Slashdot Mirror

What exactly is discredited? The actual video of Rev Al Gore getting onto the private Lear Jet after giving his little "You better cut down for the planet" speech? hell have you seen how much power the Rev Al's mansion blows? It is like having Fat Bastard walk up to you and say 'You know, you are looking a little chunky, maybe YOU should lose some weight'. Well thanks you big fat greedy pig, I'm sure I'll listen to your gigantic fat ass. And no, I don't drive an SUV, I have a work truck you know, one of those things you won't be able to afford if Rev al has his way. of course he'll have his limo.

The simple fact is this: the ONLY "solutions" we have been hearing of is ones that will either stuff huge amounts of YOUR money into the government's pockets, or the bankers like cap and trade. Do NOT TRUST those that will make billions off your suffering EVAR. And the simple fact is NEITHER one is needed, just basic common sense planning. Instead of blowing cash on the latest whizz bang fighter jet? Use that money to develop green tech like better batteries and DEMAND they and any other tech developed by tax dollars be built here in the USA. Build new nuclear plants and shut down the coal ones (which are giant piles of pollution, especially the older ones) and refuse to allow newer ones to be built. With these ideas along with the free market slowly phasing out gas (because as peak oil declines it will get harder and more expensive to produce, thus lowering usage) we will convert away from fossil fuels. But sadly this would involve common sense without allowing the vultures to prey upon the poor, and we can't have that, can we? And I'd say neither plan is communist, they are BOTH fascist, as BOTH are draining money from We, The People to feed the few at the top of the heap who have been gorging themselves for decades. Greedy pigs the whole lot.

Murkowski is no longer the Republican running for Alaska's Senate seat, but she woud caucus with them if reelected as that's how she'll have seniority on committees. Since she has joined every Republican filibuster - on any kind of legislation, so long as it obstructed Democrats - there's no reason to believe she won't go along with them, especially since she'll have to make deals with the party to keep her seniority. She might not lead witch hunts, but she will eliminate Social Security and Medicare to give its money to Wall Street, which is the Republican platform as it always has been. The witch hunts of course are just distraction so that real story isn't reported to the people, and to weaken Democrats who would try to stop the heist.

Joe Miller is the Republican. He says Social Security is unconstitutional, clearly his pretext for handing it over to Wall Street. He wants to take away Americans' voting for our senators directly, and says the minimum wage is unconstitutional, despite longstanding Supreme Court decisions supporting them, so his idea of what the Constitution is and is worth is an open question.

McAdams' ad wearing Stevens' tie is obviously a message about bringing Alaska Federal pork just like Stevens was beloved to do, and without which handouts Alaska would shrivel and die. He's not going to witch hunt anyone, because those handouts have been protected by Democrats as well as Republicans.

So yes, your mileage may vary. There are many roads to an Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere. But both Miller and Murkowski are active climate change deniers, even as climate change hits Alaska harder than any other state, as the Arctic is the most sensitive to the changes. Which is why either of them in the Senate will be voting for exactly the kind of witch hunt this story in Virginia is about. The witch hunts where they help impeach the Democratic president for some imaginary nonsense are just the price of admission to the modern Republican caucus they're spending all their time and money fighting to be counted among.

Stolen idea

Not likely (in the US at least). Kyllo V United States established that using IR to peer into a home requires a warrant, and that's a pretty strong precedent. A key issue of the case was that using IR didn't even need to penetrate the house (it just "recorded" what was being emitted) and yet was STILL not allowed without a warrant. Anything that "peers in" will be just as illegal.

While I've only HEARD of people who's had "chop suey £3.99" tatooed in chinesse

(tatooed? Chinesse?)

Haven't you heard about the "Chi-tonw" mini-fad? http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3024314

So, is NASA going to build a DIRECT launcher now or will there be yet another politically-driven paper study of an over-engineered, under-performing white elephant?

The 2010 NASA Authorization bill recently passed by Congress mandates a new vehicle called the Space Launch System that will have to lift a minimum of 70 tons, evolvable to 130 tons with a second stage.

The bill states that the vehicle will have to be completed by the end of 2016 within a budget of $11.5 billion.

