The example you are using to make your point involves members of the same species which says more about who we are when we have power versus how intelligent the represented other is.

Those championing American slavery for the most part knew full damned well that what was taking place was morally wrong, but had no intention of giving up the free labor/industrial power and freedom it provided.

Being members of the same species with the same verbal communication capacity (with formed language being the only barrier, not significant biological difference) a Frederick Douglass was never required; remember, free Blacks had been in America since its founding and some were slave owners themselves.

Once you factor in biological differences, you're stacking the deck against a species who cannot verbally communicate with you. Considering that there are members of some of these species that apparently can communicate with us via other means of language (sign/symbol), maybe this silliness regarding the burden of proof will die.

...films depicting chaos and societal breakdown aren't that far off, aye?

Mod this one up. Thanks!

And you don't think that the number of women who engage in violent crime would not increase? I'm not sure I like this thread because it has stereotypical gender based roles all over it.

In reality the solution is not simple. As long as government spends its time trying to put restrictions on long guns er... "assault" weapons when the vast majority of crimes committed with firearms is done with handguns... as long as we can dig up the non-existent tax dollars to intercede half-way around the world yet not fund mental health in a substantial way.... as long as we engage in these sharp divisions and definitions regarding politics and beliefs....

It is far from simple.

I agree with the majority of this sentence, save for the first section.

The Saturn V was launched ten times as part of a mission, which would make them all "production". That's a total of fifty F1 engines (5 per each first stage). If I'm not mistaken, two unmanned tests were scheduled; I cannot remember if it was tested on those after the engine became flight rated. With a usage window for the engine in production from 1968 to 1973 (Skylab).

I believe the OP was referring to the process to get the engine flight rated with all the nuances noted, which means his initial heads up to the managers of today accurate.

Kind of late to the discussion, but regulating and restricting bullets sounds easy, but no.

In order to remain proficient with a firearm, you're going to have to practice shooting. If you're the sort to prefer a certain type of ammo, you might buy 100 rounds or so (50 per box for 9mm, .380, on and on.).

You can easily go though 100 rounds at a range in one day.

Hell, you can easily go through 500 rounds in a trip to the range (.22LR) using ONE firearm. Heaven forbid you have two that use the same caliber, or multiple that use different calibers.

Now, if I take a 22LR caliber competition target pistol, and say, a 22LR rifle to the range to practice say once a month, then have to explain to someone why i'll buy another 500 rounds by ACCOUNTING for every bullet I just fired at a range (by filling out a form? By saving every expended shell? By justifying why I need to practice my marksmanship once a month?), that makes no sense.

It is almost like my boss asking me to account for every paperclip I use in the office.

I'm not attempting to belittle your question; You might not be someone who uses firearms. There's enough bickering going on here.

The reality is that Gun owners in the United States, and people who shy away from it are going to have to stop making budgetary decisions based on greed.

There is no reason we can't have background checks on every gun transaction that takes place (although I can actually think of exceptions to this rule, but it doesn't matter). Hell, I'm for a one time tax in which the proceeds go either towards prevention of gun violence efforts (supporting the apparatus that keeps guns out of the hands of those who should not have them), or as a "tax" that goes toward supporting mental health budgets in states.

There is no reason why we determine our budget cuts by undermining the weakest in society. (Healthcare, physical, mental or otherwise is not an "entitlement"; the ability to provide it universally is an extension of technological and societal progress, and if we have to pay for it so be it).

Quit the "I know better than you, My values are more important than yours." bit. On both sides. If you live in a urban area or if you live in a rural area, your lifestyles might be significantly different. It doesn't make your values any less. Quit thinking you know more that the other guy.

Office compatible suites? Check.
One Note? Check.
Businesses employing MDM for iPads and using them intensively in the corporate sphere? Check.

The iPad (or any other tablet I'd imagine) was not designed to replace your notebook or desktop, but still has a powerful place as a corporate asset. For most execs, being able to access email and look at documents (while taking a few notes) without having to lug around the laptop is a plus. Is it a novelty? Yes. Can it play a significant role in business? Indeed it can.

I always though of the forbidden fruit was not just a parable regarding knowledge, but consciousness/self awareness... That once Adam ate, death became a reality for him in that he could interpret what it meant (or to be naked, or note time passing).

  He was going to die regardless, but now he was aware of what was going to happen. After he had that snack with Eve, the party ended.

That's an anonymous sperm donor and regarding a clinical procedure..

If you "donate" your sperm the old fashioned way, good luck with that defense. There have been (at least in one case) men who have been sexually assaulted, and required to provide for the offspring of the unwanted union.

See... Even white boys got to shout...