yoink

Because if they get on first they take up they bins at the front of the plane. People who get on later (but sit at the front) then need to walk to the back to find space for their luggage and then fight against the flow of oncoming people to get to their seat. The situations is reversed at the end of the flight - you're in seat 8 and you need to get back to bin 20. You can either wait until everyone has left (negating the point of reserving a seat at the front because you're trying to catch a connection) or fight against traffic coming to the front of the plane. It's not rocket science. Just use a bin within 1 space of your seat. It's just laziness that causes this behavior. The only time I've seen flight attendants say take any bin you can find is at the very end of the boarding when there is little space left.

It's getting worse. I fly a lot too and the change from flying being a form of public transport where you're considerate to fellow travellers to being seen as another version of your front room really bugs me. I've seen / smelt people turn up without taking a shower, people still in their pajamas with bare feet, people bringing every type of inappropriate food possible on to a plane, cats, dogs and a parrot. I've had overweight people leave their sweat stains on my shirt as they cram a 2-person sized body into a single economy seat, people putting carry-on luggage into the first overhead bin they come to then sitting at the back of the plane (causing a clusterfuck come debarkation) and people causing delays and cancellations because they're incapable of sitting in their seat until the seatbelt light gets turned off during taxiing. I've seen (Big) kids behaving like animals - screaming and throwing food, and parents behaving like children or drunks at a bar. So fuck no, you can't take your emotional support animal on a plane. Can you tell it's getting to me?

You could still carry it. It just wouldn't do anything - the same as everybody else carrying a gun. Who would you be protecting yourself from if 99% of the criminals don't have working guns either? Do you carry a gun because you actually feel the need to protect yourself? Or is it just because you can, or for some other reason? Have you ever been shot at as a civilian? I have. And it was because I was involved in stuff that I shouldn't have been. Since I left that life I've had a gun pointed at me precisely 0 times. The 'on-the-street' self defense rationale is (I believe) basically paranoia.

Let me clarify my position. I am in favor of reducing, even eliminating, firearm related fatalities. What I am not in favor of is restricting individual rights, (specifically the 2nd amendment) especially for little to no reduction in firearm related fatalities. For example, the background check and magazine limit laws here in CO. I am in favor of enforcing the current laws. I am in favor of ensuring that if someone should not be able to pass the NICS background check, that they not pass the background check. I am in favor of more policing of areas with high rates of firearm fatalities as well as reducing the factors that drive those high rates. Derke V What if the laws in place won't actually have any measurable effect on fatalities? Background checks, magazine controls and even perfect policing (I believe) would only have minimal impact on random mass shootings. What if the ONLY way to reduce them is to curb some rights? (or even just one) While by definition people who go out and murder a bunch of people are probably technically insane, a more thorough background check wouldn't stop most of these events. The magazine limits are utterly pointless - the one time I went to a firing range it took me (an absolute neophyte) about 3 seconds to change a magazine. So instead of taking 1 magazine with 30 rounds in, I'll take two with 15 to my rampage... Nobody's any safer. My solution makes everybody safer in the long run. Police that can shut down guns in an area hostage situations. A massive reduction in criminals with guns that work on the streets... There will eventually be no need for you to have to carry a gun to feel safe because almost everyone will be in the same boat. And remember, my proposal gives you all of your rights back and doesn't require any oversight to shoot on your own property. You are completely within your rights to defend your family there.

While I love the thought of Alice in Wonderland espousing the idea, I think you'll probably have heard it from The Usual Suspects - unless you're into French 19thC poetry / philosophy. I can't remember who wrote it originally, but did study it at school many years ago.

Because one approach restricts individual freedoms for little to no results. The other improves the nation and will have large results. Derek V I don't accept that. There will never be a point where you say 'OK. It's time to do something about the gun fatalities'. If we did everything you wanted re car fatalities you wouldn't give up your gun rights any easier then, would you?

