies are canceling people so they can make money and not be forced to give you a decent policy -- that's all there is to it.

No, that's NOT all there is to it. That's just incorrect rhetoric, and wherever you got it from, you should stop going there. I can tell you, flat out, that my insurance policy under the ACA is *excellent*, and it is both affordable and available to anyone who selects the tier I did. Many will receive subsidies, making the effective cost much less than it is for me, too.

There's a ton of misinformation circulating about the ACA; you've unquestionably been victim of some of it. I would strongly advise you to backtrack and find out what the source was, and then write it off your list of places to find truths.

There's no question the ACA is a done deal and isn't going away; it's doing great things for a huge number of people and it is now politically impossible to disrupt it. The disinformation machine has outright failed. Time to get with what's actually happening. And hey -- the ACA isn't perfect by any means. You could be helping to improve it, instead of wasting your time complaining about things that simply aren't true. One good example of this are the state legislatures that refused the medicaid supplement. Those legislators should lose their jobs. Yesterday. And of course the people doing the online system need their feet held to the fire with as much bad publicity as can be thrown at them -- knowing what they did with the online stuff, I wouldn't ask those idiots to attempt to program fizzbuzz.

They could also have taken Netflix up on their standing offer to provide cache servers.

Also known as co-location, another service that ISPs have traditionally provided for a fee, fees that Netflix is attempting not to pay by throwing its weight around. It's not Comcast's job to subsidize Netflix's business model. That's what it is, a subsidy, because those "free" servers take up rack space, electricity, man-hours, and bandwidth.

Seriously, I don't understand why Netflix comes off as the golden boy in these discussions, or even why people are such fans of them. What other company can double prices during a recession, delay new content, and fail to pro-rate refunds, yet still have such a loyal following?

For example, wait times were down for VA doctor visits in Arizona and waiting times in the ERs in UK's NHS are down, the government has no problem finding ways to lower certain metrics... And rewarding employees for their efforts!

Repeating a propaganda piece as a definitive statement doesn't help yours either. When government controls coverage (and it now does) and that coverage goes over budget... costs WILL be reduced

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/23/...

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the...

Besides, the Japanese like to announce grandiose projects that are just vaporware.

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9705/2...

We just had a 3D printing smackdown story, why are geeks such naive daydreamers?/

>> Actually, because that million is earning interest while you are drawing down on it, even at 5%API, you should be able to draw around $80K/yr for 20 years

Most advisors recommend calculating return at 4% (not that you can get that today in CDs)...and trying to avoid completely eroding the principal in twenty years. By the time you get through that math, you end up with the popular "rule-of-twenty". E.g.,
http://www.getrichslowly.org/b...
http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/2...

If Ukraine does go nuclear again they will only be following Putin's advice.

Is Ukraine about to go nuclear again?

Ironically, the notion of reacquiring nuclear weapons as a security guarantee is a position publicly advocated by Putin himself: "If you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. ... This is logical: If you have the bomb, no one will touch

Putin: Both causing and suggesting the solution to Ukraine's security problems. Thanks Vladimir Vladimirovich!

And look! He's turning up the heat because in brinkmanship too much is never enough.

Russia Threatens Invasion Unless Ukraine Stops Stopping Separatists

Dutch scramble jets after Russian bombers approach

The Dutch defense department says several NATO member countries scrambled jets Wednesday afternoon after a pair of Russian bomber planes approached their airspace over the North Sea.

The Dutch ministry identified the planes as two Russian TU-95 Bears, and said it had launched two F-16s from Volkel air force base to intercept them. The Russian jets were escorted by aircraft from the Netherlands, Britain and Denmark until they departed.

If we can make alternative energy work, that is.

Oil is... it's great, but there's a high cost, mainly air pollution which may cause autism and heart disease among other problems.

The spills are disasters which cause ongoing problems for decades if not longer.

In addition, the scarcity of the resource makes future wars, politics, etc. inevitable.

I'm looking for one of those reactor-type-devices from the end of "Back to the Future" that can deconstruct ordinary household waste and produce high amounts of energy. Were I President of the ol' USA, I'd slam resources into that before anything else but space exploration.

"I am the perfect affirmative action baby."

The relevant article is below. By only producing "luxury" computers, Apple has the benefit of making an enormous amount of money from a relatively small but very spendy user base. That's only going to continue as PC manufacturers continue to compete on price at the expense of profit margins and product quality.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/20...

First of all, the summary is misleading. It wasn't parents that "shut this down" (and that would simply happen by parents not utilizing the service in the first place). It was the governments that own and operate the schools. The passed laws that will not allow the schools to share the data in the first place. Big difference. Especially since there was no breach. Nothing "bad" happened to warrant this ruling.

