I have blogged about this before, and I stand by what I have written.

There have been times in the past where there was no ice at the poles.

Now, scientists think we could have a summer with no ice in the Arctic as early as 2030–just 20 years away!

I am not going to say it–because I already have…

The article states

An increasing number of experts feel the North Pole will be ice free in summer by 2030 at the latest, for the first time in a million years.

Please learn about the natural warming and cooling trends on this planet.  Do some research rather than just believe what people say–even it if appears everyone else is saying it…

Remember, “everyone” used to think the earth was flat and that the earth was at the center of the solar system.  How do you know what you “know?”  Is it because you accept what others say or because you thought critically about facts/data and have come to a conclusion?

A U.S. District Court has ruled that a person is not entitled to know if the government takes a look at your e-mail.

The opinion, available here, was written by Michael Mosman in a case involving probable cause for a search of an individual’s gmail e-mails in order to search for evidence of a crime. The federal government asked that the person whose e-mails were being searched had no right to kno his e-mails were being searched.

Be worried?

Not really. The federal government still have to have probable cause to get the warrant, but they don’t have to notify you.

Remember, the federal government can search items in a FedEx truck without notifying you–they do have to notify FedEx… Therefore, your ISP or mail provider will get a notice about the federal government searching your e-mail.

The 4th Amendment applies, but it applies to the Service Provider and not to the user who sent/received the e-mail message.

The Judge, in an article on Yahoo News, states

“If a suspect leaves private documents at his mother’s house and the police obtain a warrant to search his mother’s house, they need only provide a copy of the warrant and a receipt to the mother, even though she is not the ‘owner’ of the documents,” he writes.

Whether you like it or not, that makes legal sense…

I saw the video on Wave. It does look like a new way to communicate.

I wonder just how “new” this is or whether it is a new way to display data.

Wikis are everywhere. E-mail is everywhere. IM is everywhere… You get the idea.

Is this a database driven wiki that simply includes e-mail and IM? Is it more?

What happens when your internet connection goes down? Do you still have all the data or do you have to be on-line to use it? Is there a way to use peer-to-peer communication in case Google goes down (as unlikely as that might be…)?

Why do we want all of our communications public? Haven’t we already seen pictures and statements come back to haunt enough people? Do we think we won’t make any “mistake” or statement or picture that can be misinterpreted?

While interesting, do we want to let Google farm all of that data and/or sell it to others?

I need to read the license to see who owns the content and who has the right to use the content for what purpose(s).

Big brother may be an overstatement. However, maybe it isn’t.

Have you looked to see?

You may be asking why anyone would carry a loaded gun in public.

Of course, the police do it every day, and most people have no problem with the police carrying guns around in broad daylight.

Why are “normal civilians” any different? It might be that the person carrying the firearm has more training than the police. You never know. The person carrying the firearm may have no training. Funny how that works…

A story carried by the Associated Press states

Meleanie Hain made headlines after she attended her then 5-year-old daughter’s soccer game in a park on Sept. 11, 2008, with her 9mm Glock pistol in plain view holstered on her hip, upsetting other parents.

The county sheriff, Michael DeLeo, revoked her gun-carrying permit nine days later.

Hain successfully appealed the permit revocation, although the judge who restored the permit questioned her judgment and said she had “scared the devil” out of other people at the game.

Unfortunately, the article alleges their kids ran from the house yelling that their dad had shot their mom in a “murder-suicide.”

Back to the Issue…

When you see a policeman carrying a gun, nobody panics even though we don’t really know that the person in the uniform and carrying the gun is a police officer. We assume the person is an officer and we expect them to carry guns and know how to use firearms.

Our expectations kill us and appear to force us to not think critically.

Many of those “upset parents” at the soccer game likely know her but were scared by the “open carry” which is legal in many jurisdictions.

An attorney with the Brady Center (anti-gun group), one David Vice, was quoted in the article

“It is a case that calls out for common sense,” Brady Center attorney Daniel Vice said then. “It’s ridiculous to bring a gun to a child’s soccer game.”

I sincerely hope that nobody wants to make a point at a game where his child is running around playing soccer unless one educated, knowledgeable, and trained civilian is carrying a firearm with a valid concealed carry permit.

I’d hate to think that anyone’s child had to die because “we” were afraid that “we” couldn’t appropriately and carefully use a firearm to protect the public even though we are not “police officers.”

If someone was to pull a gun in public and start shooting, how long would it take the police to arrive?

What would you think of a civilian, your neighbor perhaps, if they pulled a gun and shot the lunatic that opened up at a kid’s soccer game with an uzi? Hero or someone lacking in “common sense?”