rangerx

"We can forgive [them] for killing our children. We cannot forgive [them] from forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with [them] when they love their children more than they hate us." Golda Meir.

Statistically, terrorists rarely kill anyone. No less target children. Accidental or intentionally, American gun ownership kills children, every day. A tolerable consequence of facilitating a well regulated militia, apparently. Many Americans are indoctrinated to advocate that gun laws trump the liberty of those killed by them. Where ideologically shadowed threats are a greater priority than domestic carnage. At the end of the day, it's tantamount to collateral damage and human shields to preposterous laws.

How soon they forget Timothy McVeigh, "radical Christian" extremist. Funny how conservatives never use that terminology to describe the single most largest homegrown terrorist in US history, especially since the term "radical Islamic" rolls off their tongues at every opportunity. He tore a page out of the conservative doctrine and paired it with NRA talking points to justify murdering women and children. According to CNN, his only known associations were as a registered Republican while in Buffalo, NY in the 1980s, and a membership in the National Rifle Association while in the Army. McVeigh was raised Roman Catholic. During his childhood, he and his father attended mass regularly. McVeigh was confirmed at the Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York, in 1985. In a 1996 interview, McVeigh professed belief in "a God", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs." "The government is afraid of the guns people have because they have to have control of the people at all times. Once you take away the guns, you can do anything to the people. You give them an inch and they take a mile. I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist government. The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful, and the people need to prepare to defend themselves against government control." "I have come to peace with myself, my God and my cause. Blood will flow in the streets" "I'm not looking for talkers, I'm looking for fighters... And if you are a fed, think twice. Think twice about the Constitution you are supposedly enforcing (isn't "enforcing freedom" an oxymoron?) and think twice about catching us with our guard down – you will lose just like Degan did – and your family will lose" "To these people in Oklahoma who have lost a loved one, I'm sorry but it happens every day. You're not the first mother to lose a kid, or the first grandparent to lose a grandson or a granddaughter. It happens every day, somewhere in the world. I'm not going to go into that courtroom, curl into a fetal ball and cry just because the victims want me to do that." "If there is a hell, then I'll be in good company with a lot of fighter pilots who also had to bomb innocents to win the war." Are these true Christian core beliefs? No, of course not. I'm only suggesting the hypocrisy of neocons to be extreme toward one faith while turning a blind eye to the bad deeds another.

Any measure to control access to guns is looked upon by the NRA and their cronies as "Obama wants to take our guns". You are a thousand times more likely to be killed by your neighbor's negligence with guns than a terrorist. Just how "safe" does that make you feel?

Not to mention facilitating a suspected homegrown terrorist by advocating unfettered access to guns.

This is a science forum. You will have to do a little better than the blathering of a neoconservative conspiracy theorist.

Violence at protests is not a Trump or election thing. Keeping the peace is a civil behavior which societies are founded and laws are written. Here's the thing. According to Trump and republican supporters, violence against Hillary or Bernie protestors is a "love fest" where "I'd love to punch them in the face", "get em outta here" or be dragged from venues, assaulting media etc. are excusable actions because they are angry about whatever chip d'jour they have on their shoulders. NO repudiation whatsoever. Now on the other hand, pushing, shoving and verbal abuse by Trump protestors deserve to be assaulted, branded as thugs, criminals that should be jailed according to the Donald. Trump is a do-as-I-say not-as-I-do totalitarian hypocrite that already did a fine job of making the USA the laughing stock of the planet. The damage is done.

The Trump doctrine of wall building will apply to Canada. America will pay for it. If they don't then Canada will subtract it from oil, water, softwood lumber, grain. etc. Tourists will have to take a test. Hard questions like... are you a tourist? Maybe a ban on all Americans is better. Canada has no 2nd Amendment, or Twinkies. They'll only allow immigrants if they learn to speak French and Newfie and do the work no self respecting Canadian would do.

Just like personal security and public safety being two very different things. Gun owners don't have the right to put others at risk for their own security, yet that's what's happening here.