The only real option for a rocket of this capacity that can be built within this time and budget is something like the DIRECT architecture. NASA still has to decide the specifics though.

My goal in life is to get to the place that I can take the same idea and just repackage it over and over again, like Bruce Willis did with "Die Hard," or Bill O'Reilly does with the whole thing about being rich, white, male and entitled -- and be really pissed off about how he's treated by the world.

His hero is Bill O'Reilly. Great, just what we need in the world, more Bill O'Reillys.

.

But this neurotic fucking crap... Uggh too much.

.

I like this woman - she questions things and can think for herself.

.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s3025418.htm

.

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7553031

.

Sure.

Discrimination by height: discrimination by height, already happening

Discrimination against people with a "black name": yep, it happens already

Oh, and something I predict will soon mean a lot less jobs for homosexuals: Project Gaydar. If you remember the Futurama episode where Bender makes pronouncements about who's gay, yep, now apparently datamining your Facebook page for stuff like who you're friends with and such can produce a gaydar score for how likely you are to be gay.

And if you still think people won't do it, the best part is, racists never think they're racist. Think of all those "I'm not racist, but [insert horribly racist thing]" or "I'm not sexist, but [insert reasons why the bitch should be in the kitchen instead of having her own job]" and the sad thing is they actually believe it. They think their bigotry isn't bigotry but, why, almost pure science that blacks are dumb and criminal, and women working ruined the economy. And, oh, if you think the rest of the company or society wouldn't let them get away with it, yes, most proclaim they wouldn't, but actually more people choose to work with the white overt racist than with the black.

Sure.

Discrimination by height: discrimination by height, already happening

Discrimination against people with a "black name": yep, it happens already

Oh, and something I predict will soon mean a lot less jobs for homosexuals: Project Gaydar. If you remember the Futurama episode where Bender makes pronouncements about who's gay, yep, now apparently datamining your Facebook page for stuff like who you're friends with and such can produce a gaydar score for how likely you are to be gay.

And if you still think people won't do it, the best part is, racists never think they're racist. Think of all those "I'm not racist, but [insert horribly racist thing]" or "I'm not sexist, but [insert reasons why the bitch should be in the kitchen instead of having her own job]" and the sad thing is they actually believe it. They think their bigotry isn't bigotry but, why, almost pure science that blacks are dumb and criminal, and women working ruined the economy. And, oh, if you think the rest of the company or society wouldn't let them get away with it, yes, most proclaim they wouldn't, but actually more people choose to work with the white overt racist than with the black.

- people with less sucess will panhandle on the pavement or break into your house at night to rob you.

That's why I own a gun.

- masses of people can't afford an education and vote for whatever party has the best looking candidate.

Really? Explain Obama, then.

- you can go bankrupt paying for your children's cancer treatment.

Every hospital in America will work with patients facing hardship to reduce/forgive costs. Guess what? That's government funded.

- you can see your relative die because you can't afford treatment.

Everyone dies. Get used to it.

- you and your familly can end up in the street because you can't afford the rent anymore.

There are many alternatives to homelessness, most of which are privately financed. Also, if I can't afford rent, then I'm either spending my money on less important things and need to knock it off, or I'm unemployed and qualify for unemployment checks.

- your kids can end up as second class citizens on the work market because you can't afford to send them to college

That's the best part about living in America. College drop outs make bank all the time!

Nobody consumes more than 30 kilowatts of electricity a day

Al Gore does ;)

Not in the USA at least.
For example, this guy isn't in the USA legally. Been there for years. Makes a "living" suing, mostly hard-working immigrants, who are legal.

Go figure. Summary: "Alfredo Garcia, a paraplegic who has been in a wheelchair since 1996 [fell out of an avocado tree while intoxicated], is a serial plaintiff [scam]. The 41-year-old illegal immigrant and convicted felon makes a living suing small businesses [small mom-and-pop-type] in Southern California for allegedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and its California equivalent."

Are you aware that in the government's opinion jailbreaking is not a DMCA violation? http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/us-government-jailbreaking-iphone-legal/story?id=11254253

I think the "theory" in question here is the sensationalism and alarmism attributed to this mess. I'd have FAR less problems believing the climatologists predictions if they would avoid the sensationalism that they've presented in the past few years. Let me list a few so you'll be aware what I'm talking about...