Whether this has always the case, or is simply more apparent in this day and age, I'm not sure. But at this point in time, public schools are operated by cowards. I'm talking about the school boards and superintendents who operate the school districts at the highest levels (where these kinds of decisions are made). I'm talking about everything from their policies regarding "threats" (like how you hear in the news about 10 year olds being suspended from school because they made their fingers into the shape of a gun and made a sound), to locking down schools with video cameras at the entrances so parents have to show their ID and be buzzed in just to have lunch with their child. An event happens at one school in the entire nation, and suddenly that is somehow a realistic threat to that every other school in the nation too. It's because those operating the schools at the highest levels are cowards. They say they have "zero tolerance" for many things now (like the whole "gun" threat nonsense), which really means "We absolve ourselves from having to think or make decisions in any way, so that we, the school board, have zero liability at all in the event, no matter how remote, that something bad happens at our schools." Cowards .

Now this whole inBloom thing, whether a good idea or not, is dead because of those cowards. Parents no longer have this option, in the 21st century, to simply consolidate their children's educational data to a single 3rd party service. Why? Because school officials, in their fear and ignorance, assume that somehow it's all going to be breached - and here's the key part - and that they will be responsible and bear some degree of liability.

Exactly this!

Strange to me how the middle class has become almost non-existent today, and the term rich has been changed to include the survivors of the destruction of the middle class. Sure, I'm rich to someone making 15,000/yr but I'm not 'rich' by any stretch of the imagination.

I see this piece as an attempt to keep average people pitted against each other while ignoring the real problem. This link is from 2007, and disparity has been increasing for the last 40 years. In the 70s the US ranked 26th for fairness in wealth distribution. Today it's ranked the the worst of all the developed countries in the world, including Russia who we like to talk shit about. Another source just in case you are not sure what keywords to search for to find data.

We are often falsely told that the top 1% pay most of the taxes in the US, and that is another piece of trash propaganda which is just another fabrication to keep people from looking at the real problem.

Am I then only one that sees that price gouging is going on with SSDs?

I bought my Corsiar 115gb SSD for $69.99 in July of 2012. That's almost 2 years ago. Today a generic 120gb SSD costs $69.99 from newegg. 5 more gb, same price 2 years later. If I want a Corsiar SSD again, a 120gb one costs $109, $40 *more* than what I paid 2 years ago!

More manufactures make SSDs now and more devices use SSD now, but you're going to tell me years later the prices haven't dropped?

Come on, give me a break, obvious price fixing is going on with SSD prices, I can't be the only one that sees this, when the was last time that prices on computer hardware went up years later? Never? This is just like the one billion dollar LCD price fixing scheme a few years ago, I'm sure this will be in the news a few years from now.

Don't you worry about increasing prices, your government, the Federal reserve, main stream 'economists' and all the media is telling you that you don't have inflation... all that while the Fed is printing money like crazy, you know it as QE, but that's just an euphemism for inflation.

All of the recent articles that are coming out are trying to justify prices going up with 'bad weather', 'disease' even 'cartels'.

The reality is of-course that the only real reason your prices are going up is because the value of your money is being destroyed and you are being fed propaganda that it is exactly what you need: more inflation.

The ONLY people that would NOT buy something today if they knew that tomorrow the item they are after would fall in price are INVESTORS, who will not buy an asset if they expect the price of an asset to drop.

Normal consumers buy things today because they need them today, they even pay a PREMIUM for these things (since they are buying so much on credit, so the cost of credit should be also counted towards the cost of the items they buy).

The standard arguments for inflation are all nonsense, government propaganda. They are brainwashing all of you, every day, every minute of every day, and so many people end up arguing for this government propaganda, that you can be certain about one thing: people are stupid and advertising works very well.

As to beef and milk prices, again, that's inflation. But ALSO you can blame other government created problems, such as this nonsense that started a couple of decades ago, where large factory beef and milk producers (factory farmers) lobbied the federal government to impose these new taxes on small ranches, that used State lands to allow their livestock to graze there. That is by the way, what you are observing in Nevada. When the feds come to a State land with land taxes, taxes on the land that they are not actually involved with, taxing lands where they are not building any infrastructure, then you know that there are special interests in play.

How many small ranches were shut down because they couldn't afford the millions of dollars that they would have to pay for letting their cows graze on those lands (that nobody else uses for any purpose)? This is lobbying by the factory farms, the type that holds cows in enclosed cages, where the cows never see any grazing lands at all.

Anyway, enjoy your inflation, enjoy your lobbying, all of it is just a reflection of one singular problem: the federal government usurping unauthorised powers to destroy your individual rights. But at least learn what exactly is happening around you.