RF signals are collected from the air using a variable capacitor. This is amplified and applied to the oscillator, which converts any tuned signal to 10.7 MHz. This is called the intermediate frequency (IF). A modulated signal is then passed through a potentiometer (volume control) at the input side of a circuit otherwise known as the pre-amp. The signal is then passed to the power amp for output.

For what purpose? For the purpose of identical replication or to study their differences under varied conditions? Protein crystals are highly irregular structures and environmentally sensitive. Likewise, there are several thousand conditions unique to each protein, so it's best to use a known protocol for the material in use. I'm not sure what your objectives are at this time, but can suggest a couple of things that may be helpful in your research. Micro batching is the simplest method by placing a supersaturated protein sample within an inert oil medium and left to stand undisturbed, but the resulting crystals will undoubtedly vary in structure and will not handle well without changes. You might try vapor diffusion instead. In this method, a drop of protein is treated with a buffer to maintain pH and a precipitant (polyethylene glycol) then placed in an open vessel within a sealed vessel containing a similar solution, but in higher concentrations. Allowing the two to equilibrate may provide an opportunity to observe crystalline structures once formed. Unless you do this in multiple samples and view them incrementally, it's difficult to observe these changes as they occur. Unless of course, degradation of these crystals is something you're interested in. There are other methods. Such as dialysis, but that's out of my league.

So not a scientist then who's published nothing. At the very least what is your grade level, that I my weigh your assertions against with those with peer review. Science is not about confirmation bias (picking favorites). This is a science forum, not a school yard or church. Do you understand the difference? I am a scientist and entrepreneur, having more than 35 years studying shell growth trends in marine mollusks. On top of my commercial operations, I contribute sample material for preeminent labs around the world for the study of biomedical research, public health and safety and climate change. Observation, speculation and replication requires actual work. Are you proficient in invertebrate physiology and long term data collection that we may speak critically or do you just have a chip on your shoulder?

Citations, please. What is your degree in either climate science or social economics? Please provide titles, sources and links to your peer reviewed publications, that I may review them for comment.

Scuba diving past 80 feet or breathing increased partial pressure nitrogen can give rise to Nitrogen narcosis

Yes. Traumatic brain injury and emotional distress are very different things. "Shell shocked" was borne of WW1 (and perhaps the US Civil War) when high explosives were used in artillery. It's origin was probably considered more of a trench term than a medical condition. I have a career history as a fire officer and air/sea rescue specialist. During my tenure, we referred to it as critical incident stress. However, it was realized different crews reacted differently when being debriefed. For example, the deaths of children seemed to affect rescuers with children differently than those who are single. I have no biological children myself, but have raised a few. Hence, the death of a child is generally the same as the victims of any age. However, I reacted differently to the victims of crimes than my peers did. Negligence is one thing and intentional harm is something yet again. I was often reminded that you can't fix stupid with splints and pressure dressings unless measures are taken toward education or legislation. A task for other professions beyond our scope. We all deal with stress in our lifestyles, but some things are harder to shake than others. This gave rise to the notion of a disorder in individuals as opposed to something that affects everyone equally. Not so much anymore, but in the days gone by, I've heard mixed comments from veterans about PTSD. Some claimed it doesn't exist other than those with issues need to grow a pair and count their blessings. It's was usually followed up with statements like "I was never debriefed and I'm fine". What they didn't realize though, they were actually debriefed in many cases albeit informally. In the early war days when soldiers were discharged, they returned to base for a period, then boarded a ship with numerous others for a long voyage home. During this period they had someone to talk with while sharing common experiences and upholding camaraderie. In modern times this process changed, particularly the war in Viet Nam, when PTSD was not necessarily recognized as a syndrome. Soldiers were discharged and put on the first commercial jet home and within a day or so were plonked into the middle of society with the expectation to do well... and little else. This often compounded issues rather than dispelling them. Black humor is generally shunned in public circles, but in the rescue service it's actually beneficial when used discretely within the circle. It brings levity and can have a calming effect while moving forward. The reactions are observed by each member of the crew. When someone fails to react in a positive way, a PTSD case is observed and noted. Resources can then be suggested and treatment undertaken before it's manifested in other ways.