* Hurricanes will increase in frequency or strength, predicted specifically for 2009/2010.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/hurricane/2007-07-29-more-hurricanes_N.htm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070730-hurricane-warming.html
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/HurricaneRita/story?id=1154125&page=1

Except they didn't. I can't find the link that compared the predicted versus actual numbers but there are far fewer hurricanes than previous years for 2009 and 2010 seems to be pretty low as well so far. *I* am predicting that the next prediction will be "global warming will cause a decreased frequency of hurricanes". And they never got stronger. That was, as usual, someone not understanding statistics.

* Himalayas will be devoid of ice by 2035. Yes, it was a "typo" but everyone wanted to believe it..

* Due to the Greenland glaciers, the ocean will rise 21 feet. Too bad it was recalculated closer to 7 inches.

* And now the Antarctic and Greenland melting is happening at about 1/2 the rate they thought.. ZOMG the world is gonna end. WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!! Or not.

I'm sure there are other examples but that's all I can think of right now without my caffeine..

If the climatologists would stop predicting anything other than facts and trends, they might get less egg on their faces and be considered to be at least somewhat respectable. As it stands they prefer to play the role of seer/doomsayer and as such I'm committed to shoot them down when they get out of hand.

Those fancy new iPads will be the perfect accessory for the lucky students at L.A.'s new $578M K-12 school.

Yeah. You should really see what some people have said about this movie on the internet. If you ask me, this movie really got what it deserved.

I posit it would be largely useless. The Dept. of the Interior actually awarded Deepwater Horizon and award award for safe operation back in '09.

That didn't take very long.

One of the three "sources" articles, "Sources: Matt Leinart trade discussed", states that "As for the Raiders and Giants, at least one member of each organization had a conversation this week discussing the idea of trading for Leinart." The story is dated 7:14 PM ET.

Si.com has a story "Raiders deny interest in Leinart". The story is dated 4:50PM (probably eastern time). The story states that "The Raiders say in a statement they have never discussed acquiring Leinart in a trade from Arizona...".

So you're not the only one that gets burnt by a source.

An additional unfortunate detail is that the Democrats are completely spineless and so getting them to deal with this problem is going to be tough even though this majority of Americans support embryonic stem cell research (source- http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll010626.html).

Here's the problem: the people who are against federally funded ESTR are sometimes vehemently against it; they will vote against a candidate that supports ESTR despite any other issues. On the other side, it's a not a voting issue. People will still vote against a candidate who supports federally funded ESTR.

So you end up with politicians who will not risk taking action on any real issues, because they are afraid of alienating single-issue voters.

Given the wording of the law and the clear legislative intent, the decision seems to be legally correct. The solution here requires congress to act. An additional unfortunate detail is that the Democrats are completely spineless and so getting them to deal with this problem is going to be tough even though this majority of Americans support embryonic stem cell research (source- http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll010626.html).

If only the true costs

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

Take those noble sentiments of yours to your elected representatives. Point out that some carbon tariffs on imported goods are needed hinder this sort of exploitation, among other evils. Avoid the Walmart folks though. They won't be sympathetic.

yep, it's on ESPN.

Power rankings are for mental midgets. More often than not, they're composed by wankers who are too lazy to discuss basketball and its nuances and would rather play computer solitaire with a bunch of team logos.

So it's official then, being wankered is a professional sport.

They don't seem to worried about perception when donating to minnesota gubernatorial races.

story

Yes. Michelle Obama proudly exercises that right!

No, even then, it's not much.

Considering the reaction that converts the carbon in gasoline to CO2 is the primary source of energy, yeah cars produce a hell of a lot of CO2 in their exhaust.

But long term, hydrogen makes way, way more sense in practical use than any pure battery solution.

Apparently you didn't take much chemistry in school. Hydrogen has many problems that are part of it's fundamental nature. Such as low energy density. These are not problems that one can just waive their hand and say "More R&D will fix it". You're arguing something similar to "more R&D will make fission non-radioactive".

My goal would be to get off oil altogether, not lean on it for decades to come with hybrids.

No matter what the technology, we will be leaning on oil for decades to come. Transitions of this scale take a very, very long time to complete.

