He's just teasing Chris Grayling.

"absolution"

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

But...Bolt Action??

Why the preference for bolt action? Is there some unique requirement that rules out Automatics?

So the Mona Lisa doesn't exist because you aren't able to paint it?

A place to keep everyone infected with Ebola. :-)

Funny you mention Subs. I was thinking about that this morning.

Subs are built for very hostile environments, and that's without people shooting at them. Take the principals of sub building and modify them appropriately...aluminum instead of steel, structures to hold air in instead of water out, etc. and you have a pretty good game plan for building an actual space ship instead of a soda can with windows.

Nothing will happen until you can build and loft a real power source that can generate hundreds of megawatts of energy to drive the ships and once there, power the outposts.

Solar can be part of that but putting up a solar farm to generate enough power to provide for an actual colony would take hundreds of tons of material as compared to a compact nuke or a fusion device like recently discussed by Lockheed. Think Nuke Sub reactors.

Kids have cell phones at younger and younger ages. You can argue if this is good or not but if they do have them, then it would be a nice feature and provide some peace of mind if you could call up their location (OK, the location of the phone) via a web app.

Are they late getting home and not answering their phone? If the locations service says they are at a friends house, then fine. If it says they are on I-35 traveling north at 80 MPH....not so fine.

Lojack for your kids.

What sick and twisted reasoning are people using to claims that restricting travel in the face of epidemic won't work? Sure, it won't help 100% of the time, but it will , the author's own admission, reduce risks for the U.S. by 50% for a while. That is better than nothing.

I suspect it has some kind of political correctness thing involved or some geopolitical maneuvering.

Blocking direct commercial traffic would go a long way towards preventing cases from flying in. Forcing people to tak connecting flights from some other country would not only lengthen their trip and therefore increase the chance they start showing symptoms, but they would also go through multiple screenings.

There is no good reason to allow direct flights from infected countries.

Just because a there is no 100% solution is no excuse for not making the effort. I'd rather prevent 80% of potentially infected people be blocked than 0%. Restrictions on commercial flights is a common sense solution until the outbreak in those countries is dealt with.

He should not have been able to get here in the first place.

Not to mention that just about everyone who is up to speed on Ebola is in West Africa or shining some seat in Washington D.C. with their ass.

When you have the President and the CDC claiming on National Television that it is highly unlikely that Ebola will come to the U.S., how can you fault hospitals for not spending the time and money to train large numbers of people and purchasing expensive equipment, reconfiguring valuable floor space, upgrade airs systems, etc?

It's called an irresponsible Administration allowing people from countries with active Ebola outbreaks to waltz on into the U.S. as if they were going to Disney World. Basic flight restrictions should have been in place since the beginning of the outbreaks.

Hospitals in the U.S. have had little training in such virulent diseases and very few have the high level isolation units and gear required to prevent further infections.

So now Fusion Power will only be a decade away...for the next 60 years.