That was covered in my citation. But if you're correct, then even my citation is just another misinterpretation of the statistics...it's hard to find a good, objective source for all of this. Do you know of a better one? Because I'd REALLY like to understand the pro gun control side.

Statistics show that if you outlaw guns, those numbers will increase.

Statistics don't mean anything unless they're fully analyzed along with repercussions.

Sure, we have more gun-related deaths, but we also have significantly less violent crimes overall.

Also need to take into account what TYPE of firearm is used in most gun-related crimes (handguns) and wonder why they are banning assault weapons when rifles are used in fewer than 400 per year. My fear is that's it's a stepping stone to more oppressive gun control.

We already know gun bans don't work. Columbine happened with an AR-15 during an assault weapon ban. Anecdots, when used properly, support facts that can be verified. I do agree with you though, the post you responded to does not prove anything, on the other hand neither does yours, nor does mine. Except that anecdotes and statistics can be skewed any way one wants. To truly make a decision, one must know the facts and how they correlate together and then consider it all as a whole.

Cite: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8D8b51EwrI

It's like XKCD's war on "literally"

http://xkcd.com/725/

http://xkcd.com/1108/

Another way to pander to idiot drivers, teaching them nothing except that they don't need to be observant or thoughtful drivers.

Back up cameras, back up sensors, blind-spot detectors, cruise control all help to create a less aware driver. Now they'll learn that they don't need to pay attention to the road condition. (Slippery slope argument? Maybe)

I almost ran over my 2 year old nephew one time in my truck (Dodge Ram). I didn't see him, he was behind me where there is NO visibility, sure a back up camera or sensor would have worked, but instead he has a responsible mother who saw and came out screaming and waving her hands to get me to stop (I drive an older diesel so it's a bit noisy). That's all it takes, responsibility. So there goes anyone's "what-if" argument; yes, it did happen to me.

Pay attention to what's around you, if you can't, have others do it. Turn your head to look in your blind spot. Lean to maintain your own steady speed. Learn to identify road conditions, and be able to control your vehicle if it slides that the speed you are going. If you can't control that slide, slow down to a speed that you can control the slide; then, if you do slide, you're OK.

Why do we keep pandering to mediocrity?

Now of course, this is all in general, I'm sure there's some with disabilities that don't allow them to turn their head properly, or maintain even pressure with their foot and whathaveyou.

Freedom is inherently risky. My fellow Americans need to realize that. To be absolutely safe necessitates living in an absolutely oppressed society.

What do you want, freedom or oppression?

The way it looks now, too many Americans are leaning towards oppression, because being free is just too scary.

It's like Dropbox, but everything resides on the server of your choice. Ridiculously easy to set up, literally copy a directory into the web root, set permissions, and done.

Has MOST features Dropbox does, sharing files, access from anywhere...photo gallery, you can open files in the browser with native internal apps..

It gives you the drag-and-drop simplicity of Dropbox with its syncing with nearly the same simplicity to set up.

Several, at least 3. And I haven't submitted my information for any of them. They still work fine.

Reminds me of a Wired article I read for a class one time. The assignment was to read the article and "summarize the directions that commercial use of technology is moving to provide content, away from the open, free web."

I slammed the article in my assignment, calling it out for what it is: bullshit. Of course, one cane make that conclusion just by knowing it's from Wired...

I'm not a lawyer, and don't care much for a particularly detailed treatise, but could someone explain why one can't just say "Prove I've never purchased XX movie/song, and am not simply downloading it for a digital archival purpose which I am allowed under Fair Use."?

As I understand Fair Use, one is allowed to have an archival copy of any movie/song (breaking DMCA notwithstanding), so couldn't downloading be considered a more time-efficient method of obtaining your archival copy? And doesn't presumption of innocence mean that they have to PROVE that you never bought the item in the first place, and thus are not allowed your digital archival copy?

I'm sure I'm missing something somewhere.

Out in the Palouse in Washington (rolling wheat fields for hours) we had GPS not able to find us. When it finally did, it had us placed in the middle of a wheat field, and told us to take a left on a road that didn't exist. And the Palouse is wide open, you get plenty of satellite reception for GPS signal. Lucky for us we knew where we were and just turned on the GPS to see what it'd say.

The Colockum Pass is a state route, but it is by no means a route that any semi should take, yet about twice a year truckers from out of state try taking this route from Seattle to Ellensburg to Wenatchee, as it's shown on GPS as the shortest route (I had to manually move the Google Map to take this route). They physically cannot make this route, but several try per year anyway.

I had a buddy that grew up in Huntington Beach, CA. We went to a strip club one night, and to find it (he'd been there before) he had to use his turn-by-turn GPS. To leave and get back on the interstate, he had to use is turn-by-turn GPS, which meant waiting in the parking lot while it calculated (I told him to go out, take a right, the next right, then a right at the light would head it towards the interstate. His GPS told us to go LEFT, then LEFT, and then right, ultimately one block west of where I would have brought us to the same road (left around the block, or right around the block). He didn't trust me, and NEEDED the GPS to find the way back to the interstate, which was 1/2 mile away (straight shot to the interchange).

True story in Washington. (Someone correct me on the details if I'm wrong) I was told that our Senator, Maria Cantwell, threatened to investigate the oil companies for price gouging the Pacific Northwest; they dropped prices (by almost $0.60/gal for diesel) and she dropped the investigation. Gas prices have steadily gone back up to where they were before, and I hear she's threatening to investigate again.

Interesting. This is honestly something I would be interested in learning about; do you have any evidence and sources that also claim this?