Sisyphus

Actually, it wasn't the sudden decrease in acceleration, but the sudden decrease in velocity. In other words, it was very high acceleration. And it wasn't even the high acceleration, per se, so much as the fact that it was unevenly applied. If the front of you gets accelerated, the front of you applies force to the back of you, and you get all stretched and compressed inside in a kind of compressive wave. It's noticeable if you're being pushed by a car seat behind you, but the acceleration is much greater if you're, say, colliding with the pavement after jumping off a tall building...

Is anyone else surprised that DrDNA hasn't managed to kill anyone yet?

Well, maybe you're right. Maybe it is important to some part of "the base" that I'm admittedly out of touch with, like the "but think of the children!" crowd. But the fact remains that in every national election I can remember, the Democratic candidate goes to great lengths to show he "supports the rights of hunters" or whatever and make himself seem moderate, while the Republican throws up the NRA battle standard. The Democrat tries to pretend there really is no significant conflict, and the Republican tries to exaggerate it as much as possible.

It doesn't really work that way, though. The point of any wedge issue is not to "win," as then it becomes useless as a wedge. With the exception of a very small minority, most American Democratic politicians are trying to abandon it as an issue, falling over themselves to prove they're friendly to gun rights. But being willing or even eager to compromise doesn't mean they'll just agree to anything. And the gun lobby will just keep moving the goalposts until they're demanding things that enough of the left won't agree to that they can plausibly villify them.

I don't think it is a particularly important issue for the left, actually. It's mostly a wedge issue for the right, and I get the feeling that's the way the right likes it. For example, I consider myself pretty "gun-friendly," but I still resent the NRA, because I think they constantly overstate the case and withdraw from any reasonable compromise, and I think they so so intentionally to prolong conflict. They remind me of PETA. As for why liberals in general tend towards gun control, I don't really think it's about international opinion. I'm not saying there aren't bad reasons, I just don't think that's the main one, and I'm having a hard time articulating what the main ones are. Partly it's just a "common sense" thing that dangerous stuff needs to be regulated. But I think a lot of it is a sense that people who want lots of weapons are just generally bad people, who are resented. As in, what the hell do you need an uzi for if not for something bad? Or sometimes even, what kind of a person takes pleasure out of shooting animals? Isn't that just sadistic, by definition? Or, taken to a topical extreme, what kind of person's idea of entertainment is shooting wolves from a helicopter?

Seriously. I'd rather not be held to anything I said last week, let alone two years ago.

This isn't a specific prediction, but assuming that the YEC's God is not trying to fool people into thinking the world is much older than it is, then wouldn't it predict a lack of evidence of this? For example, it would predict that we couldn't see anything farther than 6000 light years away, and/or it would predict a lack of evidence for a constant speed of light.

I agree that proper education is probably the most effective safety method, and I have no problem with people keeping guns in their homes to defend themselves. However, I'm really not sure which statement is more accurate: vs. They're probably both true, actually. I know I would be less likely to rob somebody (not that I ever would, anyway) if I thought they were armed. And maybe a couple of "teachers with glocks" could have ended Columbine early. On the other hand, if I was determined to rob somebody and I knew they were armed, I might feel forced to shoot them outright. And a chaotic public gunfight seems worse than a hostage situation... And again, just from personal experience, I've never been robbed or attacked myself, but I've known people who have been both in situations with guns and without, and the only armed victim ended up dead because of it.

I was assuming it means lobby the same administration they worked for. What undue influence would a Bush staffer have in the Obama white house? Um, boo hoo? Again, I'm assuming, but I thought this obviously meant acting as a paid lobbyist. Maybe the "what counts as a lobbyist" conversation never came up, since everyone in Washington knows exactly who they're talking about. Well, again, even if it did apply to Bushies, those clearly aren't lobbyists. I see your point though. Those kinds of rules need to be very explicit. Personally I'm not so much worried about it being used to punish political enemies, and more worried that the loopholes would be too large and it would be ineffective. Any attempt to restrain the chummy Washington lobbyist culture is going to meet a whole lot of resistance from powerful people who won't take it seriously.

I was being somewhat tongue in cheek, but actually I wonder. I mean, the holidays are always a big boost to the economy, and despite it essentially being just a lot of people "wasting" money. There was a lot of extra economic activity yesterday. A couple million consumers spending a lot of money. One BIG consumer (that is, the government) spending a lot of money. I don't know where the money went (not that I've actually tried to find out), so I can't speculate what effect it might have.

I say the innauguration probably stimulated the economy. All those people travelling, staying at hotels, buying Obama t-shirts. Not to mention all the business for... whoever they hired with that $100 million (or whatever it is).

How about a theme that looks like a MS Word document, so I'm less obviously not working?

True enough. Sounds pretty Elmer Fudd-y

The issue appears to be about personal vindication for a stupid flame war on a different forum, and the argument is no less tedious here. I hereby put this thread on 24-hour suicide watch.

See, it's the "collater" that's the problem. If you're getting your news from places like that, then you're only seeing the cherry-picked stories (and opinion pieces) that support a very narrow and extremely biased viewpoint. So naturally your overall viewpoint is going to be skewed as well, since it would seem to you like everything is always Israel's fault.

Seems pretty easy. I mean, how much damage can a child do to a gun, anyway?

What are the contentious provisions? Are we talking about something more intrusive than, say, car registration and drivers' licenses?

You are joking, right?

I'm just curious what all that money was spent on. How much did John Williams get for ripping off Joseph Brackett? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged From the NY Times: "For a couple of smooth-talking constitutional experts, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and President-elect Barack Obama sure had a hard time getting through the constitutional oath of office." I liked that Michelle was laughing at them. Good for her.

Exactly! Seeming capable of protecting and caring for your mate is a masculine characteristic, but having the actual propensity to do so is a "nice guy" characteristic. What advantage would there be in shunning either trait?

Agreed, but practically speaking it's a bit more complicated than that. Charges would have to be brought by the Justice Department, which is part of the Executive Branch. So it's not like Obama could realistically have nothing to do with it if it were to happen. Of course, there could always be a civil class-action lawsuit or something.....

A bit delayed, but here is the text of the inauguration address, for easy reference:

I was assuming that, yeah. Either they would be able to tell from interstellar distances, or there would be some kind of unmanned probe sent ahead of time to any and all potentially life-supporting systems. Certainly that's what we would do, anyway. They would need a major motivation to actually come here in person, meaning, again, that they might be a lot like us. Alternatively, they could be so alien that spending lifetimes in transit isn't considered a drawback.

Well, gosh. Thanks for the support. We watched it at work, and people were getting pretty emotional. These are adults, mostly engineers and lawyers, many of them immigrants. Even I choked up a little (not that it showed), and I'm a heartless bastard.

I'm going to be honest, here. I only read a couple of paragraphs into your post. It's very long. Are you claiming anything different than in your last topic? If not, I'll just merge them. Anyway, it seems to me that the basis of your argument is a false dichotomy between masculinity and "niceness." That's not the only flaw in it (vast overgeneralization and an apparent reliance on fringe psychology are others), but it's a good place to start. Being masculine does not necessitate being a "jerk." To the contrary - some of the most traditionally masculine qualities, like protectiveness, "honor," etc., are "nice" attributes as well. And in my experience "jerkiness" is usually compensation for the insecure) Similarly, being emotionally needy and insecure is hardly the same thing as being "nice."