birdlike

This really caught my interest - I googled it and read the Wikipedia entry... so is this actually on the radar of being built or is it still just theory? Our civilization cannot get its shit together to come up with abundant clean energy -- and if we did, the muslims would try to blow it up, the Chinese would try to steal it, the Russians would try to copy it, the Japanese and Exxon would try to buy it, and no one would ever benefit from it. I rate the chances of our coming up with a workable "Daedalus" as being pretty much "daed" in the water. Forgive me for being pessimistic, but we cannot even adequately combat the spread of AIDS. Or do you believe that despite our BEST EFFORTS and BILLIONS OF DOLLARS SPENT, we are doing anything but watching that disease FLOURISH? So our human civilization is pretty much a go-nowhere shitpile. Don't expect some Age of Aquarius, singing-in-harmony forward movement toward unity and reaching the stars any time soon. Billvon said that we could reach the nearest star (I assume he means "besides the sun") in 50 years with a workable Daedalus. Now, is there any reason we have to suspect that this star is the center of a life-sustaining solar system? If not, then we'd have to consider the next-nearest star, and keep whittling down the likely candidates from which our meek, shy little alien friends may have come. Look, I think it would be the coolest thing ever if aliens were real. I am not "opposed" to believing it. In fact, I do believe that the chance that ONLY OUR PLANET harbors life (or even intelligent life) with all the billions of galaxies that we know exist, is absurdly, infinitesimally small. (What I mean is I would be willing to bet, as if it could ever be settled in my lifetime, that there is intelligent life in the universe besides us.) I just see no evidence that we have actually found it, or it has found us, as yet. And the more HOAXES that IRRESPONSIBLE, EGO-DRIVEN, IMMATURE fans of the alien belief appear, the tougher it is to believe. Are there a lot of skeptics and nay-sayers? Blame the idiots who have, over the decades, insisted on crying wolf so many times when they KNEW they were full of shit. The damage the hoaxsters have done to any movement toward solving the universe's mysteries is inestimable. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

There are at least 11 stars within 10 light years of earth. take care, space Thank you. So, let's go with an average of 10 light years. What is the shortest period of time in which we would expect even our theoretically fastest ship (as in, the fastest ship we can imagine ourselves building in the next hundred years) could arrive at a point that distance from earth? Let's really talk about where we think aliens might be likely to come from, estimate that distance, estimate the speed we think they'll travel, and see how long they would have to agree to spend enroute just to explore our planet without making serious contact with us. Do we really have justification to think that they'd employ a "prime directive" to avoid contact with us? And even if they did, well, we have people swearing and down to the effect that the aliens have wantonly violated that very directive, left and right. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

These occurances have been reported regularly over the years, with civilians also reporting seeing and hearing things too. From all over the world. Whether the occurances are true or not, I cannot say. I didn't see them. Here's a question for you, then: What is the earliest recorded incidence of a "witness" to a space alien depicting the alien in the form that we commonly picture them (the "little green/grey men" guys with bulbous heads, enormous eyes, tiny mouths)? Do we see such depictions in manuscripts or art from Native Americans going back hundreds of years? Do the Chinese have scrolls of such depictions from several thousand years B.C.? Where are the bulbous-headed aliens in the Egyptian heiroglyphics? Why did we not begin to see aliens depicted the way everyone says the are, today, until after they began to be depicted that way in MOVIES? Sure, it is funny. I did say it was a third hand story. Of course such stories tend to be general Which pretty much makes it unreliable hearsay, and useless, and dubious, and utterly without credibility! Surely you understand why we have to view it this way. I'm stifling a hearty chuckle, here... I have a feeling that what ranks as "inexplainable" in your family might not ... Naw, this one's a meatball, and I'd feel too guilty hitting it so far out of the park. OK, and our fastest spacecraft goes what percentage of the speed of light? Probably less than a thousandth (that's just a tiny guess -- I haven't done the math, and I suspect we probably manage even less than 1/1000). So that would take 4,370 years to get here. Can you think of a project that mankind could undertake and expect to stick with to completion 4,000 years later? Then remember that the energy needed to accelerate to the speed of light increases exponentially as you get closer to it. By the time you begin cutting the travel time appreciably, you are requiring astronomical amounts of energy to accelerate your ship. If these aliens are so advanced as to be capable of this, why is it credible that they'd even want to bother with us? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

