Or dual boot.

Well homicide is already illegal, so I'll leave that aside...

But ban accidents and suicide, and you'll immediately drop that number by 66%.

Are you saying that doesn't make a difference then? Four seconds sounds like a very significant amount of time for a gunman to drop his defences - both for the possibility of people escaping, or attacking the attacker. Plus, who's to say he won't fumble the reload, especially if he feels someone is about to fight back?

By the way, when people speak out against high capacity magazines, perhaps they also include 10-round ones. Reduce magazine capacity to 6, make it harder to reload... your argument gets weaker again.

Cool, then I can afford a flight with Golden Spike!

Wow, I hope that's not true.

I, for one, have absolutely no interest in funding a passenger ride for one of my countrymen for no reason other than to tick off a box.

Of course, if there's a high chance of them not coming back, I might reconsider.

Yeah, that made it into F1 via the Brabham BT46 in the 70's, only to be quickly banned, probably for the very reason you mention above - possibility of death.

It is definitely worth coming back... I've been watching since 1991, and 2012 has been one of the best seasons I've seen, if not the best.

I did say level the field "at least a little bit," and it's inferred that it's in a financial sense. :)

Of course they're not trying to equalise everything - it's a team sport, not an individual one. No matter what people think, it is fair that some drivers have better cars than others. And people often forget that one of the developers of the car is the driver himself.

But reduce the financial gap between the back and the front of the grid, and you have a more reasonable barrier to entry, a chance for mid-level teams to make a dent on the bigger ones, and avoid the bigger teams spending each other into bankruptcy.

Thing about F1 though is the incredible g-forces, under turning and especially under braking. These are dependent on the extreme downforces that can only be generated at high speeds. So I wouldn't say that speed isn't important.

Rallying, 100% agree.

Touring cars I just can't get into, though I am certainly not blind to the appeal. For me, it seems too easy to get away with driving like an idiot, bumping other cars, out-braking yourself and taking the guy in front out - you just don't see the same disciplined racing as you see in open-wheel categories. (of course those guys can be idiots too, but they tend not to get away with it without damaging their own car, and so learn quickly).

On the contrary, I think it's fascinating the smart tricks engineers use to overcome the regulations. Mercedes double-DRS this year comes to mind, and the Red Bull's alternative version of the same concept.

Agreed, car swapping sounds a bit crazy. But in terms of regulating the juice pack, that's effectively what we have now - there's no refuelling in the race, so there's serious tactical play going on all the time, trading off the weight of extra fuel with the ability to use the engine at max power for more of the race. And the drivers deciding when they're going to use that power.

Don't forget safety. The "most uncompromising cars possible" will tend to fail catastrophically. For example, cars that use underbody aerodynamics to "suck" the car to the ground generate incredible levels of downforce - until they get too close or too far from the ground and the downforce very suddenly disappears. There are very strict regulations on this kind of thing these days.

And of course, cost is becoming a bigger and bigger factor, with regulations designed to level the playing field, at least a little bit.

I'm trying to work out if this is a typo, or a clever pun.

Either way, it works!

Yup, fair enough - as it was, I was just blown away by the fact that something on as large a scale as Amazon can work like that (granted, not a surprise to anyone versed in the matter).

But yeah, now I want more details!

It's still interesting. And, at least to me, new.
Maybe you should read this: http://xkcd.com/1053/

Maybe they didn't have space.
So instead they prioritised "Lost Apple Products" that still exist!