That is a horrible limit for how much you can drive in a day, on a road trip I can go 800-900 miles when I'm taking it easy

The vast, vast, vast, vast majority of miles driving are commuting and local errands. For virtually everyone, a 100 mile range is ample for their daily driving. If you decide to go on a "road trip", rent a hybrid/diesel/gasoline car. The result will be a great reduction in emissions, and possibly a savings in fuel costs depending on where you live.

If you run short you are waiting a long time before you are on the move again

Depends on the infrastructure. A common solution to the delay in charging batteries is to have standardized packs that are swapped out at 'gas stations'. You drive in, pop in a fresh battery and drive out. An infinitely easier infrastructure than your hydrogen proposals, and doesn't require conjuring up some unknown future technology.

Oh, and the cars that get that range (Telsa, right?)

No, virtually all vehicles that are all-electric. 200mi is considered the minimum for practical daily use.

The Volt gets 40 miles. That's simply not practical for almost anyone.

Considering 40mi is more than doublethe average commute distance in the US, 40mi is actually practical for virtually everyone looking for an all-electric daily commute. And the gas engine in the volt 'solves' your road trip canard.

Number of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan: ~100

Number of Taliban in Afghanistan: ~25,000

Number of uniformed officers in the New York Police Department: >35,000

Add in the advantage that is usually assigned to people defending their homeland vs. invading forces...I'd take it in a game of Risk...

Yemen doesn't have an extradition treaty with the United States. In fact, extradition is prohibited in the Yemeni Constitution.

Wat do? Ask president Ali Abdullah Saleh if we can go into Yemen and kill the bad guys ourselves.

I couldn't find that example, but there is no shortage of other examples of "vigilante justice" based on finding people listed in sex offender registries, and, yes, you can get added to such a list for public urination.

Now, the real question here is indeed how representative am I for the public?

It doesn't matter if you represent the public at large or not. You have an opinion, and have stated it, so it should be weighed equally to any other opinion (including my own).

an 100% trust the representatives will do the best in all circumstances, and no control is ever needed once the vote is cast?

Of course not. Personally, I'd rather not listen to the mindless drivel of politicians all day, so I do put a lot of trust into my elected officials. If I didn't, I'd run for office myself. That said, I do think it'd be interesting to see a politician offer direct voting to constituents. Communication (the biggest barrier to direct democracy) has improved a wee bit in the last two centuries.

how come the judges have the power to interpret the law created by the representatives? How come that, even with the judges having this power, the society found useful to use jury in serious cases?

The judicial system in general is a limit on the practical application of laws. It's not intended to change the law (which is why people get so upset about "legislating from the bench"). The role of a judge is to determine how laws apply in a fair manner. For example, is it fair to allow consumers to unlock phones? Is it fair to allow carriers to lock them? A judge should be the one deciding.

In civil matters, there's usually an established method to re-evaluate an issue later. Civil decisions don't matter as much as criminal cases. In a criminal case, a judge's bias could easily get an innocent bystander a death sentence. That's why there's a right to have a trial by one's peers, where fellow members of society will decide whether the evidence indicates guilt.

Good set of reasons to limit the law, but I don't think one can come with a complete and full-proof set of reasons (this would be a law in itself).

When a law becomes a problem, those who oppose it should petition the government to repeal it. The matter then falls to the judges to evaluate whether the law is still necessary. It literally becomes a judgement call.

And even if they did browse for contacts and such, privacy is not an essential liberty, is it now?

Nope. Not in a public area, where a phone rewired into a bomb can kill hundreds (or given the worst case, thousands) of people. In granting extra power to customs officers, Congress has voted that the right to life is more important that the right to privacy, in this limited area. If you want to opt out, don't cross the border. Again, the legislature can only go so far. If the general public want privacy rather than safety, they (we) can petition. When the government is convinced that the public opinion and need has changed, the laws will be changed to reflect it.

As long as it is not you (or government, or anyone else for that matter) to judge what is a minor inconvenience to myself or to anyone else anyone else, I don't see a problem with this.

Through levels of representation and indirection, it's me. It's also you. It's everyone together, democratically.