The term bug should only be used to describe errors, leaks, loops or crashes. This is why good devs use flow controls (eg) if, else statements to process data with specific parameters or be ignored. No programming language is without issues that may give rise to bugs. For example, lists. Some use Line 0 first, then Line 1... and so on. In the case of Line 0, when using an integer to get a line number, you'll be one out (+1) and conversely, getting an integer from any line will require -1. Simply using +/- 1 is a workaround to an inadvertent feature, not necessarily a bug. Especially if the program runs as intended.

The "Biden Rule"? Since when did Republicans hang on anything Joe said, no less a rule that doesn't exist in law. Lies, lies and more lies from the obstructionist Party of No.

You've misinterpreted. I do not advocate civil war, insomuch as commented on the rate of how things are going. The Republicans are dug in opposing everything and anything simply because of ideology and little else. That never leads to a good place. If I were to tell my kids, if they don't study they'll fail, does not mean I'm calling them failures. I'm only advising of the inevitable outcome. Surely you know the difference.

I'm a moderate conservative, a rare breed nowadays. Unlike American neocons who are indoctrinated to vote for the party, not the man. Even if they're a total wingnut, it's still better than a black person or a woman or god forbid the most insidious threat to the free world, a liberal democrat. *rolls eyes* I'll vote for another party before voting for an asshole. The lesser of the evils. Swing voters determine most elections. Only fascists think they can change the Geneva Convention to include torture, deport entire races of people or build walls. Americans have swung so far to the right they make any political stripe look like bleeding heart liberals. I'm not advocating anything no less a war, so I will thank you to not put words in my mouth. I'm merely observing America consuming itself in it's own rhetoric which has been far more incendiary than that of the days of Lincoln. Have you not noticed, none of the Republican candidates ever speak to policy issues insomuch as trash talking everyone and anything by advocating removing basic human rights and fanning the flames of civil unrest. Liberals are not exempt from the latter either (especially inner city violence and anti-police rhetoric). From the moment Obama came to office, Republicans have employed every underhanded trick in the book to unpatrioticly deligitimize their president at every turn. Any criticism of W's dirty little war was met with "why do you hate our troops" drivel. Donald Trump was at the forefront of the birther thing. I saw less childish behavior from student council elections when I was in grade school. It's a joke. A dog and pony show and the world is laughing at the ridiculousness of it all. Besides that, Trump is a lifelong, dyed in the wool liberal. He's taking the entire conservative movement for fools. Rational and reasonable conservatism is dead and gone. The lunatic fringe has co-opted everything. I noticed you are from Canada. Didn't your previous conservative Prime Minister just get thrown out on his ass for backroom cronyism, gagging scientists, burning libraries, xenophobic rhetoric and media manipulation? Apparently he hid in a broom closet while your country was being terrorized. Beaten by another Trudeau, no less? Thank goodness our countries have more than two parties to choose from. Ours are nowhere near as polarized. America will follow suit.... mark my words then let's continue this discussion next November. Believe it or not, we're actually on the same side. That's how bad the situation has gotten, that otherwise decent conservative folks are at each others throats for not being conservative enough.

Republicans piss and moan the loudest over issues that affect them the least. They claim homosexuality isn't godly and get bent out of shape over selling a cake as though it forces them into a shotgun gay marriage. They want to carpet bomb families, torture people, execute criminals and deny health care, yet have the audacity to call themselves pro-life. They claim government cannot interfere with personal rights, yet insist women must be incubators for the welfare state. They claim Obama cannot name a SCOTUS nominee for any reason, no less any liberal (whom they've deemed as second class citizens), but make no bones about appointing a conservative on the off chance Republicans are elected. A sign of a monkey with a bone through it's nose in the likeness of their president is fair game under free speech while a Bernie shirt gets you removed from a rally. Recently, they've been praising George Bush for keeping them safe after 9/11... WTF is with that? Many claim to support Trump because he's thinking what they are thinking, which is true. Unhinged racist, xenophobic, sexist, polluting fear mongers and liars. The party of No. Dead in the water. Dinosaurs. The lunatic fringe has eaten the reasonable majority of conservatives alive. As an outsider looking in, the Republican presidential campaign is laughing stock of the rest of the world. None of them are taken seriously, but only to put a madman at the switch. Their witch hunt of Hillary Clinton may well blow up in their face, by causing a far more left of center candidate to be elected. Only civil war will end this nonsense, because all reason and rationale has long gone out the window. Trump is making America weak. A farce and a sham. He's rude, irrational and thin skinned. Paralleling him to Hitler is not unreasonable, but a fact issue of international proportions.

