I bet they don't write "I intend to kill that rapist motherfucker" on their gun or carry licence application, though that is probably what most of them are thinking.
A gun is self defence only in the sense that it kills the other person, which stops them e.g. robbing/mugging or raping you. Personally, I don't consider that acceptable.
Sprays and so on are legal as far as I know, but I don't know anyone with one.
Some breeds of dogs are actually banned, due to too many "baby mauling" incidents. Mastiffs are allowed, the main one which isn't is the "pit bull terrier".
I've NEVER seen a violent crime. Those "weapon wielding crazies" you mention are really a U.S. thing.
Actually there are probably already regulations about Windows above a few stories that insist they are toughened glass etc...
One of the most dangerous inventions in history
We know the inanimate objects aren't the source of the problem, but we do know that they make a lot of problems much much worse.
My guess would be that you weren't still doing 70 when you went off the road. You'd be surprised how quickly you slow down when your sleepy ass releases the pressure on the accelerator.
Crashes above 40MPH are incredibly rare, normally a good amount of braking happens and the cars are going less than half the speed they could have been.
If he can get out of the car and walk away by himself it's considered really safe (bruises are acceptable).
Treatable injuries is considered acceptable.
Being pinned in the car by deformed structure or being maimed is considered unsafe, and yet this is exactly what a lot of SUVs do in a crash.
Only if you change your boot.ini to have
Excess Nitrogen is actually more dangerous to people than CO2, because it turns out we detect lack of Oxygen by an excess of CO2, not by an actual lack of oxygen. If the problem is excess Nitrogen, our bodies never notice, in fact they might even see a reduced level of CO2 and assume that Oxygen is plentiful.
If you look up crash tests of the Smart ForTwo on youtube you might be surprised: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz-s1sIoLhU
The Smart ForTwo's main advertising point (apart from it's small size and fuel efficiency) is the visible "Tridion" frame around the passenger compartment, showing that you're going to be safe.
Now look up your BMW (I can't, as you didn't give the model).
Or a P4...
A little reading leads me to find that the "one way" cable modems were often capable of two-way cable (but the network wasn't) and/or had a phone-line modem built in too, making them capable of both modulation and demodulation (though on two lines).
It's a bit clunky, but so is the stupid idea.
Except it isn't digital not even slightly. Transmitting over the distances they do REQUIRES an analogue signal (i.e. transmitting a waveform in varying frequency/phase/amplitude representing the digital signal instead of using the high/low peaks of the wave to represent bits).
ADSL uses variants of QAM modulation.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrierless_Amplitude_Phase_Modulation and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_multitone_modulation for descriptions of the two modulations used in ADSL.
That depends, are you in London? Some other big city? No? Then no.
Then again, my parents are in a small village in the middle of Norfolk and they get full 8 Mbps ADSL (I've tested it). The village is so small that the local junior school collects students from several villages and still has to combine several years of students into the same classes, instead of the traditional several classes of students per year. The village is home to the phone exchange which serves the surrounding villages, which is most likely the reason they get full speed ADSL.
I'm in the Newcastle area, and could get Virgin's 50 Mbps cable connection if I wanted (I'm on their 10 Mbps service). However the upstream side of the connection leaves a little to be desired.
It doesn't emulate Vista because 7 is 100% Vista compatible. Nothing to emulate.
There's a program compatibility option, and all it does is report "Vista" as the OS instead of 7.
There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.
