OK, so you have a 1970s era cassette duplication of a recording made from a window (where - how close to any of the actions). There is no meaningful accounting of the duplication process of the tapes provenance - other than that it was found in an archive by one of the Students who was wounded that day -- there's a nice CSI chain of evidence for you.

The "scientists" have "enhanced" this questionable audio to pick up all these sounds. Now let's remember that enhancing in this case means making things sound more or less as they think fits - there is no science - it's all subjective.

In all of this fine analysis, I don't see, hear, or read anything that even vaguely attempts to provide meaningful links between the sounds on the tape and the placement of any of the people. So who was outside the window? Who is saying these things.

How about this -- This analysis includes the quote, "Hey, stop that man! I saw him shoot someone! Stop him! Stop him! He's carrying a gun." But there is nothing in the historical record to indicate anyone was shot 70 seconds before (and somewhere else) from the main 13-second Guard fire.

So what exactly is this - other than conjecture, speculation, insinuation, and possibly fabrication?

The point was that people who claim to understand how the global climate works are fools. Of course mass transit (even diesel powered) is better than hundreds of individual combustion engines in various states of repair. But to suggest that electric trains and methane cars will solve global warming flies in the face of reality.

personally, I hold great hope for the hydrogen economy, which really holds the greatest promise, but is a long way off yet.

The majority of Methane produced and used is produced from fossil sources (coal fields, natural gas fields, oil wells, etc). We have yet to find a way of capturing cow burps, and we don't produce enough landfill/crap to power all the cars.

There is enough produced to make your friends feel good about themselves, but, alas, it isn't a solution.

Of course we should take care of our environment. But not everyone can afford your standards.

The whole point, from the beginning, was that there are loonies out there who continue to insist that behavior A will result in world-wide catastrophe while behavior B will usher in a period of world-wide enlightenment and peace. Which completely belies an understanding of the complexities of the world.

And the point Shakespeare was making was that the world is more complex than anyone imagines and to be prepared to accept the complexity when confronted with it and adapt. He wasn't suggesting adaptability per se, he was suggesting the complexity of the world.

Specifically, Horatio is amazed at the revelations of the King's ghost and is unprepared to accept reality as revealed to him as it calls into question all he knows of reality and the actions of kings.

I love a good flame...

OK, so electric trains generate electricity spontaneously? I thought they used electricity generated primarily from fossil fuels.

And methane powered cars aren't burning a fossil fuel?

Both produce less waste than everyone driving their own gas car, but neither particularly improves CO2 production. Which, btw, is what we are talking about here.

And before you again claim to know it all, there are dozens of possibilities for the causes of asthma, but you pick the one that serves your needs ignoring the fact that urban air quality has been improving during the same years that asthma rates have been increasing.

Note here, again, I'm not claiming to know the answers - just the questions.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Congratulations! You have solved the cause of Asthma. I was wondering why doctors were spending millions trying to figure it out when they could just turn to any know-it-all and find out.

I guess I'll just lump you in with the geniuses who know how the Earth's climate works.

BTW, if transportation were cheaper with alternate fuels, we would be doing it already.

And this is the whole point. The "denialists" rarely if ever deny that we are experiencing a period of warming trends. The question has always been whether or not it is a natural phenomenon or if it is directly effected by the works of man. I, personally, am a mugwump on the issue. But I have no patience for anyone who says that they definitively know how the Earth's climate functions.

That definition was the useless language that created most of the problems. "Includes but is not limited to..."

From this, you get to Casey Martin suing the PGA under ADA that the requirement to walk a golf course during a tournament is discrimination. Yes, ADA requires professional athletes be allowed to change the rules of the game to meet their needs, personally, I'm waiting for a motorized wheel chair in the 100M dash.

But as Sinistar2k points out, I missed the The Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) that attempted to remediate some of these shortfalls (albeit 18 years too late).

My school used to have Ds and require grades of C- or better to receive credit for the course. I never understood it. If I need a C- or better to pass, then what's the difference between an F and a D?
The "scale" made no sense either. 0-64=F 65-69 = D.
Why not anything below 70 = F.
D was like an honorable mention in a spear dodging tournament.

The largest problem with the ADA is that it never defined what a disability was. There are people with mental disabilities. Does your website have to be edited to a 3rd grade level?

What if someone is illiterate?

What if they don't speak English?

What if someone is physically unable to click - how will a website cater to that need?

There has been software to read websites to the blind for years, how will this differ?

They don't put braille on drive-up ATMs. They put braille on ATMs. They don't make different keys depending on where you're installing the unit.

iPhoto, GarageBand, iMovie. Linux doesn't have them. (OK, maybe it does have iPhoto). These are great productivity apps that come free with the Macs. And don't forget you have to teach the faculty how to use the computers. Really - can you think of anyone you would want to sit down and teach how to use linux to?

And it will be broken by the third day of school. They're not designed to go into a backpack with twenty pounds of books.

You make a lot of assumptions. I run a similar program (formerly Windows, now Mac) at a private school. Granted our parent body tends to be wealthy, but there are plenty on near full financial aid. We require the parents to buy the computers and have needed to make financial arrangements for probably less than 1% of the parents. We subsidize the program dramatically by running a Mac repair shop in-house. If a computer breaks, we have a loaner ready and the kid goes back to class until it is fixed. So while we "externalize" the cost of computers, we "internalize" the cost of 2 full-time staff plus 10 computers per year.

I should say, we will obviously work with kids who bring in a non-mac computer, but we probably cannot offer a lot of software support or hardware repair. And all those neat programs like GarageBand are worked into the curriculum, so a Windows or Unix/Linux user is at a distinct disadvantage.

When we ran the program in Windows we had 1 machine per year that we told people to buy. That way we could move hard drives to loaners without worrying about drivers. Imagine, if you would, trying to provide tech support to hundreds of kids with dozens of different OEM hardware vendors, 7 flavors of Vista, 3-4 flavors of XP and 3 flavors of Windows 7, oh, and all the Macs that will come in, too.

Let's be clear - the goal of having the computers in school is to facilitate general learning and to instill familiarity and comfort working with computers in the students. Standardizing on a single platform is a logical and largely necessary starting point.

And if someone loves Windows, there's always Boot Camp.

This was my first reaction. This is the guy who cost who knows how much to have special "secure" Blackberries developed so that he could keep in touch with his friends, since the White House doesn't have any meaning means of communications like e-mail, phones, cell phones, secure lines, satellite phones, military band, live satellite links, etc.

And c'mon, how can you start a critique of anything by saying "I don't know how this works, but it's bad"? How is reading a CNN.com article on an iPad or iPhone any worse than reading it on a computer or a Blackberry? And is anyone really getting their news or opinion on their Xbox?