> As a result of pilots needing to dodge strong turbulence, flight paths will become longer, and fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions will increase—possibly leading to even more turbulence."
To say that the longer flight paths will add enough carbon dioxide to increase the turbulence even more is just plain silly. This is a second order effect.
And I think that clearly labels the article as "stretching AND milking 'it'".;)
How do researchers know what turbulence was like in the pre-industrial era? Unless Ancient Astronomers took the readings and handed them down to us in carved stone tablets, we are merely GUESSING what the turbulence was like.
Due to the passing of the ice age, I imagine the air was lighter than it is today. Oh, but there was also more pressure equalization due to temperature variations between night and day, so I guess it's turbulent in some areas and not in others, weather systems included. Oh, wait.. that's the same as it is today./snark;)
1. Turbulence increase, making air travel uncomfortable
2. Rice fields drying up worldwide, resulting in mass starvation and war for resources, with prime overpopulated countries having access to nuclear arms.
Not sure which one worries me more... nuclear holocaust vs coffee spilled on my crotch... Nah let our children figure out the mess, load up those coal power plants!
Studies say suicide rates will quintuple in the next 30 years. I don't think your children need to worry about all of that "clean up the mess of earlier generations" crud!;)
Re:neither should receive government support
on
Let Them Eat Teslas
·
· Score: 1
One of two things need to happen:1) Colleges and universities need to dramatically cut the costs of tuition, or 2) the government needs to start subsidizing education more, otherwise we are going to find ourselves as a nation of undereducated people. As a conservative, I opt for the first option, but after seeing how higher education works overseas, and with struggling myself, option two is looking pretty attractive.
1.) That will not happen because once the rich become rich, they refuse (sometimes to the death) to surrender it for any cause (sometimes even saving the life of a relative). The only people that will are the ones that are so rich there's nothing they can possibly ever, EVER do with their money (Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan, Vanderbilt). Those are only historical; current rich people won't part with their money.
2.) We already are "undereducated" per capita. The number of jobs -vs- number of people ratio is not a positive one during this downturn. Until the economy picks up, government subsidies are not a financially sound idea from any perspective but the consumer (or educated in this case). We'll regret the decision when the next recession hits even more. Hell, we're overdue for the next "Great Depression".
OMG, what am I saying? U.S. money is already "fake" and not backed by anything tangible, realistically, anymore.
By virtue of requiring a reboot I was never banned from any retail shopping centers...
Speaking of retail shopping centers... Did you ever have the experience of seeing the word "penis" scratched in MS paint on demo machines (sometimes all) every single time you went to one? And I wondered where the initial desire for a locked screen saver or boot-time "demo program" came from. lol
"Hey guys look! This guy's never bought a BMW before".
Like it's some strange ridiculous thing to spend 1k/month on a car.
Whaa? Um, I believe it is for those who don't make enough money, even having college degrees and top-notch skills and recommendations, a ridiculous thing to pay ~= $1000/mo for a fucking civilian automobile.
So electric vehicles are the best thing in the world hands-down; people will even take punches in the gut to defend it. Then, government and banking get involved to help those in the wealth bracket that the middle class detests, and now it's a bad idea?
It was a fucking bad idea from the beginning! GREAT idea in the head, somewhat good on paper, BAD in execution, worse post-execution.
It takes income/wealth separation for people to see the forest for the trees (no pun intended at all)??
A problem is the fact that the only alternative that some posit is a 'take more classes, and then even more' scenario, where the only possible outcome is to apply for grad school to take yet more classes. When the subject of study doesn't lead to an endpoint where the student can gainfully leave the campus eventually, it instead leads to masses of students scrabbling to be the among choice few who get to keep on studying indefinitely. Scholasticism can't be it's own end indefinitely for every student.
Exactly, if you're a rich bastard what are you gonna tell the politicians to do, give you a price break on your decadent toys, or make it easier for the peons to get an education, increasing the pool of people who could potentially be a threat to your corporate empire and decreasing the educated workforce's dependence on debt?
This must have happened because one of the bank higher-ups got talked into Tesla cars by a young girl he's trying to keep.
