I didn't find it too useful but my senator really enjoyed it for some reason.

If you have an academic interest, then I'm sure you noticed the glaring comparison error in your second sentence. You seem to be comparing two metrics for a larger subject, one metric is tightly correlated to the larger issue and the other metric is only mildly correlated to the larger issue. The gun control debate is divisive because we don't have a proper metric for proper gun use in a violent situation but we have a pretty damning metric for improper gun use in a violent situation.

"You are not very bright." I'm not sure how to take that. I'm against laying burdens against the second amendment without an excellent reason. My argument was that the proper strategy, IF THE PREMISE OF GUN CONTROL WERE SOUND, would be to remove legalized guns, dry up the ammunition supply, and then place controls on the chemical components for smokeless powder. I think in general the conversation is wrong. Ending gun violence is entirely pointless. We should be looking at how to end violence. Those answers lie in mental health and social support care and promoting a healthier view of interpersonal relationships in society. Limiting a method of violence only shifts the means to knives, or vehicles, or bombs, or sticks.

Answer: If they can get to the place there are no legal guns, then there is no legal need for ammunition sales to the public. The guns will never go away, but ammunition has the problem of both being expendable and degradable. While ammunition can also be made, it is a bit more traceable. Now I don't think that would significantly change murder rates but in the gun control utopia we could stop GUN violence.

Interesting statistic that came out this thanksgiving was that deep frying a turkey is more likely to kill you than a shark attack...

Please provide a working definition of aggressor that stands up beyond ethical idealism. It can't just be going off to fight on soil that isn't your own, because that makes the US wrong for stepping in to help stop Hitler. On the other end, it can't be any conceivable contrivance like invading a oil-rich country because your cabinet member owns an oil company and he needs a little extra pressure.

Just don't plug it in at your kid's tennis match.

"My position has always been 'I am the ISP's customer. I am not the thing they sell to Netflix.'" You seem to misunderstand how the economy works now. Some brilliant businessman found out that you can monetize the customers preferences and demands and you can make more money from that than actually working to please the customer.

I think you misunderstand the bubble. Think advertisment, news article filtering, search results... You are describing self-subscription to things outside your viewpoints. The bubble doesn't keep you from hearing those viewpoints when you choose to go get them; it just subtly confirms its projection of your own viewpoints when you aren't specifically looking for something conservative. For instance, if I'm logged in to Yahoo, it incorrectly labels me Republican and will give me articles slanted to conservative viewpoints. If I were truly conservative and not particularly observant, I'd easily see my viewpoint as backed up by every day news. Same could be said if I were liberal and my bubble were liberal.

We aren't going to lose our need to connect our online lives with our IRL lives. To knock off facebook, you need to have an interest in connecting everybody and any service in their lives together. That kind of rules out media congloms or phone/internet/television companies. They might have the cash to mount a resistance but they don't have the corporate will to include people from competitors or to support competitors' devices/applications. So we would have to look at a startup that offers a social network that is good enough to draw everyone away from facebook. It could be done, but I wouldn't dump your FB shares yet.

You know what is scarier? I get a different slant of articles if I'm logged in at Yahoo than if I'm not. They've tried to predict my political bent and think I want only articles that support that.

Just strongly? Why do you think that you have to be instrument rated for flying in poor visibility. Human velocity sense is adapted for the ground. There are all sorts of things that can go wrong when flying if you just rely on your own senses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_illusions_in_aviation

GPS Landing (if available), go around, holding pattern, divert to another runway or another airfield. Depends on the amount of warning, the projected time to repair, and the availability of resources. Crazy thing is the airline industry has done a lot of work making sure that problems don't end with catastrophy. The problem would be if the system itself failed, but there have been times when the squishy flight controllers have all failed as well.

How do you take away the consumer? Most consumers are either not savvy enough to discover this, not savvy enough to understand the implications of this, or their livelyhoods have been so undermined by both corporations and the government that they can't spare the worry over this issue. The people that should inform the average consumer about these things and the implications of it are now fully profit motivated ratings shills. Not only that, but the profits are ad driven. There will not be a point where enough of the consumer base understands the problem to matter to the company.

Still doesn't solve the issue of how representative the reviews are. The people who aren't seeing the issue probably have something other than writing reviews to fill their free time.