You have proof of that statement? Well... 80,000,000 gun owners 300,000,000 guns 30,000 annual gun-related deaths which includes 15,000 suicides and also justifiable homicides You do the math. I'd say that if we're having only those deaths, with all those guns and gun owners, someone must be behaving awfully fucking well. Maybe you can prove your point by showing us the proof that soooo many CWL holders are shooting people with little or no restraint. We'll wait. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Now, why did you have to go and say that first part, which made you look totally anti-gun, and then follow it up with this, which makes you seem totally pro-gun?! Now I don't know what to make of you. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Maybe you meant, "More of the time, and twice on Sunday"? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Maybe after he lets the handgun ban drop, that prick shiteating motherfucker will reopen Meigs Field, which that pernicious usurper shut down in the dead of night. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Ok, this blip was moving at "amazing speeds," so where were the complaints of area residents about sonic booms? Or is there some super-special magical UFO technology that somehow prevents them from physically occurring even though some material object is traveling through a medium of air at what I presume would be supersonic speeds (if I read the implication of "amazing" correctly)? It's funny how it's ALWAYS, "I spoke to 'this controller,' " and there's never a name, a date, a place. And it's ALWAYS, well, he told me about it at the same time he told me about how he was sworn to secrecy -- so, WHICH IS IT? Was he sworn to secrecy, or did he tell you? How is it that an American astronaut can know that the nearest star besides the Sun is X million light years away, and also be familiar with the limit of matter traveling anywhere near the speed of light, and still think that "they" came all this way in any reasonable lifetime or stretch of lifetimes, only to remain secretive and stealthy? Oh, I forgot, they have "warp drives." Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I don't disagree - however, it's physically impossible to be on 'high-alert' ALL the time. No, it's not just that. Since a criminal can approach you at any time, even in a place like a Macy's parking lot where you cannot be admonished that you "should've known better than to be there," you can't blame every encounter with a criminal on some good-guy's failure to be alert. "Once you have to pull out a gun, you've already failed at the most basic rule of personal safety"? Bill, you're gonna have to explain that one. I can never end up having to pull my gun without it being due to that I was negligent about situational awareness and safety? Come on. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

First of all, before we go believing your anecdote (without even so much as a location, let alone a time and a name) why don't you actually find some documentation for it. Second, you can pretend all you want that a huge proportion of gun owners use and train with their guns FAR MORE than the "highly trained" cops who qualify once, maybe twice a year and then let their guns gather rust. It seems like you are really intent on imputing incompetence and panic to everyone. Are you projecting, perhaps? Some of us are a lot more confident in ourselves. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Absolutely yes, I do. I think that anyone oafish enough around guns to forget AT LEAST TWO of the basic safety rules as that agent did is a loose cannon and could fuck up with ANY gun you put in his hands. If he could somehow "forget" to keep his finger off the trigger and simultaneously "forget" to keep the gun pointed away from anything precious (like his own leg!) why would you think him incapable of, Idunno, say, forgetting to even use the safety in the first place? You would take the time, in a combat scenario, to thumb-cock the 1911 and risk wasting that time as you find out the round is indeed bad, rather than "tap-rack-bang" to start fresh with another round? Funny, it always seems to me that it's the Glock-detractors who speciously allege that Glock-o-philes even try to pass them off as the be-all, end-all in the first place. For the most part, we don't. We spend most of our time defending against people who claim that our Glocks are always five rounds away from a "kaBoom." Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

No second strike capability, for one - no way to make the weapon safe short of unloading, for another. You have a revolver that has a manual safety?? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Why do you assume that I assume that? Despite what you assume I assume, I don't walk around with the ignorant notion that having a gun makes me 10 feet tall and bulletproof, like I have some sort of magic field around me. I still exercise caution, avoid "bad" areas and situations, don't act aggressive or confrontational... and I keep my eyes open to what's going on around me. I do the first thing and the third thing, but I don't agree that staying safe means I should be defenseless. See, I understand that I can not be an asshole, and I can live in a "safe environment" (as though such a thing even exists), but the real "assholes," the criminals, can bring the trouble to wherever they want to. They can bring it into the restaurant where I'm eating. They can bring it into the movie theater where I'm watching a picture. They can bring it to my car in the parking lot as I am going to head home. What makes you think that you can magically make sure that everywhere you happen to be is bereft of criminals and can be made to remain that way? See, this is where the ignorance of your kind really shows itself -- implying that I have demonstrated a "dirty harry attitude" when all I've really done is say that part of my personal plan to survive against crime and criminals is to be armed to be able to fight if need arises. Nowhere in anything I've said was there a "dirty harry attitude," but you ignorantly and smugly attribute such to me regardless. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