Oh, and the girl is also in bed with someone in the treasury department. She's paid by...... OOH! Who could it be, who could it be? Nah, Tesla wouldn't pay for anything like that. I mean the company Tesla, not the dead man, god rest his soul.
Oh, come on. Sometimes humor is the gateway to truth.;)
Apparently you have never financed a vehicle. The bank holds the actual title, you only get a certificate of registration. You cannot sell the car without the title, and the bank will not release it without the loan being paid off. So if you tried to sell the car, the bank would take the money and you'd end up with nothing.
So you're saying the rich could get richer but the middle class couldn't execute on this idea?;)
1. Buy Tesla 2. Lease Tesla to person of questionable credit at slightly higher rates (owing to their low credit score) 3. Refinance Tesla (repeat as necessary) 4. ??? 5. Profit!
Wait, where would education fit in there...?
I don't know on 5, but I can fill in 4. for ya - make sure you have the necessary physical skills to beat the living shit out of the young male with poor credit who just lost his job, won't pay on the car, and is trying to keep it hidden from repo.:)
The problem with that kind of data is that it is fairly restrospective, and college tuitions have risen VERY quickly.
You bring up a very good point there. Since tuition has climbed, young males (primarily) would be much more interested in a seemingly guilt-free and positive benefit behavior of purchasing an expensive car without a college degree to 'look' more impressive to the females, rather than to actually have the money to support a lifestyle with them.
Not intentionally off-topic, but on that note, I predict divorce rates are to go up.
You have to be kidding me. The data shows quite the opposite:
"Average annual earnings of individuals with a bachelor's degree are more than 75 percent higher than the earnings of high school graduates. These additional earnings sum to more than $1 million over a lifetime."
...and the *initial* sex appeal of a male with an expensive-looking (or seeming) car is far greater than one with a standard-mid model car.
So basically, that would say that younger males would rather have really expensive (or expensive-looking) cars to get some quick sex than older males, and younger males would be less likely to want an actual large income because they're more interested in sex than logical life-living M.O.
Just saying... Better income and education is a better idea, but that doesn't make it more of an applied idea due to Human nature.
Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans
on
Let Them Eat Teslas
·
· Score: 1
Very good point... With a car loan, the car is collateral. If you default, they can take back the car. With a student loan, what are they going to do? Cut out sections of your brain?
...and with this loan, you can discharge the balance in bankruptcy.
Therefore, I can't figure out if this is a good idea or a bad idea. Tax money being used to support a business where the money will either be properly returned with interest, or the buyer will default and probably declare bankruptcy to avoid wage garnishment... in an economic downturn... and all of this on a vehicle which costs an arm and a leg to maintain, totally aside from the purchase itself.
This just looks like a really bad logical idea. "Revolutionary", maybe. Technically, the only two modifiers from "past loan methodology" are the 15,000 up-front stipend possibility and the no-sales-tax option. I mean, come on.
The old saying is "When something seems to good to be true...."
That is awesome. They have finally found the way to encourage purchase of electric vehicles by offsetting the INSANE MAINTENANCE COSTS with TAX DOLLARS. Go Tesla! (and not the real Tesla, may his soul rest in peace and not roll over too much further in the grave)
People no longer talk on cell phones to any significant degree. They text (*), which involves holding the phone at a distance from the head. That's got to reduce the exposure.
(*) Except for Machete. Machete don't text.
'cept me. I talk to family on the phone for up to 2 hours per day, one stretch. Fortunately, I my provider's tower is less than 1/4 mile from me so my transmit power is lowered, but still..... Very close, long time.
As to your last point - the fact people have died in gun fights isn't an argument for more guns.
I have to cut to the last point to state that there isn't going to be an unarmed United States without another civil war. If guns are scarce and impossible to find, people will find other methods that are potentially (but not certainly) less accurate and/or more disgusting than guns to kill.
If the politicians want to push their limits to start another civil war, well, perhaps they'll "stimulate the economy" by doing so. </sarcasm>
They're probably concerned about the few TDMA providers that are still in existence. They can cause annoying buzzing on the headsets (due to the output amplifiers on the radio equipment). Even HSDPA+ providers (AT&T for one) still have distance/signal backdown to EVDO (which is TDMA-based). Since they can't determine who has a TDMA device and who doesn't, they just tell everyone to keep their shit off.
