stangguy

I highly doubt it was the airport scanner that erased the images. Solid state media, like SD cards and USB drives, require being powered on to erase or record data. The only way I see it as possible for the card to be corrupted by the X-ray machine was if the camera was on when it went through the scanner.

There are a variety of things that could have caused what the OP is experiencing and it is a problem that occurs semi-regularly with digital cameras. The most common cause of a corrupted card is opening the the battery compartment while the camera is on. Some older Canon cameras are notorious for this causing problems. I also know of a few cases where the card is corrupted before any pictures are taken and the pictures can be seen while on the camera but can not be downloaded to the computer. Sadly I don't know of any way to restore the pictures other than those already suggested.

Eventually, occasionally, a semblance of justice makes an appearance.

How is this justice? Being arrested for sharing your opinion is something that is intollerable. If one wants to deny the horrors of the holocaust or even support the attrocities that occured or support racial pride and seperation, so be it. That makes them a bigot but it doesn't make them a criminal.

Not everything is about money.

Something you have to teach the bad guys a lesson, even if it costs a billion dollars.

A .50 caliber round fired by a US military member teaches the same lesson as if it were fired by a private security guard. The only difference is who funds that .50 caliber round.

The Seals are better shots.

The Seals are supposed to protect America, not commercial shipping lanes.

So if American citizens are kidnapped abroad, they shouldn't get involved?

The American Constitution extends no further than our borders.

The United States Constitution applies to actions between the United States and its citizens and applies anywhere those two are present together. The role of the military is to protect its citizens and its land regardless of where they are at.

Also, A ship sailing under the American Flag is within the borders of the United States. It is the same as any US embassy or consulate. No US consulate or embassy is actually within the borders of the US but they are all considered soveriegn US territory and the same is extended to the consulates, embassies, and ships of other nations.

You aren't impressed by the 2009 Ford Escape Hybrid. Are you impressed by the 2009 Toyota Camry Hybrid? If you are, maybe you shouldn't be. The Escape is rated at 34/31 MPG city/highway by the EPA while the Camry is rated at 33/34 city/highway. However, the duo rate as the 4th and 5th most fuel efficient vehicles under city driving conditions in the US for MY2009. The Escape is also a small SUV if you weren't aware and provides roughly the same relative increase in fuel efficiency over the non-hybrid version as the Camry hybrid does over its non-hybrid version. Neither Toyota or Honda offer a comparable vehicle to the Escape as a Hybrid. The Escape has been available as a Hybrid since 2005.

Also, Honda doesn't offer a hybrid in the mid-size sedan segment since they dropped the Accord hybrid which didn't use the hybird technology to increase fuel economy but to increase performance. Ford now offers the Ford Fusion as a Hybrid, though as a 2010, and is rated at 41/36 MPG city/highway. It is the most fuel efficient mid-size sedan in the US that is based on an existing non-hybrid.

If you read the text of the bill you will notice that people covered under their current employers' insurance or their own private insurance aren't exempted from acquring additional insurance under this bill unless their employer provides the insurance under a "qualified collective bargaining agreement". And this is intentional as the CBA provisions don't apply if the CBA is entered into 7 years after the bill becomes law. Also, all of the employer contributions and personal contributions are going the the state governments. This bill isn't about requiring people to buy insurance. It is about funding a national health program. It doesn't care if you have private insurance or not, you will be required to pay the tax as determined by the law and required to enroll in a government run health care program.

But I wouldn't worry too much about this bill. It was introduced just over 2 years ago. I would be worried that it will be proposed again in a nearly identical form and could make it through.

The idea behind the bill is a good idea and this one could easily be adapted to fix its deficiencies. It also hasn't even made it out of committee so it probably isn't going anywhere.

The bill is a pretty good idea. It doesn't outright ban any animals and it requires a risk assesment to determine what animals pose a risk to the US environment. However, it gives a very short timeline to create the lists of acceptable and unacceptable animals. It also doesn't automatically include any animal. It also says that all animals have to be listed either on the acceptable or excluded list. That is impossible to do. Ultimately it is inflexible and would probably cause more problems than it solves. It also doesn't seem to have any way to modify the lists after they are created.

A better way would be to fund an initial list of allowable and excluded animals and at the conlcusion of the initial study implement the restrictions. At that time then they should also make it possible to have animals on neither list added by the person wanting to import or sell the animal. The importer/seller would have to conduct a risk assement at their own cost.

While the news surrounding the sovereignty movement is relatively new, California passed their declaration of sovereignty in 1994. Also, several states proposed or adopted their declarations before Obama was even considered as being able to beat Hillary in the primaires. It isn't so much a reaction to Obama as the overal situation of the country right now. Though, much of this reccesion B.S. is an overreaction by individuals and businesses alike.

