"And the fact that you've got 'REPLICA' written down the side of your gun, and the fact that I've got 'Desert Eagle .50' written on the side of mine should precipitate your balls shrinking along with your presence."
I wonder whether the peristance
of gun replicas
in British culture (along with the subject matter
of the writeup) is indicative of the popularity of these items in the British society.
Which in turn raises the question: are gun replicas so visible in England because gun control has made it actually difficult to obtain... you know... actual guns? Could the old addage be false? When guns are outlawed, only criminals would have guns, I thought. What if outlawing guns actually forces criminals to hold up stores using replicas?
I value my 2nd Amendment rights of course and am not arguing to the effectiveness of gun control (it's a long stretch.) Just wondering if replicas are indeed more prevalent in England (haven't seen much focus on replicas in either American culture or lawmaking, have we?) And if so, what may it suggest?
Should Google be Government-Regulated
Obviously, no. But here's some things to think about
You're essentially right, but there's a point you may be missing about Daniel Brandt's (never heard of him before) idea.
I work for a machinery retailer who does all its sales through the web. That means that, essentially, our existance depends on being among Google's top 4 results for certain keywords. Ensuring this is part of my job. I guess I am an SEO (Search Engine Optimization) professional...
The reason we focus SO heavily on Google is that, for an increasing number of people on the net, Google is their portal to everything - especially now that other portals like Yahoo, et al., are using Google for their results.
The downside to this is obvious. If you're not on Google, you're not on the internet. So, what would happen if somehow Google decided to go against PageRank and "override" our relevancy. They have the power to drive us out of business. They probably won't. But they could.
Google has almost complete control of what is and is not visible on the web. So potentially, they can very easily filter out things that they don't want people to see. Why would they do it?
Well... Why would the phone company decide to do away with phone service to a part of their service area? Why would the electric company shut down its generators in July heat? Why would the water company decide that you can only have water one hour a day?
The answer to those questions is: I don't know, it wouldn't make sense for these companies to do it. But the idea is that they need to be regulated to ENSURE this doesn't happen. Same with Google: I can't imagine they filtering out some sites of keywords, but they CAN: and this can have humongous effect on people all over the world.
An even better analogy is the broadcast industry. There are regulations that say that a single company cannot own so many local affiliates so it reaches more than XX% of the total population. The idea being that if someone has a monopoly on the medium, they can very effectively control the information that people who rely on this medium see.
Does it make sense that the Internet is immune to these issues? Well, yes and no. Some of us aren't dependant 100% on Google. In fact, sooner or later someone would post a "Hey, Google blocks this site" message on Slashdot" and the jig would be up. But most Internet users depend on Google 100% to find stuff on the web, and that's a lot of power for one private, and unregulated, firm to have.
If there are people like me whose job it is to make sure some things are easily findable by Google, there are certainly people who'd pay good money to make sure certain things are NOT found.
California Supreme Court Redefines Rape
A withdrawal of consent effectively nullifies any earlier consent and subjects the male to forcible rape charges if he persists in what has become nonconsensual intercourse.
A friend of mine was driving on the expressway when a homeless man stepped off the median and into his lane. My buddy was doing the speed limit and saw the bum. He slammed on the brakes, which were brand new, but there simply wasn't enough distance. He hit the bum at about 45 miles per hour, killing him instantly.
He didn't get into any legal trouble. No one charged him with murder.
Because everyone knows you can't stop when you've got momentum.