Now switching to airplane mode, that's just plain dumb. If anyone can do it, they should be able to use their device......
But, It's just like childhood. Since we don't want to point fingers at the people with equipment that might get in the way of our pilots communicating without interference, and don't want to point out the idiots that can't properly enable airplane mode, everyone has to put down their toys.
Our government is required to provide logical, reality-based legislation. Not legislation and mandates built on superstition, witchcraft and rumor. It maybe fine for a short time to prohibit certain things out of an abundance of caution until an answer can be found but now we've had more than enough time, and we have no scientific evidence of any interplay between avionics and solid state mobile devices. All the evidence is anecdotal in nature. This is not sufficient for limiting the freedoms of people.
But but but they've proven that all cell phones cause brain cancer... in the pilots' brains. Before the flight is complete.
The counterbalance is that the UK is NOT the same as the US. They are in different places in the world and have different histories.
I personally know, and know people that know others who like to shoot guns at targets for practice just for the hell of it; they do not own and shoot because they feel the need for protection. That comes later, *if* needed. Those who are smart know that if you are to shoot someone, they must act in a manner to make you feel threat to your life first. If you aren't a licensed concealed carrier, you're pretty much limited to your home in most states. If you are to be justified in shooting someone, they must come in to your home and make you feel threatened for your life OR shoot at you first. Since this legal state is a stupid one, people may tend to overreact. When I say that, I refer to the lack of rights to use a gun on someone who you know to have one and simply feel threatened by them. If that right existed, people would feel a little less confident in acting out with a gun. Lacking that right, people feel a bit more grandiose, in that they are trying to *find a legally valid reason* in their heads to use their guns on others when they feel threatened with no recourse other than "waiting for the cops to show up". I'm sure the person who is approaching you and threatening you isn't going to say, "Oh, of course. I'll wait for the police to show up before I act out on your any further."
Moving on...
If you were to try and take the guns away from those who own them, the counter-response would be astronomical. Here in the good ol' US, we're used to freedom and rights. That's pretty much what it was founded on, eh? If you try to remove freedom or rights, people counter with an increased desire to HAVE said freedom/rights and to ACT to maintain them or regain them. You can't with 100% certainty say that the minds of those in the UK are the same as the US or say that the statistical data is relevant in an apples-apples sense.
people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
Okay, another quote from the article:
So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
Bad data. They are only accounting for people *IN* Philadelphia, PA. They aren't comparing gender, age, upbringing, income, ethnicity, or other factors *from other areas of the country/state/world*. Statistics do not account for hidden mental states. If they did, we would be able to read the mind by now. All they have to work with are the outcomes of the acts (in written legal cases) which may or may not have a complete set of information of the causes and effects of the individual person. In fact, they can never have a COMPLETE set of information; hell, if they did, we wouldn't really have much to talk about in this situation, would we?
And it's not even a case of law abiding UK citizens being defenceless. Because of the tight restrictions, there are less guns in circulation, and because less people are armed, crimes are far less lethal. If a shop keeper were to be targeted here, no one would get shot, the perp'd just get hit upside the head with a chair & chased down the street.
The government and these anti-gun fools need to look to the past to see our future.
Amen. People have a real hard time understanding that concept, even though it happens day-to-day in front of their eyes. Perhaps it's the "but it [looks/smells/feels/tastes/sounds] different this time means it's a completely different thing" model that keeps it going. Or forgetfulness. I really don't know if it's denial or rejection, but people have a really hard time coming to grips with and accepting the fact that history repeats itself, repetitively.
Slashdot Mirror
> As a result of pilots needing to dodge strong turbulence, flight paths will become longer, and fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions will increase—possibly leading to even more turbulence."
To say that the longer flight paths will add enough carbon dioxide to increase the turbulence even more is just plain silly. This is a second order effect.
And I think that clearly labels the article as "stretching AND milking 'it'". ;)
How do researchers know what turbulence was like in the pre-industrial era? Unless Ancient Astronomers took the readings and handed them down to us in carved stone tablets, we are merely GUESSING what the turbulence was like.