If you equalize your sinuses and continue breathing normally, prolonged exposure to increased partial pressure doesn't much matter until you ascend. Saturation divers can remain at depth for days, even weeks, Actually, the O2 content (10%) in compressed air becomes toxic at 10 atmospheres or 330 feet. 100% O2 is toxic at one atmosphere or 33 ft, even though many divers can tolerate deeper.

Unfortunately not. It was a couple of days ago appearing on my Facebook timeline posted as liked by a friend. I scrolled back considerably, but couldn't find it again.

Agreed and we need not discuss private schools. However, the First Amendment speaks to private property and reasonable restrictions on expressive activity by political speakers and petition-gatherers. The Trump protesters did not rise to this level. They did not speak publicly. They did not gather petitions. They were allowed into the event "whose property is equivalent to a traditional public forum". They were removed solely because others were intolerant and disruptive. Edited to include source: from wikipedia Private action State constitutions provide free speech protections similar to those of the U.S. Constitution. In a few states, such as California, a state constitution has been interpreted as providing more comprehensive protections than the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has permitted states to extend such enhanced protections, most notably in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins.[188] In that case, the Court unanimously ruled that while the First Amendment may allow private property owners to prohibit trespass by political speakers and petition-gatherers, California was permitted to restrict property owners whose property is equivalent to a traditional public forum (often shopping malls and grocery stores) from enforcing their private property rights to exclude such individuals.[189] However, the Court did maintain that shopping centers could impose "reasonable restrictions on expressive activity".[190] Subsequently, New Jersey, Colorado, Massachusetts and Puerto Rico courts have adopted the doctrine;[191][192] California's courts have repeatedly reaffirmed it.[193]

You're probably right and I'd think it's reasonable to expect anyone to leave one's property for any or no reason when asked. I supposed I've already answered my own question, but in this case the Trump protesters didn't promote or act upon anything illegal, disruptive or innuendo-laced, materially or substantially. So I will further the question by asking whether "open to the public" American political rallies are merely "enclaves for totalitarianism" by any description merely because they occur on private property? Is there no circumstance where the expectation of privacy is foregone where the public interest is involved? Especially since these events are held for nothing other than "publicity" purposes for election to a public office? I gathered this from wikipedia, as it applies to protesting in schools and represented events away from schools. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969),[135] the Supreme Court extended free speech rights to students in school. The case involved several students who were punished for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The Court ruled that the school could not restrict symbolic speech that did not "materially and substantially" interrupt school activities.[136] Justice Abe Fortas wrote: First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate . . . . chools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students . . . are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State.[137] In Healy v. James (1972), the Court ruled that Central Connecticut State College's refusal to recognize a campus chapter of Students for a Democratic Society was unconstitutional, reaffirming Tinker.[138] However, since 1969 the Court has also placed several limitations on Tinker interpretations. In Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986),[139] the Court ruled that a student could be punished for his sexual-innuendo-laced speech before a school assembly and, in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988),[140] the Court found that school newspapers enjoyed fewer First Amendment protections and are subject to school censorship.[141] In Morse v. Frederick (2007),[142] the Court ruled that schools could, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at school-sponsored events, even events away from school grounds, if students promote "illegal drug use".[143]

I'm not sure, but even if they were private would being open to the public not actually be a public function?