But we're not advocating about what happens to BAD guys when we take away guns, we're concerned about GOOD guys being thrown to the wolves when guns are outlawed. If a cop were illegally attempted to end an innocent person's life, then yes, I support his right to fight back (even armed) against that cop. You're talking about a rogue cop, remember, or else you wouldn't be calling the cop's victim "innocent." Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Nothing's private any more. But you know that. Does that mean that if we said that all individual Americans' personal medical records are to be made available to any FFL doing a background check to clear a gun purchase, the ACLU will not cry out an objection? You consent to loss of privacy by virtue of acknowledging that "nothing's private any more"? I guess it's settled, then. In the name of safety and more secure background checks for nutjobs, gun sellers can have unfettered access to your mental health records. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Have an amnesty for illegal guns and offer cash for them? Oh, yeah, that'd be really popular with the career criminals. They'd be lining up! If you're talking about the goal of getting ALL guns back from ALL of society, you're talking about ~ 300,000,000 guns. Even if each gun were worth ONLY $100, that's a total of THIRTY BILLION DOLLARS. Who's going to pay for that? Will you raise everyone's taxes? How do you feel they'll react when they find out the cost, to each of them, for the dream of a gun-free America? You do realize, of course, that according to the Constitution, the government cannot seize property without providing just compensation, right? Some people have guns that are worth THOUSANDS of dollars each. I personally have several thousand dollars worth. 80,000,000 more people like me--many of whom have far more guns than I do. Pay them all for surrendering their guns? WHO WILL PAY THEM? Pirchasing? Is that anything like byeing? And keep them in prison for their full sentences? Wow, if you carry on this way, you'll be almost as tough on crime as the NRA! (We've been arguing this point for a long time.) And criminals will comply? Kinda requires that you give authoritarian powers to the government to simply put people out of business, or dictate what their business may produce. We argue that we have our guns in part to defend against a totalitarian government, which is what you want us to have in order to get rid of the guns! That much is OBVIOUS. Ah, very creative of you. You've managed to blame pro-gunners for your own failure to think your own plan through. The truly funny thing is watching you come up with these moronic "ideas" for eventually reducing the number of guns to zero (at which time, the big, strong criminals will rule the country, in a wonderful tradeoff, thankyewverymuch). I'm frankly not surprised that you are imagining me and the others "wanking ourselves." Anti-gunners have a marked fixation on the penises of gun owners. Always pontificating about the size, virility, etc. It's really quite sad, actually. Evidently you don't know that there are bars you can go to if you're really curious about penises. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Several millions in Germany, Soviet Russia, China, Cambodia, Rwanda, etc. Columbine VA Tech Appalachian Law School Pearl High School Several church and mall shootings x number of others from this page that could have gone the other way, if unarmed. Aww, sick burn!! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

*giggle!* Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

It wasn't a gun-free zone, since weak laws and poorly implemented laws (courtesy of folks like YOU) allowed a nutcase to buy guns and go on a shooting spree. You, Ms No Name Entered, share some of the responsibility every time something like this happens, because you condone weak laws that allow people like Cho to obtain firearms so easily. No, it was a "gun-free zone." It was a place whose proprietors said, "NO GUNS ALLOWED." You might want to just call them "Wishful-thinking zones," for all the good they do, all the goal they accomplish. And in yet more disingenuousness from you, you claim that "laws ALLOWED a nutcase to buy guns." NO. The law PROHIBITED him from being eligible to buy guns. He bought them because ENFORCEMENT of the law is problematic. Stop lying and saying that the law "allowed" Cho to buy guns. We can show you clearly (HAVE shown you clearly) where the law says he could NOT legally buy guns. When the law says that the speed limit is 65 mph, and some nutcase goes blasting down it at 95 mph, did the law "allow" him to do it, simply because there was no cop around to pull him over? Your logic, as shown here, would say, "Yes." Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

