champu

...to disk!

This one is good as well: http://www.theonion.com/articles/american-airlines-us-airways-merge-to-form-worlds,31302/

There is quite a difference between design flaws or inadaquate FMEAs and immature technology.

I don't disagree that manipulation of language in an effort to control how people think and talk about things is generally bad, but I think you're confused as to who to blame, and I think you're want to be inconsistent on the issue. As an illustrative example, how do you feel about the proposed ban on what the president last night called "massive ammunition magazines"?

Because you don't understand the situation and relationship they have. Or it could be because he was making a joke...

Are you using the "common definition" of true or the legal definition? The same one that knows people are human beings and not corporations. In other words, the real truth, not simply some legal one and also knows Newspeak is Double Plus Ungood. If you disdain the legislature's ability to legally define things and/or for the judiciary's ability to legally interpret things, you do understand this creates a bit of a hurdle in any argument that the government should ever do anything, yes? You can't "lock up the dangerous people", "keep guns away from the crazys", "help the poor", "make the rich pay their fair share", "take a common sense approach to defense", or "leave no child behind" because none of those imperatives actually mean anything on their own. You can campaign saying those things, you can make signs that say those things, or you can camp out in tents in city parks and yell those things at anyone within earshot, but if you actually want to accomplish anything you're going to need to define what it is first.

Are you using the "common definition" of true or the legal definition?

So, you're restating your position, and I already understood what it was. Hence why I wrote, "Those are your two cents," in my last post. My post was about why people might be presuming a legal context to your use of the term "insane" whether you want them to or not, and why that can cause problems. Also, in the last two sentences you've watered the "common definition" down even further by relating "sanity" with "normality." The distinction between a clip and a magazine is about as important as the distinction between a toggle and a riser (i.e. not at all if you're not using either) Likewise, the distinction between insane and not insane is useless outside of the legal context. Specifically, in this case, the legal context I was alluding to of whether the denial of access to firearms due to mental illness would have applied to him.

Unless, of course, you happen to own a dictionary. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insane?s=t The term has been in use for hundreds of years and derives from Latin. What the hell are you guys talking about? There absolutely is a commonly understood definition. This is an interesting situation in the forum... Many times I have problems getting people to read my posts within the context of other posts I've made recently, or other threads that are active at the time. Sometimes I post as though this whole forum is just one big discussion. Not everyone reads all active threads intently though, so I understand that people are going to misinterpret what I write if it isn't given that context. You here, and others occasionally elsewhere, have posted something and are defending it by insisting that people remove it from any contexts that might be established in your other posts or other threads that are going on... It's interesting... So what the hell am I talking about? You said you agree this guy probably couldn't use insanity as a defense, but that you still think he's insane. He's an angry guy, with a gun, who made a plan to kill people, and then killed people. You say that makes him insane. Those are your two cents. Meanwhile, there are one or two *cough* active threads about gun control where the discussion has turned to keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. So here is why people are losing their shit over what you said... At what point in this guy's course of actions would you start calling him "insane"? Do you feel that his course of actions, "made him insane all along"? Do you understand why the flippant use of the term "insane" can furl eyebrows in the context of discussions of who should have certain rights abridged prior to any wrongdoing?

Side note as I'm doing my taxes and came across this... if you have a low AGI, the IRS has a tax credit to encourage you to contribute at least something to your 401(k) or other retirement savings. Only applies if you make < $57K married or < $29K single. Google "IRS Form 8880" Think of it as a rather generous 401(k) contribution matching for poor people.

The electoral college system has kind of evolved into a gerrymandered state. Since it's only electing one person every four years, it usually doesn't end up mattering, but there are millions of people who vote for the minority party in "non-swing" states who are really just not improving their candidate's chances of winning. It would be difficult to quantify, but it likely has an impact on the overall popular vote. I'm sure there are plenty of people in California, for instance, who don't even bother trying to vote for a republican president.

There's a lot of problems with your "simplified" scenario but I'll point out the main one. If you pay, say, 25% taxes all the way along, and you put away $1K/mo in a cookie jar, then that means you had to earn $1333 that month, pay $333 tax on it, and then deposit the $1K. If you have a 401(k) you put the whole $1333 in the account. After 30 years, your cookie jar will have $1k * 12 * 30 = $360K or your 401(k) will have $1333 * 12 * 30 = $479,880. If I pay 25% at that point I have the same $360K. A big thing that ends up helping you is the fact that you have that extra $333/mo experiencing the same growth as the rest of your fund, so even if your tax rate does go up a bit, it's unlikely to outpace the performance of your account if you manage it wisely. A second bonus is that many employers will put extra money into your 401(k) if you contribute at least x amount yourself. If you use a cookie jar, the company just keeps that money for themselves. Finally, it lets you work in a state and with high state income taxes, and retire in a state with lower state income taxes to make the most of having not paid taxes on the money when you earned it. As for market volatility, that's always going to happen. Which is why what you have your money invested in (whether it's pre-tax or after-tax) should depend largely on when you need it. If you're 30 years away from retirement, go risky... Your account value is going to be all over the place in the near term but in the long term you'll come out ahead. As you get closer to retirement you can migrate money towards bonds and as you get right up against it you can move it to something basic like a money market account. If you put your money in a savings account/CD/money market account for 30 years you're going to lose value. If you leave your money in risky small-cap or emerging market funds all the way to retirement, you're rolling the dice. Speaking as a rocket scientist I will say, it's not rocket science.

