Out here in "flyover country" we have storms, tornadoes, lightning, wind, ice, and snow. Power outages, while not all that common, are just something we have to deal with. I see big diesel or natural gas generators outside every government building and most businesses. A lot of homeowners I know have their own portable generators. When storms come through someone inevitably loses power, it happens. It can take a few hours to get fixed, in rare and extreme cases it can take days. Life goes on.

What kind of damage could a cyber attack on the electrical grid do? It will be inconvenient certainly. Just this last Monday I had to take a minor detour around some downed power lines while driving to work. On Tuesday the roads were clear and the power back on as far as I could tell. Other than a handful of people in Oklahoma that had travel difficulties it seems everyone went to work on Monday where I work.

I'm just trying to imagine the damage that a successful cyber attack on the power rid might cause. Then I try to imagine that damage as compared to weather out hear in the Great Plains. If people here were even told it was a terror strike then would anyone believe them? How would people act differently?

I'm sure that there are means to harden the power grid from cyber attacks but they would either be prudent also for natural disasters or overkill for such a small risk,

There is already a large number of natural gas generators around here. I'm not sure how much but it sits idle for long periods of time until needed. Data centers are equipped to sell any excess to a utility. There are spares for all kinds of gear. There are a lot of windmills to help along.

If the big boys, nuclear and coal, have to go down then it could take days to come back up. Once they are back to full steam then we know our troubles are over.

What should I be worried about?

First, tell that to the people in Mexico. They got stricter gun controls than the USA yet more people die from machine gun fire and hand grenades. Not working real well there. It's got nothing to do with machine gun ownership either. There are at least 240,000 privately owned machine guns in the USA and yet none of them are used in crime. Is that because we have gun control, or perhaps because we have a well armed populace where criminals have to fear getting shot by law abiding gun owners?

Second, that was then, this is now. 3D printing technology is changing real fast. I'd predict that in two years printers capable of creating functional firearms will be sold in Walmart. Gun control may work now but it won't in the near future.

Irrelevant. We can't control guns. Any idiot can print one out now. We're going to have to think of something else to address the violence.

Nope. We don't need to regulate firearms, or ammunition, or weapons of any kind. Gun control is not crime control. Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant, gun control is impossible now. We're just going to have to think of something else now, we cannot ban this stuff any more. Sure, we can pass a law banning the stuff but enforcement cannot be done.

Rather than argue my points further I'll point something out that got this whole thread started. With technology as it is now any idiot that can perform a Google search, has enough manual dexterity to stack up Lego blocks, and enough spare cash to purchase a big screen TV, can now print a machine gun at home.

The genie is out of the bottle. All gun control laws are now irrelevant. Make all the claims you want on how the world would be a better place with gun control but it does not matter. The government can pass a law banning the 3D printing of guns but none of them can be enforced now.

Banning the 3D printing of rifles, pistols, shotguns, and machine guns is a pipe dream. They can pass a law against it but it's not going to stop the criminals, so it's irrelevant.

Did you see what you did there? Is "gun violence" somehow more criminal, cruel, or notable than any other kind of violence?

Fact is that total violent crimes hit a new low, I recall it's the lowest it has been in something like 50 or 60 years. I don't know what the "gun violence" rate is and I don't care to look it up. I don't care because I know that "gun violence" statistics are loaded with inaccuracies by people with an agenda to deny law abiding people of their right of self defense.

While violent crimes have hit a new low we've seen gun ownership hit new highs. The "gun violence" rates may have gone up but that is only because "gun violence" as defined by people like the Brady Campaign include suicides, self defense shootings, police interventions, and accidents. I would not consider the killing of a home invader by the home owner to be "gun violence" but Brady Campaign does. In most jurisdictions this is not even considered a crime. As someone smarter than me has said, "There are four types of homicide, felonious, excusable, justifiable, and praiseworthy."

