Someone raised it on the questions thread, so if he's actually sane on climate change then great. I was really focusing on making fun of the "cool in battlefield situations" boasting.

He said he preferred the AR-15 because he was part of that culture; if he personally didn't think he possessed those attributes, he wouldn't have "leaned" towards it. Does anyone seriously doubt that he considers himself "cool under combat pressure"? He's been posturing like this online since the 1990's.

It's not that it can't do useful things for everyone; it's that you have to balance that against things like time wasted. For the head of a major agency with private secretaries and aids at her call, checking and sending emails might not be the best use of her time.

Robin Hood. Dick Turpin. Butch Cassidy. Bonnie and Clyde. Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán.

People who break the law have always been the subject of fascination, and for a certain subset of the fascinated, glorification. We still enjoy caper movies about criminals pulling off complicated heists, movies which gloss over the innocent victims of crime or even depict the criminal as an instrument of poetic justice. For the vast majority of people fascination with criminals is harmless. Living in a civilized society requires restraint that makes fantasies of anarchic behavior attractive. In moderation, some measure of admiration of rule breakers probably helps keep the people who run things in check (e.g. the Edward Snowden case).

The problem is that some people have difficulty separating fantasy from reality, keeping to moderation, or understanding how complex or ambiguous people can be. Julian Assange is neither an angel nor a devil, but a flawed, complicated person who did something that needed doing. George Washington wasn't the childhood paragon of the cherry tree legend, but an ambitious, rash, somewhat dishonest social climber who achieved greatness under the pressure of circumstance.

The commonly-accepted usage of words is determined by the majority. Whatever "hacker" used to mean, it now means someone who bypasses computer security systems to commit crimes.

I thought the funniest thing about this story was how they didn't ask any of the modded-up questions about his racism, climate denial, paranoid conspiracy theories, etc. Then I got to this:

"ESR: "Better battle rifle" depends on who you're equipping, and for what. I lean towards the AR-15 because I'm from a culture that readily produces people with good marksmanship, fire discipline, and steadiness onder combat pressure. The AR-15 is the better weapon to match those traits - it rewards skill in the shooter and you can actually use it at distance."

This is just beyond hilarious; ESR is the ultimate internet tough guy. What exactly in your middle-class suburban "culture" made you steady under "combat pressure"? Do you think this posturing impresses anybody, or makes any of us believe that you wouldn't immediately fold if you faced any danger whatsoever? You know how you can tell if you have "fire discipline" or "steadininess [u]nder pressure"? Actually be in a situation that requires it. Until then you just look ridiculous.

This forgets that as a rule, the tracks came first, then the towns grew up around them. This is also frequently the case with refining operations.

So now who is personally responsible??

Years ago, one of the first times this topic came up here, someone from Denmark posted a cautionary tale:

According to him, pre-WW2 Denmark had universal gun registration at the local level. When the Nazis came to town, guess where they looked to discover who might be armed/inclined to resist.

Am I thinking of John Lott? the fellow who set out with a study to prove more guns == more crime, and found it was actually the opposite -- and was big enough to change his tune.

As I've been saying for years, there's a Stupid Gene that turns on when people become parents, which makes them forget what it was like to be a kid.

Being childless, I'm immune. ;)

Or might William the Conqueror be the major entry point for that line? Come to think of it, was he related to Charlemagne?

My ancestors on the Brit side were largely Welsh. So chances are I go back to some prince named Owain or Llewellyn as well. :)

[I'm actually an heir to a Welsh castle, should I cough up the million pounds or so in back taxes... of course, I've got competition from 6 or 7 generations of shirttail relations... Perhaps we should pool our funds. :D ]

I personally know many NIH-funded researchers who work on things big pharma doesn't care about. Like malaria vectors.

"Physicians are human and are subject to the same bias and irrational thinking as the rest of us. Nothing can replace a well designed study where the results can be reproduced."

Yep. Most physicians also suffer from the serious flaw that they are terrified of appearing not to know something. When was the last time you heard a physician say "these symptoms are unusual in this combination; let me do a little research and get back to you"?

That would be this one.

We're tied for third lowest homicide rate in the country, so why would I want to carry a firearm? Our rate of *total* homicide is 1/4 the rate of *accidental* firearms in Florida, even though our firearm ownership rate is 1/2.

Our accident rate per gun owner is half, because we require gun purchasers to take a basic firearms safety course. That's not so onerous. A 4 hour course with an NRA certified instructor, which costs around $100. It's a *little* intrusive, but so is having the guy in the next apartment negligently discharge his handgun in a cleaning accident.