Most real scientists buy into anthropogenic global warming (climate change.) Most of them aren't on neatorama. expecting the readership here to contribute anything but lay platitudes is a lot sillier than denying human-induced global warming. personally, i buy it because the advocates are competent, most subscribe to the scientific method, the evidence is cross-supporting, the correlations tight. i could give a rats-ass if you believe in it or not, as it's very likely you also eat at mcdonalds, pray before bed, and avoid the number 13. if you are an american today, you mostly don't know where mexico is, how many people live on the planet, or who gauss was. your iphone skills masquerade as techno-smarts, and you wouldn't know gallium arsenide from silicon carbide or why those two compounds are even related. heat up, cool down. who cares? your kids will die off from something else, anyway... nuclear war, new pathogens, invasive species. sad, but not really. it's what happens to life forms.

as george carlin said, the planet (and life) will be just fine, thank you. it's the humans that are fcked.

A pistol fired while excited is not very accurate at any kind of distance. Even a decent shot, if he is rushed, scared, winded will pull too hard, shoot too fast, fail to aim well, assume a bad stance. There's also a big difference between shooting a perfectly stationary paper target at 50 feet and a moving one at 20. The angle change alone makes aiming for a critical point difficult, not to mention how those critical points may change during 100 milliseconds. Bullets aren't light beams and the farther the target, the more the potential for the aim point to move post discharge.

Even with something like deer hunting, a moving shot is not only bad form, it's seldom successful, and that's with a rifle.

Last, not all bullets that connect yield a disabled/killed target. Depends on what is hit, how it's hit, what's in the way, how much adrenaline is circulating, etc.

Hollywood often portrays Clint Eastwood taking out some guy on a horse traveling 20 MPH at an angle to the shooter, a diminishing angular presentation to the shooter, with a projectile that is decreasing in velocity for every foot it travels and dropping in space at the same rate as any other dropped object. The math doesn't add up to the kill rate on screen. Patent bullsht.

Lucky shots do happen, of course. For real life, non-Western gun fights, a case in point is Audie Murphy, of WW2 fame. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audie_Murphy

There are a few other, really improbable cases in WW2 that simply defy comprehension, but he's a pretty good one.

Nice post. Thanks.

...but still fail to find any evidence of god, like the rest of us.

this kind of crap is a waste of even free bandwidth.

I hope the article doesn't omit religion. As hoaxes go, it's at the top.

@edward...

perhaps it's because you haven't spent a long time perfecting method?

not denying the results are nice, but they aren't michaelangelo or houdon or bernini... they are microsoft.

do you know any of those artists i mentioned? in particular, peek at bernini. there are grades of mastery, and method counts.

Excellent machinist; i'm a bit more reserved with the word 'sculptor' when digitization and computerized lathes/milling gets into the mix.

it's like calling a digital photograph equivalent to a Renoir. Direct artist involvement with the material, start to finish is at least one of my personal criteria for distinguishing art from craft from industry. this is more craft.

Of course, if you are pleased with a google sketchup approach to art and just want your printout in stone, this guy is your man.

to put it in internet terms... your cousin who builds you a new gamer pc isn't on the same level as the engineer who designed the multi-core processor at its heart, or for that matter, the fellows who wrote the printer driver. different life forms.