FreeflyChile

Those are very cool. I have a question...just out of curiosity, how often are those doors checked/opened to make sure they work (in active nuclear silos, I mean)? I imagine with current satellite technology it's gotta be pretty easy for other countries to keep tabs on some of these sites and it might cause some worry to see the silo hatches opening up for routine tests/maintenance....

What harm was done by three men sleeping in a highly secure bunker with launch codes in a secure box. The codes are normally in that secure box down there. And the crew normally sleep in shifts while on duty down there. It's not like those codes could have been stolen by the enemy. You can't just walk into a nuclear missile silo and steal something. There's security above ground. There are fences and sensors. There are locked doors and pass codes. These are the most secure places on the face of the earth. If there's ever a nuclear war, you WANT to be inside one of those silos, as they are built to be immune from nuclear strikes. Also, it's not like they weren't still on alert and able to wake up and run down the stairs and use the codes within seconds if necessary. It's no different from when the normally spell each other with sleep breaks. So what actual harm was done by this? I don't see any. Yeah, it's not good to sleep if you're supposed to be on duty, but beyond that violation of a basic "general order", no harm has been done. Just because it happened in a missile silo the press is trying to make it sound like it was some horrible violation of nuclear security. I don't see that. No one else could get the codes. No one else could launch the missile. My guess is that the reason it is a story is what you said - it's a missile silo. But I think that while it's probably not a big deal, the story attempts to make it seem like it's an institutional problem - that though no information was taken or no real danger was posed, that this kind of thing (sleeping on post at a missile silo) is not a big deal. I am not going to worry or get worked up about it, but for the uninitiated (like myself) who don't have a clue about how things are done internally in the military, I think the story is supposed to make you think "hmm...."

Yeah, I know all about the slippery-slope arguments. It just sounded from the posts that you were against having those kinds of checks, so that's why I asked for clarification. I don't claim to know who's mentally ill on sight, or to know when they'll go crazy. I just pictured the crazy guy that yells at everyone on the El being able to get a gun, and that thought was kind of scary.

....to speak in public ....to have children ....to vote Maybe I'm misunderstanding the issue that you have with Kallend's statement. Do you think that there *shouldn't* be anything that would make it more difficult for mentally ill people to get firearms? As in, they can just like anyone else? Again, just asking for clarification.

Pisco Sour78 Yours?

That game rocks. I was on XBox Live for a bit last night shooting others as well

Most of them got tired of the noise. Or are at the dropzone, oh, I don't know... skydiving!!!! (I am jealous and wish I was there)

Can't wait to see the Dark Knight. i have heard nothing but fantastic reviews on it. I saw the T4 preview online....mixed feelings on it. T3 sucks major donkey balls, plus no Arnold (though it's rumored he may have a cameo).....I just hope it's not a me-too futuristic apocalypse film.

"These go to 11" - Nigel Tuffnel

"It takes 2 people to lie. One to lie and one to listen." - Homer Simpson

Yeah, and they're prone to violence! (Canadian Bacon) "And their beer sucks!" (/Canadian Bacon)

From the Simpsons: "Let them be...soon they'll have bigger boards with bigger nails stuck to them, and it will destroy them all!"

Aren't guns a bit harder to make than drugs? Like, hypothetically, if you prohibited guns and thereby the manufacture of guns and ammunition (except for the military), wouldn't supply dry up?

I disagree. I have all 3 consoles plus a very fast PC and the 360 is what I play the most...by far. First, the controller is better for shooters (though for sports games I prefer the Dualshock), Xbox live, though a pay service, is in my opinion better than the PSN. Also, I've had all kinds of trouble buying downloadable stuff for PS3 - its like the system is very picky when you put in credit card info. Xbox live has been quick and painless. The wii is fun with other people, but i haven't played it in forever.

I am predominately a console gamer but tehre are certain games i like on the PC only (civ 4, sim city, flight simulators). Thing is, i use the computer so much for work that when i get around to playing games, i'd rather just sit on my couch and play on my tv. plus xbox live rocks. COD4 and Battlefield Bad Company are great.

But...but... Cars promotes the continued use of fossil fuels and contributing to global warming and makes gas prices high!!!! The person who complained about it should put down the twinkie, step away from the desk and go for a walk. The best way to avoid being offended by something like this is to make yourself *not fat*....

"But....What about our relationship????" "Fuck that!"

That's what I was saying...but I got dibs on the class action....

You love your extreems to make your points dont you While Bill gave a more pointed example than I did, what about his reply was far-fetched or extreme in reply to the poster he was replying to? I understand that there are likely a lot of gun owners that are very responsible with their firearms. There are also a lot of people who obtain their firearms illegally and are the people that many fear. Then there are the third group, which are, while probably not as dangerous as the illegal owners, still pretty scary - they are the ones that *think* they are responsible.... yet believe that their guns allow them to use lethal force defending ANY kind of property (because the poster did not qualify it) and respond to those that "mess" with him or his friends/family. Given the nature of that poster's statements and the 'tough shit' language that followed, I don't think that Bill's point was out of line.

A little reading never hurt anyone: arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/1/12/6601 Isn't this the same info you used for your "scatter chart" post that I showed was complete bullshit? No, you did nothing of the sort. You just made an unsupported claim. Unsupported? Hardly - in fact, it is STRONGLY supported by the UCR stats. The top "guns=murder" states (highest gun ownership) (murder rates per 100k population) Wyoming 1.87 Alaska 6.03 Montana 2.27 South Dakota 2.43 West Virginia 4.13 Mississippi 11.42 Idaho 2.46 Arkansas 10.46 Alabama 13.32 North Dakota 1.67 Here's the bottom of the "guns=murders" lineup: Maryland 26.33 California 6.88 Illinois 14.31 New York 6.00 Connecticut 3.94 Rhode Island 2.54 Massachusetts 3.06 New Jersey 5.00 Hawaii 1.86 DC 29.06 So, professor... tell me again how that more guns equals more murders thing works again, will you? Especially seeing where DC came in? I wonder if population distribution/concentration also might have anything to do with those numbers....

Well, here's an illustration of part of the problem....normally, you're not allowed to defend property with lethal force. Yet, here is someone who seems willing to use said lethal force for such an occasion, or when someone "messes" with him or his family. I don't have a problem with the defense of life part.

Well, if nothing else, this allows the courts to further 'tweak' the SCs recent ruling. With laws (and subsequent lawsuits), the actual location of the line drawn w/r/t the 2nd amendment will become clearer.

Not called that anymore: http://wii.ign.com/articles/887/887091p1.html

Agreed....but if it did, I call dibs on the class action that arises when a whole plane-load of them gets accidentally triggered!

Hence the astronomical number of "it's all Bush's fault" posts here. Would you say that it's correct to say that it's at least partially Bush's fault that things are where they are today?