As far as Obama's policies I consider it probably the biggest expansion of unconstitiutional spending since Roosevelt's New Deal.

As far as this all being a bit pre-Civil War, there are only 2 ways to change the contsititution, and the easiest involves bloodshed.

Japan is actually being kind by allowing her to stay. Japan nationality is only obtained at birth by those those born of Japanese parents not to those born on Japanese soil. So she is not a Japanese citizen and has no right to remain in the country.

I read this article earlier today and I thought it was interesting that Hawaii is second on the list. If I remember right the sales taxin Hawaii when I was there in November was somewhere in the neighborhood of 4%. However, Washington which came out 8th on the list has a sales tax of around 9% in the greater Seattle area where most people live.

There is a free video converison software called Super Super-Video Conversion Software, that uses existing video codecs on your computer and is limited to those on your computer but has a variety of options for format and sizing. I have used it to convert 5 minutes of video at around 50mb in .WMV format down to about 10 to 20 mb in .MOV format, in order to email to my wife and also compress 1.5gb version of a full length movie down to about 700mb for a VCD. Most standard uncompressed AVI is about 1gb for 5min at 640x480 resolution.

Of course. Why would the government give back powers they've been granted?

Should never have been authorized in the first place.

Why shouldn't it have been?

Non-US citizens outside the US have no rights under the Constittuion and that is what we are talking about, calls and email originating from foreign citizens outside the US.

The thing is the government is pouring money into the two failing companies and that money probably could be better used by the company that isn't in trouble. That is just what all this bailout BS does, takes money that well run companies could use and giving it to prop up failing ones.

The problem is if ANY of the automotive manufacturers actually goes under it means serious problems for all automotive companies, not just American ones. While most automotive vendors supply to multiple companies if even one of their customers(the automotive manufacturers) goes under they will likely go under as well. This is because the costs of their tooling, design, and manufacaturing processes are shared amongst the different but similar products they supply to the various manufacturers. You might have a supplier in Ohio that makes parts for BMW, GM, and Toyota, if suddenly 1/3rd or more of their business disappears they can no longer afford to make parts at their current price point. This means they now either lose money on the parts they make for BMW and Toyota, because by contract the price is allready fixed, or they try and negotiate a higher price. Negotiating a price high enough to make up the difference isn't likely because the manufacturer will balk at the idea of a 30% price increase. What happens next is either BMW and Toyota buy up the supplier or go to another supplier. If they buy up the supplier that means they now take on the risk of manufacture and development and probably lose money until they can sell the supplier or spin it off seperately. If they go to another supplier the whole market loses a capable supplier and now we are down to a handfull of parts suppliers which puts the manufacturers in the awkward position of having only 1 or 2 suppliers for a part when they had 5 before. This means a higher risk of manufacturing delays or shortages and also the risk that their only remaining supplier will go under and they then have to assume manufacture.

These incidents would have happened with or without access to firearms. People that want to kill others out of desperation will do so. The situation with firearms might be more dangerous but they aren't neccesarily more deadly. Tokyo Rampage

Absolutely possible. I would have been 2 months but USCIS had a problem with the translation of the Konin Todoke Juri Shomeisho so I got an RFE and haven't heard back from them sice they recieved the new copies and translations.

I think the disturbing thing for me here is that this is not some bizarre anomaly, but that this has indeed happened before to women there and pretty much with the same result.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/17/saudi.rape.victim/

Regarding the case in the link, not the OP, she was NOT punished for the rape incident. She was initially convicted but that was overturned and she was then convicted for having premarital sex with her boyfriend and being with a male non-relative. Her boyfriend was also raped in the incident.

Stangguy - can you even tell the difference between politics and academia?

Sure,

Academia- a bunch of stuck up suits that live in an ivory tower and use numbers, theories, etc. to justify their beliefs.

Politics- a bunch of stuck up suits that live in an ivory tower but claim to be "regular" people in order to justify their beliefs.

But it in all seriousness in this situation it is irrelevant because the actions undertaken by John Lott regarding the fake persona were political in nature. While he may have committed academic fraud in the instance of the "missing" survey, posing as a different person to praise his own work for political and economic reasons is not academic fraud.

How can you possibly know this?

From what Hal said - it sounds rather more likely that Lott was asked to leave because he refused, or was otherwise unable to meet the institutions academic standards and validate his methodology.

As to the rest, again - John Lott pretended to be a completely different person to promote his own work and to heckle his critics. Firstly, its dishonest; secondly, the only reason to do this is political and to suggest that his work has wider appeal than it actually does.

He spun his own work! Who does that!?

Who spins their own work, with false name? Why the founding fathers of the United States do of course. Jefferson, Madison, et. al. frequently paid newspapers to write articles and letters attacking their opponents and supporting their own positions.