The Russian armies continuing to mass on Ukraine's borders?
Russian special forces and intelligence agents infiltrating Ukraine and instigating insurrection and incidents?
The Russians violating the Open Skies treaty to deny Western and US compliance inspection over-flights of Russia to hide their activity?
The UN finding that the Crimean election wasn't quite as free as claimed?
Putin admitting that the "little green men" in Crimea were, "surprise! surprise!," Russian soldiers after all?
Jews being told they must "register" in an area of Ukraine controlled by Russian separatists? which echoes the problems Russia has with National Socialists?
Russia taking up the "anti-fascist" fight after "defeating fascism" in Poland in 1939 (splitting it with the Germans), "defeating fascism" in Finland in 1940 (annexing Finnish territory), "defeating fascism" in Georgia in 2008 (taking territory from it), and now volunteering to "defeat fascism" in Ukraine despite the fact that Russia seems to be unable to defeat fascism at home?
That momentum is building in Ukraine's legislature for rearming with nuclear weapons which will ironically be accepting Putin's advice offered on Syria?

Ironically, the notion of reacquiring nuclear weapons as a security guarantee is a position publicly advocated by Putin himself: "If you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. ... This is logical: If you have the bomb, no one will touch you." -- Is Ukraine about to go nuclear again?

Most Ukrainians are neither loyal Russians nor fascists

Putin has promoted the notion that ethnic Russians were in danger. There has never been evidence for this unless you count as brutal repression a failed attempt to revive an old law making Ukrainian the sole language for court hearings and government forms. Putin calls for greater autonomy for the south and east of Ukraine, and more rights for Russian-speakers, while doing all he can to obstruct elections that would bring them back into the political process.

No doubt there is more. Do you have an inside scoop? Is it, as I fear, that the US is at fault?

Recent CNN report on the prices of beef and dairy: http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/1...

This will increase the cost to farmers too. That gets passed on to consumers. But perhaps we're all just commenting on the obvious: Production cost of X increases. The production cost of any product Y directly (or transitively) dependent upon X will also increase (or the value/quality of Y may decrease to compensate).

What could possibly go wrong?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/24/...

Rat-infested nuclear Cherynobyl.

Doh! it's deeper than it reads.

Ethan Kidnapping (child kidnapping case in Alabama. ):

"The FBI had borrowed from the U.S. military high-tech detection equipment similar to the technology used to discover homemade bombs in war zones, three Defense Department officials told CNN.

It was unclear whether the equipment, which is not readily available to civilian law enforcement, had been used by the FBI.

One of the defense officials said no members of the military were involved in the rescue. They would have been acting a technical advisers, the official said."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/04/...

Really what has been happening to children in the last 50 years or so is an ascending curve of influences, combining to create a new "First World Race"(so to speak).
The effects of these influences have been studied and can be easily found on this "internet library".

Here are a few:
1. The increased intake of Sugar in the American diet.
2. The ill affects of Multi-Tasking
3. How the overuse of consumer electronics is ruining sleep patterns
4. Kids don't play outside as much or at all

So, in effect, we have a new generation that is:
less likely to play outside, interact/understand/empathize with the natural world, can't remember as much due to being able to look things up instantly online, is more likely to display symptoms of ADD/ADHD due to over-intake of sugar and ADD/ADHD drugs, has a much shorter attention span than previous generations, etc, etc.

None of this is any sort of conspiracy, but rather is due to the way technology and our modern world has "evolved" in the last half century.

To me one of the interesting things to note here is that less affluent children don't display these issues because they don't come from families who can afford the ADD-Constantly Connected-Sugar Ridden lifestyle that is now the norm in the middle and upper classes in the First World.

We are now and will continue seeing the affects of this "evolution".

Don't know... I got it from here. I'm not even sure I clicked the link. Anyway, the article doesn't include either "EITC" or "earned" in it.

Er, sorry - here is the Larry King transcript referenced in my last reply.

Because the other ones have been dealt with in the appropriate manner, yet the problem remains.

But good luck scaring the kids! It might even last for a few hours until they figure out we've dumped a huge amount of CO2 into the atmosphere for the past decade with almost no upswing in temperature. Once you realize that, you start caring about real pollution again instead of hating on poor old carbon so much.

The people denying man made climate change are also the same dickholes that refuse to enact or properly enforce job-killing regulations on "real pollution".
Look at the recent shit show in North Carolina with Duke Energy and the Republican Governor as a prime example.
Or those idiots in Texas who can't be bothered to inspect massive stockpiles of fertilizer that blow up towns.

That doesn't mean, however, that you can't have a charity that focuses on one gender or race, or an organization focused on one gender (e.g. girl scouts or boy scouts)...

Apparently you don't remember a scouting controversy on this specific topic...