PS: Thus far, your facts are as close to accurate as anything else in the past 9 years. Personally, I think the border security is asinine. I also think it's asinine to blame parties or a few politicians for things that have been generally accepted by the public. I'm glad to see support for security theater waning, but people jumping right into the political rhetoric annoy me.

So, were not burning any fossil fuels to charge these things?

Irrelevant. The point is not to burn zero fossil fuels (an impossible goal at this point, unless you can go by bike). The point is to burn less fossil fuels, and also add flexibility to the nation's fleet. Just because an electric car uses fossil-based electricity today doesn't mean it can't use renewable electricity tomorrow.

And most Americans have really long commutes, more than 50 miles per day.

Wrong. The average commute is 16 miles each way. A modern electric car (like the Nissan Leaf) can go 100 miles on a charge. Not a problem for commuting.

UAE to Ban BlackBerry Services, Saudi Follows Suit.

Good post, but the college football revenue landscape has changed dramatically (for a minority of schools) since Alesia's report (2006, using 2005 data).

TV contract revenue, the prime source of revenue for athletic programs, has more than doubled since Alesia's report -- it's through the roof (well, for domed stadiums; I guess it's over the upper bowl for open stadiums). As of 2008, 58 of 120 D-IA athletic departments were break-even or profitable (source -- note that "university" revenue in the source includes government funding, which is channeled through the university). Note that 2009 TV revenue was even higher than 2008. It's probable that over half of DI-A athletic departments are currently profitable.

Alesia's report is incomplete for some other reasons, notably the correlation between athletic programs and general alumni donations/endowments, and the local economic impact to businesses.

You are flat out wrong about this.

http://www.fastcompany.com/1658137/infographic-of-the-day-bps-horrifying-safety-record

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bps-dismal-safety-record/story?id=10763042

http://www.businessinsider.com/bp-has-been-fined-by-osha-760-times-has-an-awful-track-record-for-safety-2010-6

There is every point in singling out BP for this. No one else even comes close to being as cheap about safety as BP. They had 760 willful, egregious safety violations in a three year period where the next worst oil company had 9.

The US government failed because George Bush inserted sleeper agents into Federal agencies. These were people that Bush appointees hired, so they are simply career bureaucrats and were not replaced when Bush left office. Their job was to stand in the way of enforcing regulations.

We create a demand for oil and gas. We do not create a demand for unsafe extraction of oil and gas. Plenty of oil companies make a fine profit while playing it safe. BP did not.

You know, I'm not a dualitic thinker by nature, and I understand that everything affects everything else, but trying to blame everyone but the criminals involved in this disaster is just taking that concept too far.

Ayup. Either that horse is making its way past Jupiter or jumped into an alternate equine dimension and became the ruler of that hooved place, but it is gone.

That said, there's other wells. I try to imagine that operators and owners of said wells have a renewed interest in at least not having a $20 billion disaster bill and maybe a shred of conscience and understand of what their actions can reap. I keep waiting for some news on the fucking dipshits at MMS who were literally fucking those who they were suppose to keep an eye on. No, attending their coke, meth, and sex parties is not the way to do it. I think these people should get jail time.

Given the sheer volume of matter that needs to be cleaned, I don't think there will be any effective solution. I mean, effective and doesn't completely sterilize the water or sand the oil is in. I doubt either the water or sand would be habitable afterwards. Sand gets hauled away to hazardous-waste and rapid degradation of oil in water will suck all the oxygen out. Likewise, I don't have high hopes for the survival of marshes that soaked up tidefuls of oil.

So... yeah, pretty grim outlook but it's the same deal for anything covered in oil. Ideally, the American public will learn that, no, businesses will not regulate themselves and that you actually need to put people who aren't ideologically opposed to regulation into positions to *gasp* regulate. That might be a bit much to ask though.

Anyway, we fucked up on the regulating of oil companies part and the environment will be pretty fucked over for decades (ie, if it ever recovers). We could at least not fuck up the cleanup effort and make sure those workers don't suffer health effects from cleaning up BP's mess. Whoops, too late.... Oh, and fucking up the cleaning effort by trying to bury it with sand.

Especially when they can't find it

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-crude-mother-nature-breaks-slick/story?id=11254252

Sorry to preempt your Two Minutes of Hate like that...