You're right, though -- I would have a very shocked look on my face. It would be in direct proportion to how ridiculously unlikely that scenario is to actually play out. Really, Mr. Von, you do have a very potent imagination -- you'd have to, to picture such a far-fetched occurrence. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

How on earth is it that an attacker is going to get his hands on my concealed handgun before I do? He won't even know it's there. And if I do draw the gun, why is it supposedly soooo easy for someone to take it from me? Who do you know who is so ballsy that he'd just step up to a person pointing a gun at him and "take it from him"? Your scenario makes you look ridiculous. How many stories can you provide us (I mean real stories, not story-stories) that appeared in newspapers (as surely they would) where a person had his gun "taken from him" and used against him? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Your beloved 2nd ammendment had put you in a sad position indeed. Not having the guns in the first place would have been the real answer, if someone so much as fires a gun in NZ it is all over the news..... ...why? because it doesn't usually happen. The US is in a position where there are millions of guns in circulation, what is the answer? Fuck knows? but not having them would be the answer, it s a shame you cant work towards that due to people like you that love their guns so much they fail to see what they are really designed to do. It seems that your "solution" is to sit back and whine and lament that guns were ever invented. That's how you address what to do now that guns are a reality. The real reason we can't "work towards that" gun-free utopia you dream of is that the only way it would make sense to approach that would be to make sure that the FIRST people to be forced to give up their guns would be the BAD people. Only when the last bad person had no more guns would it be fair to then demand that the GOOD people give up theirs. But the problem is, even as the bad people are giving up theirs (as if they would, but let's just pretend), some of those who had been disarmed (or perhaps some newly-minted bad people out to get their first guns) would be acquiring them from the usual sources -- theft from civilians, theft from police, theft from the military, straw purchases, purchases made by criminals not yet made ineligible by conviction... Of course, all of this ignores the nature of getting the criminals' guns confiscated, which would necessitate (no way around it) nullification of a number of constitutional protections (this fact never seems to bother the gun-banners). Another important reality the "I-wish-we-had-zero-guns" dreamers ignore is the fact that THINGS ARE NOT SO ROSY FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC WHEN NO ONE HAS GUNS, EITHER. We harken back to the past, when powerful lords ruled the land, because they had MUSCLE. They employed the most physically powerful people around, who were, essentially, grown-up-world BULLIES. If you were of small stature, or infirmed, or elderly, or very young, YOU WERE A NATURAL VICTIM. When guns came along, they nullified the natural advantage that the large and strong possessed. So if we imagine a world remade with no more guns, we would have to imagine a world in which you could kiss goodbye any chance your mother had of emerging unharmed from a gang rape attempt in a dark parking lot. Your effete 140 lb. bespectacled businessman carrying his briefcase and wearing his Rolex watch? His ass is kicked and he is left to die of brain swelling by two 16-year-old punks armed with ax-handles. Why? Because neither of these people had an "equalizer" in your perfect world. Your vision of the world FUCKING SUCKS, dude. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

See, I am now convinced that you are just at the opposite extreme: you are such the fearless daredevil that you have fantasies of being the badass who with his bare hands can handle any group of inner city thugs who come at him. That's a very amusing image. Good luck with that, toughguy. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

The criminals who carry guns, they don't like to use their tools, too? We carry ours in case we need to defend against their use of theirs. You worry about our use of our tools when we avow that we carry them strictly for defense. And yet you don't worry about their use of them, when they clearly carry them for offense? I wish I would be around to see your face when/if you come to be victimized and have nothing to use to defend yourself. You are gonna have one fuck of a shocked look on your face. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

He was giving you a choice - if you want to insure that mentally suspect citizens won't violate the law and purchase handguns, you will need to eliminate any right to privacy with regards to medical records as most recently bolstered by HIPAA. This would also have a secondary effect of discouraging people from seeking care from mental health professionals, rightly fearing the records would damage their rights and their job. It would appear that Virginia was not following their own guidelines for records and might have prevented the sale if they had. And if he had been prevented from purchasing guns legally, who can say he would not have obtained some illegally? Who can say he would not have found a "friend" the way Dylan & Klebold did, to purchase weapons for him? Who is to say he would not instead have poured gasoline and thrown matches, and killed 186 people instead of 32? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire