Yes, the intended purpose of a gun is to kill, but that's not the argument. The argument is that they're not intended to kill children.

In the area that I live, I know of several families that wouldn't have meat on a semi-regular basis without guns. You do realize that not everyone lives in urban centers, correct? In my area of the country, guns serve several purposes: protection of livestock, hunting food and general entertainment. Yes, most of those are off-shoots of killing, but you'll notice how shooting people doesn't make that list.

You will hear people tell you that there are good and bad degrees. This isn't inherently true. Some look good on paper, some don't. Some specialize you, some don't. What is important are the connections you make while you're in school, how much you spend on it, and what you want. If you don't spend much money, then sure, get the art history degree - you'll be no worse off financially, you'll have fun and learn some useful skills, and you really won't limit your job prospects at all. BUT, if you're looking at 200K in debt, maybe don't. If you want to grow up to design cars but you're bad at art and don't own/can't afford a computer, don't go to a four year, go technical - be a mechanic and get your hands dirty. Earn some cash and go into design later, once you understand what people really like in cars. If you like computers, but don't really want to learn about the software - be a repairperson - 18 months and you're out, or work for a big-box and take their little training course. If you want to get an English degree and be a writer, great - but be prepared to kiss every professor's ass to make connections, and brace yourself for 20-30 years of bitterness and disappointment.

Again, the issue isn't that kids are going to college in record numbers, or that there are jobs you can do with and without a degree. It's that we have a college-going society who is still early enough in the cycle to remember the days when few people went to college, and a bachelors actually brought you accolades. It's that we have a values structure of "college will get you there" in a "debt will crush you" society. If students had a more realistic assessment of what they can/can't do with a college degree, I think we would be a lot better off. Also, if students had a more realistic view of what they actually have to do in college to apply the art history degree in the future, I believe less would go.

Why are there so many psychology degrees working as waitresses? Because you can coast through that degree, it's interesting and people don't look down on it. Why are there so many baristas with English degrees? Because it's fun, it's easy to coast, and you learn some good skills. Why are there so few psychologists and (good) authors? Because few students take the time to make connections and apply themselves in college to map out their futures.

Honestly, the fault is about 75/25 split between the individual and the school. Schools sell students programs, the government sells students schools, and someone makes money. BUT, students really should be personally responsible for their own futures. A small amount of planning can turn that bullshit English Literature degree into a comfortable, upper-middle class job. (I can attest to that)

For the same reasons that you stated about the bathroom, I have for quite some time, and will always subscribe to National Geographic as well as The Smithsonian. My poopin' time just isn't complete without a quick read-through of the latest art/history/nature/humanity article.

I will only fail to renew my subscription when they fail to print.

I would imagine that their decision that these bladelets were parts of larger weapons has a lot to do with the shape of the tools compared to the shape of tools whose use we understand.

For instance: on the creek on our farm, we're all the time finding flint tools. It's quite easy to distinguish between those used as weapons and those used as hammers, scrapers or knives for sculpting. The shapes aren't even close to the same.

I do have to assume that a specialist in this field would understand that basic premise.I also believe that specialists in this field do not apply ideological bias, as much as apply what we know about tools we understand compared to the shape and design of these tools.

It's a lot like putting together a dinosaur's muscle structure based on what we know about modern reptiles and amphibians.

I agree - tractors and what-not are fine, but that technology exists now, we will get there again. In the event of a full-on collapse, basic survival skills and how we used to do business before modern conveniences become more useful than how to build a diesel engine.

And that, folks, is one prospect that GREATLY excites me.

That should read, Thank parents for being pains in the ass to school districts and demanding that their snowflake DESERVES a trophy.

Don't blame the school systems for turning into what they were asked to become. Blame the parents and society for leading in that direction. What's that old saying? Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

That is not true. Some come into high school believing they know what they want to do and where they want to go in life, but most do not. The average college student changes his/her major three times in the first two years. The reason we have a broad base is to give students who might not be exposed to this stuff at home the chance to see what's out there. So your kid is special, and you're an amazing parent and know exactly what s/he loves to do, great - then home school the self-entitled little thing and leave the rest of us alone. Remember that not every student had the opportunities that you had, and a diverse high school curriculum is the only way they learn about many, many topics.

Oh, and don't forget that the only thing further specialization of high school as a pipe-line into a direct college track for a particular career does is increase the number of young people who kill themselves.

That was my first thought these things will never go away, because they're just so freaking easy to upgrade on the cheap - when asked about the last time I purchased a new PC, my answer is 2003. This is because that is the last time I purchased an entirely new rig. Between 2003 and the present, though, I have replaced everything in the machine, along with the cables, screen and case.

Is it an entirely new pc? Well, that depends. At one time, or another, each of these pieces interacted with a piece of the original machine, or a piece that interacted with a piece of the original machine (I think the most is 2 generations of that). David Wong was brilliant when he wrote about the axe paradox. I have no answer to that question.

But for a twelve year old kid, there's just something about the idea of strapping yourself to a missile for no other reason than to go really, really, really fast. Turns are great, and I agree, but come on - 1,000 mph? I'd do it, and I'm a full-grown human. Now imagine being a little kid and seeing this thing tearing ass across the desert.

In the words of the immortal bard, Shakespeare, "FUCK YEAH."

Because we were all twelve once?

Have you seen the amount of aid the students get (not loans, just aid)? It's not enough to fund a 4-year university education. No where near enough. Right now the maximum amount of federal Pell is $5,500. After that you have access to state-grants that range from a maximum of $3000 to $5000 per academic year If you qualify, if the money is released, and if you get your application in by X date each year. It's enough to put you through a trade-school or community college, absolutely. But, it's not going to make anyone wealthy, or provide anyone with immediate and debt-free access to university - don't act like it will.

ALSO - Academic performance has a HUGE bearing on scholarships, fellowships, assistantships and the like. These are how to successfully get your college/university career paid for with no strings attached. Don't confuse aid with loans; they're two separate things. If you are saying that there should be an academic proficiency exam to have access to credit, we just crossed into new and exciting territory.

And I'm going to try to interpret what AC so eloquently stated: It's not that the government can't restrict access to aid and loans. It's the question of WHO gets to decide who has access? Who gets to be the person in charge of Millions and Millions of destinies?

My number one fear isn't a future without privacy - it's a future where we are tracked into careers based on standardized tests. I was told that I shouldn't go to college and I shouldn't really worry about trying to get a job outside of basic hourly retail and food-service. I was tracked through grade-school and high-school into technical programs instead of college prep. ALL because I screwed around on a handful of tests.

Sometimes people need access to money they might not have access to otherwise - it's not about giving the poor an advantage, it's about trying to level the playing field between rich and poor.

Side note - All of that technical crap didn't stick - I have two advanced degrees now and teach at the college and university level. - Sometimes tracking is incorrect!