http://www.mixx.com/users/bkocik Mixx of activity by bkocik en-us Most interesting thing I've seen on the web in a long time. Fri Aug 15 17:02:45 UTC 2008 http://www.mixx.com/photos/1823784/he_took_a_polaroid_every_day_until_the_day_he_died comment_122238 I am a bit more excited about this than is probably healthy. I can't wait to see if this collider provides evidence of additional dimensions in support of superstring theory. Go CERN!!! Fri Aug 08 20:49:36 UTC 2008 http://www.mixx.com/stories/1768037/date_set_for_large_hadron_collider_launch_zdnet_co_uk comment_117915 A date has finally been announced for the switching on of the world's most powerful particle accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider. Fri Aug 08 20:49:36 UTC 2008 http://www.mixx.com/stories/1768037/date_set_for_large_hadron_collider_launch_zdnet_co_uk thingy_1768037 bkocik http://news.zdnet.co.uk/emergingtech/0,1000000183,39458691,00.htm This is what we get for giving the guy an admin account. And database access. And calling him "boss". Tue Aug 05 17:36:29 UTC 2008 http://www.mixx.com/photos/1676643/flickr_joedzik_s_photostream comment_116013 There's nothing more you can do to these men that would compare to the loss of their kids. There is no way to punish someone who is already dead inside. Thu Jul 24 17:09:18 UTC 2008 http://www.mixx.com/stories/1337073/children_died_after_forgetful_fathers_left_them_in_cars_times_online comment_111900 Given that he was ousted from the top job at a struggling AOL, Jonathan F. Miller might not seem a natural candidate to advise its Internet rival Yahoo Inc. (YHOO) But Miller was instrumental in transforming AOL into an advertising company, giving him exp Mon Jul 21 20:47:17 UTC 2008 http://www.mixx.com/stories/1245043/excite_news_ousted_aol_chief_miller_could_guide_yahoo_strategy thingy_1245043 bkocik http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080721/D922EEF80.html Dammit - I didn't think they'd ever catch me! Thu Jul 17 20:51:11 UTC 2008 http://www.mixx.com/stories/1122880/mad_genetics_dna_tests_reveal_who_was_having_sex_with_neanderthals_40_000_years_ago comment_109493 Microsoft met Time Warner yesterday to discuss a possible merger of the two companies' online business, the WSJ reports. Thu Jul 17 12:57:04 UTC 2008 http://www.mixx.com/stories/1109097/microsoft_eyes_aol_takeover_the_register thingy_1109097 bkocik http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/17/aol_microsoft_yahoo/ With a year under her belt as superintendent of Detroit Public Schools, Connie Calloway has been praised by supporters for uncovering financial mismanagement and ideas on using test results to identify areas in which students need to improve. Mon Jun 30 15:39:15 UTC 2008 http://www.mixx.com/stories/613173/detroit_public_schools_chief_facing_a_crisis_freep_com_detroit_free_press thingy_613173 bkocik http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080630/NEWS01/806300331 @zheisey You're right, I stated that too strongly. But though I don't have a reference for you right now (I wish I did), I've seen recently where studies have shown that in the states and municipalities where gun control laws have been relaxed and CCWs have become more readily attainable, crime rates have fallen. There were dozens of examples, and while not a single one of them failed to show a positive impact on the crime rate, I cannot prove that there does not exist a case where the outcome was not the same. Your opinion that you'd feel safer in a place that doesn't allow for concealed carry (say, DC, murder capital of the world) as opposed to a place that does not (say, WV, which has a low crime rate altogether) runs contrary to logic in my mind. But you are certainly entitled to your personal preference, and I completely respect that. As for me, I feel much safer where CCW is allowed - which is almost everywhere else besides DC, Wisconsin, Illinois, and much of California and Maryland - than where it isn't. As for the facts, they consistently show that relaxed gun ownership restrictions do not lead to a rise in violent crime. They just plain don't. It doesn't happen. Famously, and just one example among many, Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police Association was a highly vocal and staunch opponent of changes to law in his area that would allow people to obtain concealed carry permits. But after the law was passed, he had this to say: "I lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn't happened. All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen. No bogeyman. I think it's worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I'm a convert." Opinions and beliefs aside, the facts simply do not support the notion that such laws lead to an increase of violence, and in the majority of cases they appear to actually lead to significant reductions (as they say, criminals prefer an unarmed public, and that is more than just a sound bite, the data actually support it). There's just no getting around it. BTW, thanks for calling me out on my error - I apologize for my misstatement. And thanks for the debate. It's refreshing to have this sort of open discourse with someone who disagrees with my stance, but who clearly isn't "just another anti-gun zealot." Thu Jun 26 17:11:58 UTC 2008 http://www.mixx.com/stories/502430/high_court_strikes_down_gun_ban comment_101135 @zheisey DC banned gun ownership over 32 years ago. Guess which US city is the murder capital of the world. Go ahead, guess. But to answer your question - yes, it makes sense to limit their use and availability, which is what reasonable gun laws are designed to do. An outright ban only guarantees that the only people who will have them are those that disregard the law, and is anything but reasonable. And yeah, more people wielding handguns happens to be exactly what we need, because the "more" people that will have them now are the law-abiding citizens that previously weren't allowed to. As it happens, in every single case where gun laws have been loosened and concealed carry permits issued to responsible citizens (not that this ruling will cause DC to start issuing CCWs), crime levels have dropped measurably. No reasonable person is a fan of handgun violence, and those of us who support the right of the people to own them are no different. But usually we are able to recognize that gun control which is overly strict has the opposite effect of what's intended. Believe it or not, those of us who are happy about this decision share the same desire as many of those who are not - we want to see less crime, less violence, and fewer innocent people getting killed. The way to do that, though, is not to ban gun ownership. That has never, ever worked. Thu Jun 26 16:14:53 UTC 2008 http://www.mixx.com/stories/502430/high_court_strikes_down_gun_ban comment_101103