Oh thank God! All the oil has simply disappeared. If we can't find it, it can't hurt the environment.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-crude-mother-nature-breaks-slick/story?id=11254252

Sorry to preempt your Two Minutes of Hate like that...

As for the supposedly massive collateral damage by the Allies, 195 people over 10 years is tragic but not huge. Even then it's a mix of French, Polish, British, etc that are at fault so it's not a targetted campaign.

I don't know where that number came from, but to me, it seems extremely... inaccurate. Every time there's report of a drone "misfiring" the number of casualties are in dozens and it seems to be a rather common occurrence. Case in point:

U.S. military investigators found that "inaccurate and unprofessional" reporting by U.S. operators of a Predator drone was responsible for a missile strike that killed 23 Afghan civilians in February, according to a report released Saturday... (and on third page of the article) The U.N. says at least 2,412 civilians were killed in 2009 — a 14 percent increase over the previous year. NATO and Afghan government forces were responsible for 25 percent of the deaths, the U.N. said in January report. Of those, about 60 percent were due to airstrikes, the U.N. said.

Source

That is just 2009 and the trend is, at least at the time of article's publication, upward.

Nice. So, we don't have money for the unemployed, for the ill, or even for veterans benefits, but we can afford laser systems to shoot down planes for imaginary invasions.

Seventy percent of the defense industry is a private set of corporations whose economic incentive is to discover (or invent) threats, and then sell the government the contract to fight this imaginary enemy. Sounds like a nice recipe for solutions that exacerbate the underlying problems, and not by accident.

The whole reason it seems preposterous for the USA to have a gigantic military is because the US Navy is the unquestioned master of the seven seas. America hasn't been threatened with invasion since 1814 for good reason. Any nation with a serious chance at doing a fair amount of damage would have to come across one of two very wide oceans. It is incumbent upon the US Government to ensure that even the thought of this is considered sheer folly, as it rightfully is now. Any invasion force would be an artificial reef long before it got within visual distance of American shores. The USA has to maintain its advantage. That costs money. The enemy is only imaginary because the result of any attempt at invasion is a foregone conclusion.

Nice. So, we don't have money for the unemployed, for the ill, or even for veterans benefits, but we can afford laser systems to shoot down planes for imaginary invasions.

Seventy percent of the defense industry is a private set of corporations whose economic incentive is to discover (or invent) threats, and then sell the government the contract to fight this imaginary enemy. Sounds like a nice recipe for solutions that exacerbate the underlying problems, and not by accident.

First of all, the people who created this have jobs, jobs they otherwise wouldn't have.

Next, as a former soldier myself, I can tell you that we are very appreciative of the best equipment money can buy. You know, because it saves our lives and all. I figure that paying for that is very least I and the rest of the tax payers can do for those that are willing to lay down their lives so you can complain about it freely.

Nice. So, we don't have money for the unemployed, for the ill, or even for veterans benefits, but we can afford laser systems to shoot down planes for imaginary invasions.

Seventy percent of the defense industry is a private set of corporations whose economic incentive is to discover (or invent) threats, and then sell the government the contract to fight this imaginary enemy. Sounds like a nice recipe for solutions that exacerbate the underlying problems, and not by accident.

"Well, volunteer rescuers are protected by good samaritan laws - nearly every state has them."

If only you were right "The court ruled 4-3 that only those administering medical care have legal immunity, but not those like Torti, who merely take rescue action. The justices said that the perceived danger to Van Horn in the wrecked car was not "medical." The court majority said the 1980 Emergency Medical Service Act, which Torti's lawyers cited for protection, was intended only to encourage people to learn first aid and use it in emergencies, not to give Good Samaritans blanket immunity when they act negligently."

This article has a lot more information but basically it boils down to the law protecting bystanders providing medical care but not those who attempt to rescue.

it's a real shame, someone could be screaming for help but you have to just watch them burn or risk a million dollar lawsuit.

If sea level rises by three feet, it will wipe out the current beachfront of Miami. Rising sea level isn't just an inconvenience, even in the U.S. We'll need to spend trillions of dollars to stop the incoming sea or move infrastructure inland. It's not a matter of a Miami millionaire moving his yacht pier up three feet. All his beachfront property will be a loss.