Even if "gun violence" is high I am not so sure that is a bad thing. If someone breaks into the home of another they should expect some "gun violence" from the home owner in return. That would be something praiseworthy.

No, there aren't laws banning people from making bombs. People do that all the time and do so legally.

I found out about this interesting substance called "tannerite" a few years ago. It is legally considered an explosive. It's primary components can be ordered through the mail and shipped to your door, no registration or background checks. This is not illegal because until the components are mixed it's just fertilizer and aluminum powder. Once mixed it becomes an explosive. I'd wager people are making this stuff right now in their homes.

Tannerite is commonly used as a reactive target on rifle ranges. It gives a very satisfying visual and audible indication that one has practiced proper firearm control. When used irresponsibly it can create a very dangerous explosion.

Let's assume for a second that one did need a license to make explosives and fireworks, how would that work? The materials needed to make explosives are also common items for making food. The things we need to grow, prepare, and preserve food can be used to make explosives, to ban these items would mean people cannot eat.

I've seen these little mills used to grind black powder into a proper consistency for use in bombs, ammunition, and fireworks. These mills are sold in catalogs for kids to buy with their lawn mowing money, only they don't call them gun powder mills, they call them rock polishers.

The government can ban bombs, firearms, 3D printers, or whatever they like. It won't stop people so long as we have the freedom to grow and cook our own food. I'm sure there's some part of the population that would like to ban that considering thousands of people die each year in the USA from food poisoning.

I believe otherwise. I think the ATF does care if people make their own firearms because a large portion of the people that make up the ATF do not believe that anyone but themselves are responsible enough to own firearms.

Someone that makes a firearm at home might be doing so completely within the law but it appears to me that the ATF does not like this because they would have no record of it. If they don't have a record of it then they can't take it from us when they wish. That's just the way they think, it's a culture that exists within the ATF since it was created.

Of course certain individual ATF agents may not have a problem with responsible firearm ownership, manufacture, or transfer but the people in charge certainly do. There are all kinds of examples of people having their weapons taken from them and never returned, despite it being quite illegal for the ATF to do so. People have ended up dead because the ATF didn't have the right paperwork and they thought someone had an "illegal" gun.

The ATF has to be very nervous right now over 3D printing. Now it no longer takes expensive machine tools and a certain level of skill to mass produce firearms. Now all it takes is a computer, 3D printer, plastic, and the ability to stack up Lego blocks.

If the ATF cannot find a way to regulate this then they are going to find themselves irrelevant, and out of a job.

Don't have time to read all the articles linked in the summary but I do recall a few inconvenient facts about global warming. I recall that the global temperature peaked in 1998 and has not broken that record since. I also recall that CO2 levels have reached a new peak. I recall that the temperature reached in 1998 was lower than that of 1934. There seems to be a certain difficulty to create a correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures.

The bigger problem I have is all the government regulation based on this claim of man made global warming. The fact that the correlation has not yet been proven is only a small part. The problem is that the government is keeps getting bigger to supposedly fight global warming but they do nothing in their direct power to do something about it.

Just one example, federal buildings in DC are heated by one of the dirtiest coal fired power plants in the federation. If they were serious about global warming then I would expect them to do something about this first before telling me what kind of heat I can use in my own home.

I'll take global warming seriously once the federal government does.

I'm not sure I feel safer with some of these "bureaucratic roadblocks" out of the way. As it is already in many states one is required to submit to a BAC test if asked by a police officer or they will lose their license. This is a complete violation of our right of presumed innocence. With the laws as they are now every driver stopped is assumed to be drunk until they prove otherwise to the officer.

I'm no fan of drunk driving laws. They've become less of a means to preserve safety and become more of a movement to reestablish alcohol prohibition. If a person is a danger on the road then stop them. I don't care how much alcohol is in their blood, and the law should not either.

I despise alternative energy subsidies just as much as the oil industry subsidies. To even the playing field we should not be subsidizing alternative energy, we should be removing the subsidies from oil.