The point is, Bill - that tax incentive had a huge impact on the auto industry, not only by enticing car buyers, but enticing Detroit itself. What Obama is doing is no different in that sense...except he wants both Detroit and car buyers to be enticed into driving more fuel efficient cars. BTW, under Clinton, there was a rebate for Hybrids, but Bush and the GOP in Congress pushed to end those. You've got to wonder why.

The Hybrid tax credit wasn't eliminated it was reconfigured. It is based on the number of hybrids a given manufacturer makes. After a manufacturer reaches a given total that manufacturers vehicles are no longer eligible for the tax credit. The idea of the credit was to offset the higher initial costs of including hybrid technology in a vehicle. Once a given manufacturer has made a certain number of vehicles the increased cost of the hybrid technology should be reduced and the vehicle cost should be similar to non-hybrids. However, even with the tax credits and increased fuel efficiency the increased price of a hybrid vehicle over a non-hybrid makes most hybrids more expensive to own than their non-hybrid counterparts.

Also, while this is the first explicit change in the CAFE requirements, there have been 2 prior changes. In 1984 and 2008 they changed the test methods that determine a vehicles fuel economy. Both times it caused the estimates to be lower than under the previous test method so they had the effect of increasing CAFE requirements.

Here is an interesting thought, in United States v. Miller in 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that the second Ammendment only protects the rights of citizens to posses military type firearms. That ruling hasn't been revisited but it was mentioned in Distict of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, saying that Miller only addresses the type of firearms that one can posses under the second ammendment. Also, only 6 supreme court cases have referenced Miller and none with respect to any "assault weapon" ban. I'm suprised at that, but would expect based on the weapons specifically mentioned in the various proposed versions of the ban, being military in origin, that any ban would be overturned.

I'm guessing in both cases he was in the far outskirts of the city?

#######? Within 3 km of the center of both blasts.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/as...ki-1654294.html

3km was about the size of the blast radius in Hiroshima if I recall correctly. It also was about the extent of the entire city at the time. However, it would have taken about a minute for the blast to propogate to that area. In Hiroshima the Hypocenter was about 2km south of Hiroshima castle and the military headquarters for central Japan which was considered the northern point of the city. Also, all of the damage outside of 1km was due to the heat and winds starting fires not because of radiation. There is a ferro-concrete building less than 200m from the hypocenter that is still in use today, the interior of the building was destroyed but its exterior survived along with a man in the basement. Further out there are other ferro-concrete buildings that survived but pretty much all of the buildings of traditional Japanese construction were destroyed.

sir u are right all military style weapons should be outrightly ban, I don't own a gun but beleive people should be abble to protect them self with an hand gun not a war gun, Pre. Obama its time to make those promises come to life pls do something b4 criminal take over this beloved Country

The first battle of the revolutionary war at Lexington was fought to protect the self organized militia's storage of firearms, as the British regulars were coming to sieze the cache of weapons. Once the British military siezed Boston in order for their freedom to leave the city, colonists had to relinquish their firearms. The British did this to restrict the ability of the colonists to fight back. It is for these reasons that we have the second ammendment. The second ammendment is about having the right to fight back against our own government with force if the time comes to do so. Prohibiting citizens direct access to military quality semi-automatic weapons is every bit an infringement on the ability to adequately confront the govenrment with force.

Apples to oranges. Assault rifles can fire off much faster and with more accuracy than high powered handgun and from a much farther distance.

Look, when the police are calling for assault rifle ban, then you know they have legitimate concerns for their safety as well that of citizens. It's really not that difficult to see the potential threat. And if you think any projectile weapon should be legal, why not allow missile launchers? Tanks? Reasonable regulations can and will be instituted...without any constitutional challenge. The gun lobby knows that which is why they focus their efforts on PR to scare citizens into thinking that the government wants to take away their guns. Pure fear mongering. In the meantime, police officers are dying.

yes, assault rifles can fire faster, but that's usually known as spray and pray. assault rifles are hindered in close quarters too.

So the perpetrator in this case barricaded himself in an apartment. Do you really think he would have been able to kill two heavily armored SWAT members as well as injuring a third one with anything other than an assault rifle? Because, if so, our police and SWAT are f##ked anytime someone wants to barricade themselves in building. Might as well bomb the building or fire rockets into it.

Only military grade ceramic body armor and "bomb" proof armor is capable of stopping centerfire rifle bullets. Even then it is not 100% effective. SWAT does not typically wear ceramic plate body armor though they probably should. Traditional body armor is only capable of stopping pistol rounds. Additionally, most deer rounds are more deadly than military rounds. This is because military rounds are usually lighter and are not allowed to fragment or expand on impact due to the Geneva convention. Many popular deer rounds however are manufactured with a hollow point expanding bullet in order to inflict more damage and kill the animal faster. The only inherrent advantage an "assault" rifle has over a semi-automatic deer rifle is its lighter weight which isn't always the case now that composite materials have reached mainstream products.