Due to the passing of the ice age, I imagine the air was lighter than it is today. Oh, but there was also more pressure equalization due to temperature variations between night and day, so I guess it's turbulent in some areas and not in others, weather systems included. Oh, wait.. that's the same as it is today. /snark ;)
Let's see:
1. Turbulence increase, making air travel uncomfortable
2. Rice fields drying up worldwide, resulting in mass starvation and war for resources, with prime overpopulated countries having access to nuclear arms.
Not sure which one worries me more... nuclear holocaust vs coffee spilled on my crotch... Nah let our children figure out the mess, load up those coal power plants!
Studies say suicide rates will quintuple in the next 30 years. I don't think your children need to worry about all of that "clean up the mess of earlier generations" crud! ;)
One of two things need to happen:1) Colleges and universities need to dramatically cut the costs of tuition, or 2) the government needs to start subsidizing education more, otherwise we are going to find ourselves as a nation of undereducated people. As a conservative, I opt for the first option, but after seeing how higher education works overseas, and with struggling myself, option two is looking pretty attractive.
1.) That will not happen because once the rich become rich, they refuse (sometimes to the death) to surrender it for any cause (sometimes even saving the life of a relative). The only people that will are the ones that are so rich there's nothing they can possibly ever, EVER do with their money (Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan, Vanderbilt). Those are only historical; current rich people won't part with their money.
2.) We already are "undereducated" per capita. The number of jobs -vs- number of people ratio is not a positive one during this downturn. Until the economy picks up, government subsidies are not a financially sound idea from any perspective but the consumer (or educated in this case). We'll regret the decision when the next recession hits even more. Hell, we're overdue for the next "Great Depression".
OMG, what am I saying? U.S. money is already "fake" and not backed by anything tangible, realistically, anymore.
By virtue of requiring a reboot I was never banned from any retail shopping centers...
Speaking of retail shopping centers... Did you ever have the experience of seeing the word "penis" scratched in MS paint on demo machines (sometimes all) every single time you went to one? And I wondered where the initial desire for a locked screen saver or boot-time "demo program" came from. lol
Heh. Try adding "echo Y|format C: /q" to the autoexec.bat on early versions of DOS that didn't clear the buffer before executing format commands...
So it was YOU! YOU are the one that got them to start clearing the buffer! YOU are the one that formatted my 5MB MFM drive! :>
"Hey guys look! This guy's never bought a BMW before".
Like it's some strange ridiculous thing to spend 1k/month on a car.
Whaa? Um, I believe it is for those who don't make enough money, even having college degrees and top-notch skills and recommendations, a ridiculous thing to pay ~= $1000/mo for a fucking civilian automobile.
If you were being sarcastic, good one.
OMG what in the fuck....
So electric vehicles are the best thing in the world hands-down; people will even take punches in the gut to defend it. Then, government and banking get involved to help those in the wealth bracket that the middle class detests, and now it's a bad idea?
It was a fucking bad idea from the beginning! GREAT idea in the head, somewhat good on paper, BAD in execution, worse post-execution.
It takes income/wealth separation for people to see the forest for the trees (no pun intended at all)??
"charging station" Funny dat. A charging station for an electric car is orders of magnitude cheaper than a petrol station.
Yes. Energy from a charging station comes from thin air. It's magic.
Hmm, now I know where the company came up with the name "Tesla".
</snark>
A problem is the fact that the only alternative that some posit is a 'take more classes, and then even more' scenario, where the only possible outcome is to apply for grad school to take yet more classes. When the subject of study doesn't lead to an endpoint where the student can gainfully leave the campus eventually, it instead leads to masses of students scrabbling to be the among choice few who get to keep on studying indefinitely. Scholasticism can't be it's own end indefinitely for every student.
You make it sound like a bubble. :/
Exactly, if you're a rich bastard what are you gonna tell the politicians to do, give you a price break on your decadent toys, or make it easier for the peons to get an education, increasing the pool of people who could potentially be a threat to your corporate empire and decreasing the educated workforce's dependence on debt?
This must have happened because one of the bank higher-ups got talked into Tesla cars by a young girl he's trying to keep.
Oh, and the girl is also in bed with someone in the treasury department. She's paid by...... OOH! Who could it be, who could it be? Nah, Tesla wouldn't pay for anything like that. I mean the company Tesla, not the dead man, god rest his soul.
