From: Neil Harrington on
Chris Malcolm wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> The principal is simple and logical. When you make laws against
>> carrying guns, only the law abiding citizens will obey these laws,
>> and so only the criminals will carry guns, and the crime rate will
>> go up. When you allow everyone to carry guns, some percentage of the
>> honest people will do so, and this is bad news for the criminals,
>> and the crime rates will go down. Or. at least, the criminals will
>> go elsewhere.
>
>> Why the hell the stupid liberals can't see and understand this is
>> beyond me, but they can't, and haven't been able to for all of my
>> life.
>
> It's the evidence, Bill. What those stupid liberals consider is the
> evidence. What the stupid fools don't realise is that if you take
> facts seriously you might have to change your mind about some
> things. That's why if you know you're right it's so important to
> ignore facts. But liberals are too stupid to realise that.

All the evidence and facts are on the pro-gun side of the argument, Chris.
You don't realize this because you're in the UK, which apparently over the
last century has suffered an epidemic of some astonishingly irrational form
of anti-gun psychoneurosis. It wasn't always this way. Before 1920,
Englishmen had the same rights to gun ownership that Americans did (and to a
considerable degree still do, though our rights have been somewhat whittled
away since the Gun Control Act of 1968). And your country up until that time
was quite peaceful, law-abiding and orderly, from most accounts. Compare
with what you've got now, after decades of ever more repressive gun control
laws and what seems to be the growing British view that any form of
effective self-defense may itself be a crime.

There's a very interesting and informative book about all this dealing
specifically with your country, which I wholeheartedly recommend to you.
It's "Guns and Violence: The English Experience" by Joyce Lee Malcolm. If
your local library doesn't have it, Amazon does, and I assume Amazon UK as
well.


From: Neil Harrington on
Chris Malcolm wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital D. Peter Maus <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:

>
>> No one has ever said that the bumblebee can't fly. Clearly it
>> can, it happens every day. Science has never been so blind as to
>> make such a claim. But what Science HAS said, is that the bumblebee
>> is UNSTABLE in flight, an aerodynamically unsound design. This
>> doesn't mean or even imply that it can't fly. Just that there would
>> be easier and better ways to achieve flight.
>
> Not so. What science said until recently was simply that according to
> our understanding of fixed wing aeroplane flight the bumblebee had
> insufficient wing area to fly.

That's the story as I always heard it too, "insufficient wing area to fly."

But the idea that "SCIENCE said" that is something I'm very skeptical about.
What sort of science could possibly arrive at such a conclusion?

In the first and most obvious place, a bumblebee is in no way comparable to
a fixed wing aircraft. What it is comparable to is an ornithopter, and I
don't think anyone ever built an ornithopter that could actually fly, so
that's a kind of aircraft that you wouldn't expect there to be enough
scientific data on to arrive at any conclusions about bumblebees.

> Not that it was unstable. It is in fact
> unusually stable in flight due to its relatively low centre of gravity
> and large effective dihedral.

How do you establish the "effective dihedral" of wings that are beating at
such an incredibly fast rate, though? I don't believe dihedral has anything
to do with it. Even if you could calculate the AVERAGE dihedral of a
bumblebee's wings, you'd still have to establish the incidence in order for
it to mean anything. Dihedral produces lateral stability only because (or
if) the wing also has positive incidence.

> The problem was that theoretically the
> wings weren't large enough to do the job they clearly were doing. So
> something was wrong with a simplified analysis of bee flight based on
> fixed wing aerodynamics.
>
> In the 1990s the important missing factor was discovered -- the
> trailing edge vortices which are such an important source of lift loss
> in fixed wing aerodynamics were exploited to add lift in the flight of
> many insects. In the 2000s high speed cinematography and mechanical
> simulations of bee wing motion demonstrated in practical detail that
> this was in fact what the bee was doing.

That's interesting.

I'd still like to know where the original "insufficient wing area" story got
started, though. Absent some proof of a serious scientific analysis in the
past claiming that, I'm inclined to believe it may be more of an urban myth.
It's a popular one anyway, and will probably go on forever -- like the
widely held belief that before Columbus everyone thought the earth was flat.


From: Ray Fischer on
Neil Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:
>Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> In rec.photo.digital Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The principal is simple and logical. When you make laws against
>>> carrying guns, only the law abiding citizens will obey these laws,
>>> and so only the criminals will carry guns, and the crime rate will
>>> go up. When you allow everyone to carry guns, some percentage of the
>>> honest people will do so, and this is bad news for the criminals,
>>> and the crime rates will go down. Or. at least, the criminals will
>>> go elsewhere.
>>
>>> Why the hell the stupid liberals can't see and understand this is
>>> beyond me, but they can't, and haven't been able to for all of my
>>> life.
>>
>> It's the evidence, Bill. What those stupid liberals consider is the
>> evidence. What the stupid fools don't realise is that if you take
>> facts seriously you might have to change your mind about some
>> things. That's why if you know you're right it's so important to
>> ignore facts. But liberals are too stupid to realise that.
>
>All the evidence and facts are on the pro-gun side of the argument, Chris.

That explains the positive correleation between gun availablility and
gun deaths?

What flavor was your KoolAid?

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: tony cooper on
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:50:07 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
wrote:

>
>"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
>news:oOmdneO8vOH6piPXnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>> D. Peter Maus wrote:
>>> On 9/23/09 10:01 , Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>>> In rec.photo.digital Bill Graham<weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The principal is simple and logical. When you make laws against
>>>>> carrying guns, only the law abiding citizens will obey these laws,
>>>>> and so only the criminals will carry guns, and the crime rate will
>>>>> go up. When you allow everyone to carry guns, some percentage of
>>>>> the honest people will do so, and this is bad news for the
>>>>> criminals, and the crime rates will go down. Or. at least, the
>>>>> criminals will go elsewhere.
>>>>
I think I unknowingly managed to take a photograph of you last week:
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos/651841603_9fsaJ-L.jpg


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Savageduck on
On 2009-09-26 18:45:02 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said:

> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:50:07 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
>> news:oOmdneO8vOH6piPXnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>> D. Peter Maus wrote:
>>>> On 9/23/09 10:01 , Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>>>> In rec.photo.digital Bill Graham<weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The principal is simple and logical. When you make laws against
>>>>>> carrying guns, only the law abiding citizens will obey these laws,
>>>>>> and so only the criminals will carry guns, and the crime rate will
>>>>>> go up. When you allow everyone to carry guns, some percentage of
>>>>>> the honest people will do so, and this is bad news for the
>>>>>> criminals, and the crime rates will go down. Or. at least, the
>>>>>> criminals will go elsewhere.
>>>>>
> I think I unknowingly managed to take a photograph of you last week:
> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos/651841603_9fsaJ-L.jpg

No that couldn't be Bill.
That guy is carrying openly, quite legally. Bill's preference is to
carry concealed without a permit.

--
Regards,

Savageduck