With that said, it is suicidal to attempt to take someone by force who has baricaded himself unless wearing military grade armor or being absolutely certain that the person doesn't have a rifle.

An assault rifle is a rifle designed for combat, with selective fire (capable of shooting fully automatic and semi automatic). Assault rifles are the standard infantry weapons in most modern armies, having largely superseded or supplemented battle rifles (which are similar to assault rifles but are larger and more powerful) such as the FN FAL and the Heckler & Koch G3. Examples of assault rifles include the AK-47, the M16 and the Steyr AUG.

wiki

assault rifle

NOUN: Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat.

yahoo education

n. Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat.

answers.com

The Mini-14, Mini Thirty, and Mini-6.8 are small, lightweight semi-automatic carbines manufactured by the U.S. firearms company Sturm, Ruger.

...............

History

The Mini-14 was first introduced in 1974 by Ruger. Mini-14 is derived from the military M14 rifle implying a miniature version of the M14. Ruger used the M14 as a model for the new rifle while incorporating numerous innovations and cost-saving engineering changes. The Mini-14 proved popular with small-game hunters, ranchers, law enforcement, security personnel and target shooters.

wiki

and what country has adopted the mini-14 for their army? from what i can find, none!

While I agree that semi-automatic rifles should not be banned the legal definition of "assault weapon" is much broader than what you list.

here is the California deffintion of assault weapon.

Category I assault weapons are those specifically named by make and model in Penal Code §12276 (and echoed in California Code of Regulation §979.10). These firearms are assault weapons at even the bare receiver/frame level – regardless of any particular characteristic features. Thus an Uzi receiver would be banned by name, but a similar Group Industries receiver would be legal (as long as offending Category III features were not added).

Category II assault weapons consist of the AR15 and AK “series” of firearms. While AR and AK series were named in the original Roberti-Roos laws, due to various key court decisions about “series” membership it’s useful to refer to them as their own category, those these guns really have just fallen back into the Roberti-Roos list once listed by DOJ.

Category III assault weapons are defined by characteristic features listed in PC 12276.1:

RIFLES:

A semiautomatic centerfire rifle capable of accepting detachable magazines and any of:

▪ a pistol grip protruding conspicuously below the weapon’s action

▪ a thumbhole stock or folding or telescopic stock;

▪ a flash suppressor, grenade launcher or flare launcher;

▪ a forward pistol grip.

A semiautomatic centerfire rifle with overall length of less than 30 inches;

A semiautomatic centerfire rifle with a fixed magazine holding over 10 rounds.

PISTOLS:

A semiautomatic pistol capable of accepting detachable magazines and any of the following:

▪ a threaded barrel;

▪ a second handgrip;

▪ capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside the pistol grip;

▪ a shroud attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel allowing

bearer to fire weapon without burning his/her hand, except for a slide enclosing

the barrel;

A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine having capacity to accept over 10 rounds.

SHOTGUNS:

A semiautomatic shotgun having both of the following:

▪ a folding or telescoping stock;

▪ a pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,

a thumbhole stock, or a vertical handgrip.

A semiautomatic shotgun with the ability to accept detachable magazines;

Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder

The last proposed federal "Assault Weapon" ban is similar while also listing the mini-14 as an illegal assault weapon, as well as any weapon procured for military or federal law enforcement use. Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007__WIKI It didn't pass but these are the common definitions of "assault rifle" I was referring to.

Charles, that's a classic bait and switch argument made by the gun lobby - to make it sound as if it's impossible to classify what guns are used for hunting vs. what guns were made for combat. We can argue over what is is all night...the fact is that there assault rifles that were manufactured for combat use and those types of weapons shouldn't be on the streets. Our police officers shouldn't have to equip themselves to fight against such armament.

The only way to distinguish between military and civilian weapons is whether they have an automatic fire mode, beyond that it is impossible to distinguish between which weapons are made for military purpose and which are made for civilian purposes. All semi-automatic rifles function in the same way. The action doesn't know if it is in a military or civilian weapon. Additionally, most of the major rounds currently used for hunting are military in origin. And just because the "civilian" rifle that fired the round looks different from the military rifle that fires the same round doesn't mean the bullet is any less deadly.

The .30-06 round which is the most common choice for North American large game, was developed in 1906 as military cartidge.

The Remington 700 rifle which is one of the most common choices for deer hunters is also known as the M24 in the US Army.

And both of the mini-14s shown are assault rifles by most common definitions. It is derived from the military M14 which existed just prior to the adoption of the M16 and is still used in limited capacity by the US military. It also fires the military grade NATO 5.56x45 and equivalent civilan Remington .223 round.