He showed a correlation between the percentage of people with college degrees in a state in one age group with that state voting democrat or republican. Kind of a non-sequitur given it was in response to a complaint about how uninformed voters were. It's not late-breaking news that young college graduates gravitate towards places with higher population densities for their first jobs, and that people in higher-density areas vote liberally because there are more "liberal issues" in their face day-to-day (homelessness, diversity, access to healthcare, education, crime/violence) But all that means is they are probably going to vote for the candidates who say they care or are focused on that set of issues. I would be cautious about claiming that simply knowing what a candidate said he or she cares about during their campaign makes you an informed voter. That's setting the bar awfully low. I think people naturally overestimate the altruism of politicians with whom they share the most concerns.

I'm not concerned about an outright ban/confiscation happening via legislation, I'm worried about a preponderance of stupidity and bureaucracy, and if you pile too many things on (registrations, lower standards for "temporary confiscations", bans on classes of new/replacement firearms,) nobody can predict how people will get screwed over, intentionally or otherwise. See Patriot Act, no fly lists, etc. There was an article posted here where a reporter in DC wanted to see what was involved in getting a handgun legally. You have to take an approved course, okay... Except that's easier said than done because they gave her a list and none of the schools were in the area and most of them didn't actually exist. Nobody want's an outright ban but remeber that, technically speaking, BASE jumping is not banned in national parks. There are a few steps that can be taken to help prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands but it's hard to understand how some people can be so aloof about how amok things can run.

haha, now you've stepped in it... For the record, here's a completely plausible scenario explaining how that configuration in the photo came into being... The President shows up at the skeet range and one of his PR guys goes to one of the instructors and says PR Guy: "We want the president to shoot some skeet for photos, so we need to get him a gun... what about that one there? That one looks good."

Not all chokes extend past the end of the barrel, and having two extended chokes can make it annoying to change them without a key. You could have one barrel with a choke you don't plan on changing very often (like medium range/modified choke) and an extended choke in the other one. If I was going to have one extended choke, it would be in the top barrel as shown in the photo. Yes I was responding to you. You don't seem to have a clue the use of chokes, or barrels of a shotgun while shooting skeet. I've address most of what you said. Here another one.. you don't need a key to change extended chokes even if two chokes are installed.They are not torqued down that tight anyway. Most expert trap and skeet shooters never change chokes anyway as they most often never change their handicap....only then one might change a choke. My skeet gun has FIXED chokes, not threaded for replacment chokes: why? I know what I need and I use barrel pending what shot I'm taking. I do realize it might be difficult for one to understand shooting sports when they're not that involved with the sport or with shotguns in general. Sigh... How far into a post do you usually read before just deciding "screw this guy... I know I disagree with this guy..." Someone posted that the photo is suspicious because the gun the president is holding has an extended choke on one barrel and not the other, and that that meant he must only be using one of the barrels. I replied with why one might choose to have one extended choke, and that it's really not grounds for dismissing the photo. The president clearly doesn't "shoot skeet all the time," but I don't like it when people make bad arguments like that "on behalf" of gun owners. Now you're beating your chest over how you use fixed chokes while shooting skeet... look, I'm not having a pissing match here.

Not all chokes extend past the end of the barrel, and having two extended chokes can make it annoying to change them without a key. You could have one barrel with a choke you don't plan on changing very often (like medium range/modified choke) and an extended choke in the other one. If I was going to have one extended choke, it would be in the top barrel as shown in the photo. You don't change the chokes while shooting skeet. You change which barrels you shoot pending what bird your after. The gun could have one or two extended chokes or none extended. Extended only allow for quick change without using choke wrench. You select desired chokes before starting the round. You use tighter choke for farway birds and more open chokes for close ups. Don't forget about the barrel selector switch. Safety is always off. Are you replying to me? I don't disagree with anything you wrote here, but your reply is somewhat incoherent if it was a response to my post. I was simply stating that having one extended choke isn't "right" or "wrong" it's just a matter of personal preference. It doesn't discredit the photo of the president.

Not all chokes extend past the end of the barrel, and having two extended chokes can make it annoying to change them without a key. You could have one barrel with a choke you don't plan on changing very often (like medium range/modified choke) and an extended choke in the other one. If I was going to have one extended choke, it would be in the top barrel as shown in the photo.

What parental rights? (legitimate question) Meaning signing off on having anything to do in the future with the kids you raised. I'm sure it varies by jurisdiction but if you're not a biological parent, and you're not married to one of the biological parents, I don't think you have any parental rights to the child to sign away. If the bio-dad and present-dad find out the true father of the child during a divorce between the mother and the present-dad, and the bio-dad wants in on the kids life, then the present-dad may be SOL. I think the present-dad would have to prove that the bio-dad knew for at least X amount of time and did not do anything about it.

What parental rights? (legitimate question)

***Police sources say two armed males tried to rob a coach leaving the school.

This thread reminds me of the "DHS says AR15 suitable for home defense" thread. First you have a pundit/political figure make a claim like "there's no reason for anyone to own an assault weapon" or "if only a good guy had been armed, they could have intervened." Next, posters sprinkle references to these statements/viewpoints around the various gun threads, sometimes tempering them towards their own more reasonable opinion, sometimes not. Then, someone starts a thread they think is a counter example to the original, more extreme, argument that "everyone on the other side seems to hold" but it has problems in the details and doesn't really make the point the OP was trying to make, at least not without a lot of help. Finally, people ignore all that and yell at and shit on each other about guns.... /edited to add: ...and spelling.

I dont think he's ever claimed to be the smartest person he's ever met... I'm pretty sure he's met billvon at some point... and he's met me...

If I make a moderate post that is thorough enough to make people abandon the thread and move on to the next one (unfortunately there are plenty to chose from) then I consider that a small victory. I don't keep any creepy tallys or anything though...

No, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.