You are well intentioned, but maybe a bit narrow-minded with your suggestion. Videos depicting screw-ups, injuries, etc. can absolutely make a DZ look bad to those who don't understand the sport. Take large, busy DZ's for example. They may have multiple fatalities and injuries per year, and even when none of them are the fault of the DZ, whuffos still "wonder what the problem is". We don't need videos like the one being discussed here to teach us lessons. Anyone can be taught not to do what this person did without seeing it online. Absolutely.

I actually sort of agree with you - it's REALLY difficult to lie to the FBI and get away with it. As it should be. However if you're innocent and have nothing to hide YOUR 'tried and true' lawyers will be able to explain away small human inconsistencies in your explanation, and judges understand that. This delusion of a single unimportant change in your statement immediately leading to a charge of Lying to the FBI is complete nonsense. Ask any law enforcement professional if you don't believe me. The charge seems to be brought up when the lie that is told has some significant effect on a real investigation. e.g 'I wasn't there' when actually you were. Again, as it should be.

Well, yes, sort of. But (as usual) you're missing the subtleties. Telling the FBI different stories necessarily means one of them (at least) is false. But the FBI isn't a machine. If you told them in one interview that you went to the market and bought beans and toast, then later changed it to beans and potatoes they're not going to charge you with lying to the FBI. But if you said 'I had no connection with the Russians' in a russian-linked crime then said 'actually, I might have done. There were those 3 weekend getaways. And the reacharound from Putin,' THAT'S when they charge you with lying.

Arguments like this make me so angry. Why is it one or the other? We should try to improve on both. Your 'fix that first' attitude is just another way of trying to make nothing happen about gun fatalities. There will ALWAYS be another 'that' in your mind... Car safety is continually improving. Seat-belts, crumple zones, the design of highways themselves... The same is NOT true of firearms.

Who, specifically, are you talking about? Because I think a LOT of people are very good at being seen to do something (ANYTHING!!) to try and fight gun deaths, but they really have a vested interest in not seeing any successful action be taken. Once you cure a disease or right a wrong it can't be used as a rallying cry. Dems and Reps alike have no political interest in solving this issue.

You don't get all your power from the coal plant just down the road... You know that, right? It goes into a grid where it is produced, stored and distributed by all the production facilities on that grid. You get just as much of your power from a power station 500 miles away as one 5 miles away. The same would be true of solar. The people in the snowy climates would get their power generated by solar farms in the desert if it became an industrial / societal power generation. You wouldn't produce your own power for your own home....

Same for guns. To have any sort of impact, you are going to have to restrict the rights of legal, law abiding gun owners. People that don’t own guns don’t care how much gun rights get restricted. Doesn’t affect them. They only see an upside to any gun restrictions. Derek V I agree, unfortunately. But currently the cost of the legal, responsible gun ownership is about 1 mass shooting every 2 - 5 days. All we're really arguing about is whether that price is too high or not... I've said before that I don't think piecemeal restrictions are the right way to solve the problem. They limit the rights of responsible gun owners with very little benefit other than political point-scoring. The reason I believe in the solution I've presented is because it gives gun owners all of those rights back, for the cost of a single one - not being able to fire a weapon in a public area without it being preapproved. That was the least intrusive and restrictive measure I could think of in relation to actual firearm use.

I've got some VERY good Japanese knives and woodworking blades. They're up there with the best of German steel. Its like anywhere else. Buy mass produced crap and it won't be any good, but I'm sure asia has its artisans and craftsmen that produce superb gear too.