Only kids huh?

I hate needles, especially vein punctures, since I had ALL as a kid. Hell I have a hormone blood draw at 9am tomorrow and I'm dreading it.

Yes I have Needle Phobia and I'm in the thirties, alot of adults have it, especially cancer survivors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trypanophobia
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/PainManagement/story?id=4072974&page=1

A drill or a socket wrench cannot kill you if you drop it

Nor does a modern gun. A very rarely does an old gun. Its not like Barney on The Andy Griffin Show - they don't just go off when they get dropped or smacked.

or if you get angry with your pregnant stepmother and decide to kill her while she sleeps.

A knife, a baseball bat, a crowbar all accomplish the same thing when she's asleep. The tool used has no bearing on intent. The gun, however, is an easy scapegoat for a more serious problem in society that would lead a young child to kill their parental figures.

Guns are designed to destroy life.

Correction - guns are designed to move a projectile. Their use can be either to destroy life, or protect life. The choice rests with the individual.

They make it too easy to turn short term emotion into permanent tragedy.

So does a hammer, a baseball bat, or a knife. Again, I think this is a societal problem. The tool used isn't the problem - the problem is the person wielding said tool.

and there's no reason not to regulate it just like we regulate explosives or dangerous chemicals.

The problem with regulation, is that only law abiding citizens obey. Marijuana, cocaine, and many other drugs are all regulated. Doesn't stop their spread.

So knowing that, why would you suggest we regulate a tool that is the most effective device known to man to protect life? I would not want to defend myself with merely a kitchen knife if my assailant was wielding a gun. Regardless of the fact that its illegal in every state to commit a crime while carrying a gun. Obviously my attacker didn't read that law, otherwise he would have not carried a gun while he was attacking me in my kitchen.

A drill or a socket wrench cannot kill you if you drop it, or if you think it's unloaded, or if you get angry with your pregnant stepmother and decide to kill her while she sleeps.

Guns are designed to destroy life. They make it too easy to turn short term emotion into permanent tragedy. Throw in accidents, carelessness, sociopaths, and the primate violence found in all human societies, and there's no reason not to regulate it just like we regulate explosives or dangerous chemicals.

Having said that, I am aware that it's far more dangerous to own a pool than it is to own a gun, if you're worried about kids dying. And driving is probably up there in a similar risk pool. But the reason that guns should be regulated is because they make it very easy to take someone else's life by choice as well as by accident.

you really underestimate the depth and scope of human stupidity.... i could definably see 30, or even 300 people trying something like this, however im not accusing them of doing it intentionally. And the logger would also happen to show that exact combination if that's actually what really happened, someone got scared, almost in a wreck, stomped the gas instead of the brake, and went flying, and didn't realize their mistake. It hasn't just happened with Toyota, it has happened with other makes and models for many years now. Toyota just got a huge amount of press for it, and it became a national sensation as many irrelevant things seem to become these days (ie Obama's Birth Certificate, Arizona's Kidnapping "Problem", and just about anything Sara Palin does...). Also Toyota has never blamed this on the driver, they have simply said they can not come to any other conclusion they have never said that the driver is at fault.

Sources:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/sudden-acceleration-kentucky-driver-defends-account-runaway-chevrolet/story?id=10943811
http://www.safetyforum.com/sua/
http://www.autosafety.org/srr/SAEURO.pdf
or just about anything else:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=sudden+acceleration+-toyota

No they didn't.

They got into a little hot water over not using the original tach reading do to there shaky quality they used en edited tach. They have since switched to the actually footage.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/toyota-recall-electronic-design-flaw-linked-toyota-runaway-acceleration-problems/story?id=9909319

though curiously the DEA and FDA get plenty, within their respective scopes

Actually, they don't. Politicians are terrible at being proactive, they need to look like they're solving some major crisis in order to justify their continued employment to the people who vote for them. Much like IT, if there were no crises they'd be doing it right but nobody would give a damn about them anymore.

This is why only eight states have banned "synthetic marijuana", why until a few years ago several places had neglected to mention in their child labor laws that 12 year olds can't be strippers and so on.