Oh, come on. Sometimes humor is the gateway to truth. ;)
Apparently you have never financed a vehicle. The bank holds the actual title, you only get a certificate of registration. You cannot sell the car without the title, and the bank will not release it without the loan being paid off.
So if you tried to sell the car, the bank would take the money and you'd end up with nothing.
So you're saying the rich could get richer but the middle class couldn't execute on this idea? ;)
Perhaps this should be reversed.
1. Buy Tesla
2. Lease Tesla to person of questionable credit at slightly higher rates (owing to their low credit score)
3. Refinance Tesla (repeat as necessary)
4. ???
5. Profit!
Wait, where would education fit in there...?
I don't know on 5, but I can fill in 4. for ya - make sure you have the necessary physical skills to beat the living shit out of the young male with poor credit who just lost his job, won't pay on the car, and is trying to keep it hidden from repo. :)
The problem with that kind of data is that it is fairly restrospective, and college tuitions have risen VERY quickly.
You bring up a very good point there. Since tuition has climbed, young males (primarily) would be much more interested in a seemingly guilt-free and positive benefit behavior of purchasing an expensive car without a college degree to 'look' more impressive to the females, rather than to actually have the money to support a lifestyle with them.
Not intentionally off-topic, but on that note, I predict divorce rates are to go up.
You have to be kidding me. The data shows quite the opposite:
"Average annual earnings of individuals with a bachelor's degree are more than 75 percent higher than the earnings of high school graduates. These additional earnings sum to more than $1 million over a lifetime."
http://www.aei.org/article/education/higher-education/how-much-is-that-bachelors-degree-really-worth/
...and the *initial* sex appeal of a male with an expensive-looking (or seeming) car is far greater than one with a standard-mid model car.
So basically, that would say that younger males would rather have really expensive (or expensive-looking) cars to get some quick sex than older males, and younger males would be less likely to want an actual large income because they're more interested in sex than logical life-living M.O.
Just saying... Better income and education is a better idea, but that doesn't make it more of an applied idea due to Human nature.
Very good point...
With a car loan, the car is collateral. If you default, they can take back the car.
With a student loan, what are they going to do? Cut out sections of your brain?
...and with this loan, you can discharge the balance in bankruptcy.
Therefore, I can't figure out if this is a good idea or a bad idea. Tax money being used to support a business where the money will either be properly returned with interest, or the buyer will default and probably declare bankruptcy to avoid wage garnishment... in an economic downturn... and all of this on a vehicle which costs an arm and a leg to maintain, totally aside from the purchase itself.
This just looks like a really bad logical idea. "Revolutionary", maybe. Technically, the only two modifiers from "past loan methodology" are the 15,000 up-front stipend possibility and the no-sales-tax option. I mean, come on.
The old saying is "When something seems to good to be true...."
...I could never figure out what to do with an Apple-II at a prompt.
LOL.. memories.
10 PRINT "I AM BOOTING"
20 GOTO 10
RUN
"Ah, fuck it." - insert disk and reboot.
Unfortunately, I never got to see a tape-driven unit!
That is awesome. They have finally found the way to encourage purchase of electric vehicles by offsetting the INSANE MAINTENANCE COSTS with TAX DOLLARS. Go Tesla! (and not the real Tesla, may his soul rest in peace and not roll over too much further in the grave)
People no longer talk on cell phones to any significant degree. They text (*), which involves holding the phone at a distance from the head. That's got to reduce the exposure.
(*) Except for Machete. Machete don't text.
'cept me. I talk to family on the phone for up to 2 hours per day, one stretch. Fortunately, I my provider's tower is less than 1/4 mile from me so my transmit power is lowered, but still..... Very close, long time.
As to your last point - the fact people have died in gun fights isn't an argument for more guns.
I have to cut to the last point to state that there isn't going to be an unarmed United States without another civil war. If guns are scarce and impossible to find, people will find other methods that are potentially (but not certainly) less accurate and/or more disgusting than guns to kill.
