Congratulations, you've managed to recognise an obviously tongue-in-cheek comment by applying basic reading skills. Oh no, wait... you didn't.

You want credible sources?

Here ya go:
correlation of gun ownership with suicide and homocide
How right-to-carry impacts the crime rate (hint: it's not good)

Understand, I don't want to ban guns. I have friends who hunt and shoot a lot, (I've done it myself a few times and quite frankly, shooting is fun).

The problem is that it's simply way too easy to get a gun in the US. You know why you have "armed thugs" breaking into your house? BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS A FUCKING GUN. In other 1st world countries, most break-ins are unarmed, because as Jim said, most people just want your TV.

Now, it may be that the ship has sailed in the U.S. because you failed to do anything about this for so long. But it would absolutely make sense to make it just a bit more difficult for anyone to have access to a gun.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by eric3579. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Awesome however *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/CYMATICS-Science-Vs-Music-Nigel-Stanford-1

Where to start, Lawdeedaw?
First, your comment was not limited to American colleges, so your admonition to @bareboards2 is a misstep.
Second, I must guess from the grammar and your estimations that you were visiting these colleges, not enrolled, because my experience was far different. I was a struggling full time, minimum wager earner while I went to college on my own dime for YEARS, because I wanted to learn things, not for a 'degree' to get a good paying career. I knew many others there that may have hoped to better their earning potential, but also wanted to better themselves, and so took many elective classes that didn't further an academic career, as did I. I also knew some of those at Stanford, but fewer.
EDIT:The poor not caring about education is not only wrong, it's extremely insulting. Because attaining good education is more difficult does not make it less important to them, in fact it's likely MORE important, and many sacrifice to a degree inconceivable to the 'rich' to educate themselves and their children.
And not all Americans are overt consumerists ruled by their base emotions and without any self control. Many are, but not all by a long shot.

No, many are actually considered non-profits. That doesn't mean they don't make money, it means they are supposed to spend it on the college. For Stanford in the 80's for instance, that meant spending millions on parties for employees to avoid being 'profitable' and later they were busted for it, because multi million dollar parties weren't considered reasonable business expenses.

@ChaosEngine

I hope I don't have to be the one to point out the multitude of studies which have shown where crowds, group think or subjugation of one's opinion's to someone's authority results in terrible consensual decisions being made:

Stanford Prison Experiment
Milgram Experiment
Asch Conformity Experiment
Bystander Effect

In a situation like this, it's likely no one in the crowd has ever dealt with a serious fire. They may not recognise the risks of unexpected suffocation. They may not recognise how fast fire can travel or the risks of being trapped.

Earthquakes are somewhat different (and living in Oz I have no experience with them), but I would imagine that they can go from mild to serious very unexpectedly. California sits on multiple major fault lines. A serious earthquake is very plausible, it is in fact 'expected and long overdue' to happen:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/16/us-japan-quake-california-idUSTRE72F5KG20110316

This probably requires some background. The details of the story are not totally clear, and won't be pending an investigation. The facts are that Jonathan Martin left the team after what was described as a "breakdown" in the cafeteria. Apparently the team was pranking him by banding together and refusing to sit with him. This is the sort of behavior you see. Afterwards allegations of physical beating and voice mails were revealed that suggested Richie Incognito (I know, ironic name) was the primary perpetrator of the abuses.

Focus has been on the use of the racial epithet in question. Frankly, I think this is a red herring. I, like many of you, don't really care about the use of that word. That said, I think Shannon is correct in stating there are signs of something deeper here. That is, real actual issues of race relations.

You've heard here that Incognito is thought of as an "honorary black" in that locker room. More background is that Jonathan Martin would have been the third generation in his family to graduate from Harvard, but he decided to go to Stanford instead. It's been suggested that Martin was ostracized more for this reason than anything. He just came from a completely different place than most of the other guys playing. At its root, the allegation is that they made him feel uncomfortable for coming from a wealthy black family.

What I find much more upsetting than any epithet is what I interpreted to be a continuation of the sort of attitude Shannon was talking about. By implying he had used an incorrect word rather than emotionally flubbing its pronunciation the implication, to me, is that his intellect is not being respected. Since this clip is most definitely about race, and that is a common stereotype about black men, I couldn't help but wonder if his skin color biased your judgements. That, to me, is much more troubling than throwing around nigger, fag, or kyke with your friends.

In the end, I think this whole story will blow over. It's just as likely to me that Martin was replaced as a starter, and is now trying to lawyer up (call his parents) to cash out his career. We won't know until they look into it. Still, in this context, I was surprised people here of all places would belittle this sort of commentary, and by extension the commentator. It's disrespectful to the message if nothing else. If you don't find discussions of race relations worth being dignified then I guess I think you're kind of a dick even if you aren't a bigot.

No, she LITERALLY doesn't. She has not been tested and found to be of Genius Level intellect. Although she does things that a very interesting, the one I find most intriguing was done in the Stanford Prison Experiment.

Robotics self-guiding car!
That Stanford Audi is the self-parking; no valet!
Just like the Google Prius---or the Carnegie Mellon robotics team car.

What was the deal with the Stanford Audi at the end?
I don't get it.

this subject is a quick way to blow your mind...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remarks_on_Colour

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/color/

http://web.mit.edu/philos/www/color-biblio.html

All Hail to the vital people whom work at children's hospitals worldwide which imbue this spirit...Coping couldn't be done without you.

Michaela, our first born daughter (2004-2011, HLHS: 2/3 cardiac transformation surgeries & 2 heart transplants), brought us in contact with many wonderful people at Stanford's Lucile Packard Children's Hospital. We will never forget them either.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/#2

This is going to be the focus of my grad studies. That said, I am in agreement with you.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
'nuf said.

*Ahem*
It's horrible how those people @ MIT, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Apple, Google, Ebay, Microsoft, Facebook, etc. just want things! Those worthless democrats keeping the economy alive are nothing but bloodsucking welfare recipients... If only they'd follow the lead of the republican states like Alabama, and Mississippi, we'd be in a better shape!