zapatos

If this was supposed to be a response to my post, it failed to answer any of my questions. Other than that it appears you have one anecdote about what one person saw from one perspective regarding a correlation between police presence and crime. I am unsure why you seem to think the police were the cause of the crime, rather than the police being concentrated in an area because it contains high crime.

Huh? So in other words, you think we'd be better off with no laws and everyone having to defend themselves individually. Something tells me this is not going to turn out well for the old, the minorities, and the weak. Would you please suppy a citation for this fact? Huh? Can you give some names and what they've done?

It is kind of a nonsensical question. No one is saying NASA is more important than feeding starving people. Our world does not work linearly. We have hospitals for people but choose to help animals at the same time. Your friends have probably decided to go on vacation at the expense of donating money to cancer research. We even spend money making remote control cars when the money could be spent instead on making automobiles safer. No one is suggesting one is more worthy than the other, and even if they were, we'd still do multiple things at once.

What is the 'leading edge of ST'? Do you have a citation of anything that discusses this? Do you have a citation for someone who is arguing that this can move mass at a rate greated that c? Citation?

The fact that a federal law was able to ban assault weapsons indicates that a state law banning assault weapons would not be unconstitutional under the second amendment. If it was, the federal law would have also been unconstitutional. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

The relative ease with which you believe something has no bearing on its existence.

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

You seem for some reason to have a bias against currently accepted science, choosing alternatives simply because they are not part of the consensus. An indicator of your bias is your use of the word dogma and the insinuation that acceptance of a particularly well supported theory is done out of convenience.

The best minds certainly don't know that for a fact, and don't make such a claim. They could be wrong and there are people who disagree. However, the evidence and the interpretation of the evidence makes a very solid case that this is indeed what is happening. And I wouldn't worry about efforts being stopped to confirm whether or not it is true. There would be no greater glory and discovery in a scientist's career than to find a major problem with a generally accepted theory. Scientists who have a vested interest in the current theory hold no sway over the research of others.

You might want to try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

Actually these two statements are not at odds with each other. The Big Bang is not similar to an explosion where debris is thrown out from the center. The Big Bang started everywhere at once and the universe grew in size.

Can you elaborate a bit on what you are getting at please? It sounds like you are responding to a rather nuanced comment by yelling 'racism!'. I assume you are not but can't really tell what it is you do want to say.

They actually do that now in California. One of the biggest issues seems to be the rather poor choice of names, which is "toilet-to-tap". http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/us/jan-june08/water_2-11.html I understand that they have been taking sewage water, treating to levels stringent enough for drinking water, then pumping it back into the groundwater. It is clean enough to drink but difficult to get over the idea that it is recycled. Seems that now they may be skipping the groundwater step.

I usually find myself on the side of people who want to limit firearms, but I must admit that lately I've come to see merit in some arguments of 2nd amendment supporters (not that we don't all support it at some level). As a first world nation that peacefully hands over power every four to eight year, and has not in recent history had a president ignore a Supreme Court ruling, I don't forsee a need for arms against the government. However, guns are a deterrent at many levels. For the local sheriff who tries to rule with impunity, I think that knowing the citizens are armed will tend to keep him honest.

Your first two paragraphs seem to be at odds with your last paragraph.

I think even this gets overblown. All guns 'are only inteded to kill', unless of course they are for something else such as target shooting or collecting. The round from a .22 will also kill you, and the round from an AR-15 is just higher on the scale. I imagine a slug from a 12 guage shotgun would also do a significant amount of damage but no one seems to be talking about banning them.

Yes, we are just a bunch of ignorant peons being led around by the nose.

The problem with gun control based on lethality, or magazine size, or description, is that it is all subjective and arbitrary. What is an unnecessary deadly weapon to one is a good target rifle to another. I believe if the objective is to increase limits on gun control, the way to go about it is to simply implement what can be passed into law, regardless of what type of weapon that is being limited. If lawmakers will not accept a ban on, say, assault type weapons, then do not try to limit them and move on to something that is palatable to a majority. While I feel it is unlikely that we will see the population at war with the government, I believe that the thought of an armed group of individuals does give government pause when considering a heavy handed use of power. As far as the legal ramifications, I imagine they would be similar to what would happen if a teacher responded with a cricket bat if similar damage was done. It is unlikely that any teacher would be forced to carry a gun. Who in their right mind would force a gun on a teacher who is, say, afraid of it?

The salt water system could be a closed loop. You would only need to pump the salt water into the system once, plus whatever it takes to top it off once in a while. Once the waste water has been cleaned up, instead of dumping it back into the ocean or rivers, you keep it in the system for reuse. This would of course require duplicate infrastructure so cost/benefits would have to be weighed.

No one who insists on their right to have a gun will accept electronic government tracking of their movements. I'd accept limits on guns before I'd accept someone tracking my movements. Maybe something as simple as a combination lock built into the gun would help. It would at least cut out those who steal the guns.

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

Yes I do, but I'm struggling a bit to come up with a connection. It's not an authority thing; people who are bowing down to the authority of God are certainly not bowing down to the authority of the government. I guess it could be a violence thing but I don't really think so. There may be a lot of violence in the bible, but religious leaders are generally advocates of peace. So why is there so much overlap between religion and gun rights? Perhaps it is more of a rural/urban, more education/less education thing. I suppose if you are in a rural area where hunting is more common, you may see the gun problem as a city problem, not really your problem. And if Missouri is representative of the rest of the country, the rural areas are certainly more religious.

The only way I see to limit the frequency of these types of incidents is to limit the number of guns, and to raise the bar for what it takes to be allowed to purchase a gun. Given the strength of the gun lobby and the attitudes of US citizens this is not something that can be done quickly. Perhaps it is time to take a lesson from the Right to Life folks and start chipping away slowly at the laws in place. City by city, state by state, law by law, make it more and more difficult to purchase a gun. Make potential buyers look at pictures of people who have been shot, make them get their parent's approval. Maybe we can even make them first be examined by a doctor first. If we can get gun purchases designated a sin, there will be a lot of support. (This post is only somewhat tongue-in-cheek.)

Rest Ice Compression Elevation Otherwise known as RICE, is how you should care for a sprain for roughly the first 24-48 hours (unless they changed the rules on me again). Ice, compression and elevation (and to some extent rest) are all aimed at reducing swelling and the potential resultant additional damage to the area sprained.

I've been clicking the 'toggle' icon which then allows me to move the cursor past the [ /quote].