If the politicians want to push their limits to start another civil war, well, perhaps they'll "stimulate the economy" by doing so. </sarcasm>
They're probably concerned about the few TDMA providers that are still in existence. They can cause annoying buzzing on the headsets (due to the output amplifiers on the radio equipment). Even HSDPA+ providers (AT&T for one) still have distance/signal backdown to EVDO (which is TDMA-based). Since they can't determine who has a TDMA device and who doesn't, they just tell everyone to keep their shit off.
Now switching to airplane mode, that's just plain dumb. If anyone can do it, they should be able to use their device......
But, It's just like childhood. Since we don't want to point fingers at the people with equipment that might get in the way of our pilots communicating without interference, and don't want to point out the idiots that can't properly enable airplane mode, everyone has to put down their toys.
Our government is required to provide logical, reality-based legislation. Not legislation and mandates built on superstition, witchcraft and rumor. It maybe fine for a short time to prohibit certain things out of an abundance of caution until an answer can be found but now we've had more than enough time, and we have no scientific evidence of any interplay between avionics and solid state mobile devices. All the evidence is anecdotal in nature. This is not sufficient for limiting the freedoms of people.
But but but they've proven that all cell phones cause brain cancer... in the pilots' brains. Before the flight is complete.
I hear ya.
The counterbalance is that the UK is NOT the same as the US. They are in different places in the world and have different histories.
I personally know, and know people that know others who like to shoot guns at targets for practice just for the hell of it; they do not own and shoot because they feel the need for protection. That comes later, *if* needed. Those who are smart know that if you are to shoot someone, they must act in a manner to make you feel threat to your life first. If you aren't a licensed concealed carrier, you're pretty much limited to your home in most states. If you are to be justified in shooting someone, they must come in to your home and make you feel threatened for your life OR shoot at you first. Since this legal state is a stupid one, people may tend to overreact. When I say that, I refer to the lack of rights to use a gun on someone who you know to have one and simply feel threatened by them. If that right existed, people would feel a little less confident in acting out with a gun. Lacking that right, people feel a bit more grandiose, in that they are trying to *find a legally valid reason* in their heads to use their guns on others when they feel threatened with no recourse other than "waiting for the cops to show up". I'm sure the person who is approaching you and threatening you isn't going to say, "Oh, of course. I'll wait for the police to show up before I act out on your any further."
Moving on...
If you were to try and take the guns away from those who own them, the counter-response would be astronomical. Here in the good ol' US, we're used to freedom and rights. That's pretty much what it was founded on, eh? If you try to remove freedom or rights, people counter with an increased desire to HAVE said freedom/rights and to ACT to maintain them or regain them. You can't with 100% certainty say that the minds of those in the UK are the same as the US or say that the statistical data is relevant in an apples-apples sense.
people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
Okay, another quote from the article:
So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
Bad data. They are only accounting for people *IN* Philadelphia, PA. They aren't comparing gender, age, upbringing, income, ethnicity, or other factors *from other areas of the country/state/world*. Statistics do not account for hidden mental states. If they did, we would be able to read the mind by now. All they have to work with are the outcomes of the acts (in written legal cases) which may or may not have a complete set of information of the causes and effects of the individual person. In fact, they can never have a COMPLETE set of information; hell, if they did, we wouldn't really have much to talk about in this situation, would we?
And it's not even a case of law abiding UK citizens being defenceless. Because of the tight restrictions, there are less guns in circulation, and because less people are armed, crimes are far less lethal.
If a shop keeper were to be targeted here, no one would get shot, the perp'd just get hit upside the head with a chair & chased down the street.
I'd like to say what you're bringing up here is a good point, but it's lacking the mention of UK people trying to and succeeding in obtaining guns, as well.
I will a
What about my 3d-printed tobacco though?
What's wrong with that? People are encouraged to use tobacco to kill themselves.
</sarcasm>
The government and these anti-gun fools need to look to the past to see our future.
Amen. People have a real hard time understanding that concept, even though it happens day-to-day in front of their eyes. Perhaps it's the "but it [looks/smells/feels/tastes/sounds] different this time means it's a completely different thing" model that keeps it going. Or forgetfulness. I really don't know if it's denial or rejection, but people have a really hard time coming to grips with and accepting the fact that history repeats itself, repetitively.