Another thing, if solar energy were so great then we'd see the power companies paying people to put solar panels on their roof. I don't mean by buying the excess power from those that put up panels. I mean by driving around neighborhoods and offering to pay the owners to install the panels on their roofs.

A major problem with solar power, a weakness it shares with wind, is that the power it produces cannot be controlled. It adds another unknown to an already delicate system. Weather has a serious impact on the output of wind and solar systems and power companies cannot control them. With hydro, coal, nuclear, and natural gas the power companies have control of the throttle. There is no throttle on wind and solar, they can't turn up the wind and sun if they need more power.

This lack of control adds to the cost and people like cheap power.

A few people that put up solar panels to power their homes is not usually an issue because there is not enough solar power right now to significantly affect the system. The power they add to the system is in the noise floor.

Again, if solar power were so great more people would be using it. Business is business and the factories and stores can't just close up because the clouds decided to roll in that day.

Have people already forgotten that the police are holding a suspect under armed guard in a hospital? You know, the Saudi national? I heard nothing to remove suspicion of this guy being a participant to the crime.

What's happened to our news media? They were all over this Saudi national just hours ago but now we hear about a "first" suspect shot dead and a "second" being captured, both immigrants from Russia.

It seems both the large news media outlets and a large portion of the public have short memories. I want to know what's up with this Saudi guy. Do we have a name? How did he get in the country? Was he immigrating? Did he have a student visa? If so, what school did he attend? Was anyone watching him before the bombs went off? Do we have a picture?

If this Saudi is no longer a suspect then we should still have something on him. Even if that something is an explanation on why he's no longer a suspect.

You are right, they are not all made by Tesla. What they are is so limited in range, and take so long to charge, that they are only viable as a second car for a large portion of the population. Few people can afford two cars, with one of them being a decked out electric or hybrid. There are no low end electric cars, not yet.

Also, I live in a place where we have this thing called "winter". I met a group of people that converted electric cars when I lived closer to the equator and they did well there. Where I am now electric cars are not popular. Current battery technology does not allow for enough power to keep the cabin warm while also having enough power to drive through a snow storm.

Let me know when I can buy a four wheel drive electric vehicle, with a 50 mile daily range, and enough clearance to get through four inches of snow. (I was about to say six inches but I'll compromise.) Oh, and for about $15000. Until then I'll keep driving my "gas guzzler", and I suspect several million of my neighbors think the same.

It appears you misunderstood. The problem is not the price of ethanol. The problem is the corn. There's not enough corn to go around so prices keep gong up until enough people are unwilling to buy it. The people that mix the ethanol into our fuel have to buy it no matter what the price is. That means higher price fuel, higher price food, and very little to show for it.

Why would the petroleum industry try to keep out nuclear? Oil is used for transportation fuel, not electricity. The coal industry might have something to say about it but they are selling enough coal to the Chinese that I doubt they care much anymore. I believe the resistance comes from the same people that don't like coal, because nuclear power is "scary" to them.

It grows only because the government funds it. Pull the funding and wind power will have to sink or swim on their own merits, not because the government mandates the utilities buy it.

If you like what a centrally managed economy looks like then I suggest you see how well North Korea, Cuba, and so many other similar vacation destinations look like. Stay there for a while then get back to me. That is assuming you survive the starvation, disease, and crime.

I'd reply to more of your points but you've gone too far into attacking me than what I said to bother.

The problem lies in that any attempt to silence the Koch brothers is going to come back to bite us. We cannot infringe on their freedom to speak without putting our own freedom at risk.

I may not like what they say but I will defend to my last breath their right to say it.

Agreed. People are corporations and corporations are people. A person is a corporation, that is how we got the federal income tax. If we somehow agree that a corporation cannot speak then we will always have the problem of separating the silence of a corporation with the right of the individual to speak.

I have no mod points since I commented elsewhere already. All I can do is quote you to make you more visible.