I don't understand why you are so concerned about the coal miners but not anybody else losing their jobs? It's a great little bite-sized talking point, but lets be honest - there aren't that many (comparatively) coal miners, but the political pressure that argument seems to have is way out of scale... To me it's a great representation of how you parrot sound bites that you think score points for your side without actually having any understanding of the issue yourself. To make things clear - ALL of fossil fuels represent about 55% of the total employment in the power generation industry (according to the 2017 USEER). It's not like fossil fuels are 95% of the employment in the industry and so deserve weighted consideration... As of Feb last year there were just over 50,000 coal miners in employment. Now, compare that to solar. Again, taken from the USEER "Just under 374,000 individuals work, in whole or in part, for solar firms, with more than 260,000 of those employees spending the majority of their time on solar. " Why are you so concerned about 50,000 people but not 300,000? It doesn't compute. Edit: source: https://energy.gov/downloads/2017-us-energy-and-employment-report

Please define 'near future'. Tell you what - I'll do it for you. If this shit is still ongoing after the next month I'll come back and ridicule you mercilessly. How's that? If it's over, with Trump and all his cronies cleared and the whole thing proven to be a 'nothingburger' as you say I'll apologise profusely and buy you a case of beer. I like Negra Modelo No problem. One month.

I'd love a translation of what the instructors were shouting over the radio... For me they need to be talking her through the shitshow of the situation she's put herself in - and keep talking to her to stop her doing something stupid. 'Hands in the toggles. Don't change direction. You're OK' all of that. SERIOUS beer for the reserve packer.

Please define 'near future'. Tell you what - I'll do it for you. If this shit is still ongoing after the next month I'll come back and ridicule you mercilessly. How's that? If it's over, with Trump and all his cronies cleared and the whole thing proven to be a 'nothingburger' as you say I'll apologise profusely and buy you a case of beer.

Didn't Trump just put an import tariff on solar panels from China as well? Is he deliberately tying to make solar non-viable to appease the minority coal mining faction of the public?

Agreed. I look forward to RushMC and the Russian bots in the coming weeks starting the Twitter meme #LETHIMTESTIFY. "Why won't the Democrats let Trump testify? Why are they blocking him? They're afraid of the TRUTH!" Nah. They'll go after Mueller directly and try to discredit the entire investigation on extremely tangential grounds, would be my bet. 'He smoked a joint once when he was 14!! HE CAN'T BE TRUSTED!!' etc etc.

You have no clue what I know or don't know. But here's a question I've asked before and as far as I can tell got no response at all. Assume that the Second Amendment gets revoked, gone, and the NRA disbands. You can create any law you want. So, how do you end these shootings? You've asked this before, and I've pretty sure I've answered you. Specifically. In detail... But both you and rush ignored it in that thread. HooknSwoop (I think it was) even responded that he wouldn't support ANYTHING that limited his ability to fire a gun whenever and wherever he wanted. Think about that for a second... I've written to about 14 senators so far with my proposal and will continue to write to the rest because I honestly believe that while it presents a viable solution to this issue, it will more directly make it obvious that gun rights advocates will NEVER accept any limitations, so society at large should ignore them - if they're not willing to compromise, neither am I. All guns must be fitted with a device that prevents their firing except in predefined locations based on their GPS location. This device must be a fail-safe one where tampering disables the firing mechanism. That's it. You can have any number of firearms, of any type, with any ammunition or modifications you want. Your own home is enabled by default, as is any legitimate firing range in the US. If you want to go hunting you sign in to an app, scan your weapon's bar code and say where and when you'll be hunting. That gets reviewed and approved for that location for that particular date range... If you say 'I want to be able to shoot this gun in a location that includes a school or mall or cinema' it doesn't get approved and you get a visit from the cops. The technical hurdles are just that. They can be overcome by people smarter than me. But any solution to this issue will take centuries to effect and as a society we have to accept that. That's why all these knee-jerk reactions are like slapping a band aid on a jugular would.

Only 2 dead. D-. Must try harder.

Couldn’t agree more. AND the presidents pay should be frozen. If it happens twice to the same government I think there should be an automatic firing of Congress. What more proof do you need that they aren’t doing their jobs?

That seems like an AWFUL system. The number of times I misclick on animated menus just surfing the web is silly. I hate drop down menus...

Easiest salvage I've ever heard of! Half a million quid lands on your deck.