Application See Worldwide 2010 . Pdf: Fill & Download for Free

I wonder what is the tone of this question. Is it a sincere and innocent request for information? Or some sort of cynical rhetoric suggestion that the answer should be “very little”?I will give credit that it is a sincere “Ask” and answer accordingly. So here is a list of the inventions of just 10% of Great Britain - the Inventions of Scotland. If I included the inventions from the other 90% of Great Britain, I would swamp Quora!Road transport innovationsMacadamised roads (the basis for, but not specifically, tarmac): John Loudon McAdam (1756–1836)[3]The pedal bicycle: Attributed to both Kirkpatrick Macmillan (1813–1878)[2] and Thomas McCall (1834–1904)The pneumatic tyre: Robert William Thomson and John Boyd Dunlop (1822–1873)[9]The overhead valve engine: David Dunbar Buick (1854–1929)[10]Civil engineering innovationsTubular steel: Sir William Fairbairn (1789–1874)[11]The Falkirk wheel: Initial designs by Nicoll Russell Studios, Architects, RMJM, Architects and engineers Binnie Black and Veatch (Opened 2002)[12][13]The patent slip for docking vessels: Thomas Morton (1781–1832)[14][15]The Drummond Light: Thomas Drummond (1797–1840)[16]Canal design: Thomas Telford (1757–1834)[17]Dock design improvements: John Rennie (1761–1821)[18]Crane design improvements: James Bremner (1784–1856)[19]"Trac Rail Transposer", a machine to lay rail track patented in 2005, used by Network Rail in the United Kingdom and the New York Subway in the United States.[20][21][22]Aviation innovationsAircraft design: Frank Barnwell (1910) Establishing the fundamentals of aircraft design at the University of Glasgow.[23]Power innovationsCondensing steam engine improvements: James Watt (1736–1819)[1]Thermodynamic cycle: William John Macquorn Rankine (1820–1872)[24]Coal-gas lighting: William Murdoch (1754–1839)[25]The Stirling heat engine: Rev. Robert Stirling (1790–1878)[26]Carbon brushes for dynamos: George Forbes (1849–1936)[27]The Clerk cycle gas engine: Sir Dugald Clerk (1854–1932)[28]The wave-powered electricity generator: by South African Engineer Stephen Salter in 1977[29]The Pelamis Wave Energy Converter ("red sea snake" wave energy device): Richard Yemm, 1998[30]Shipbuilding innovationsEurope's first passenger steamboat: Henry Bell (1767–1830)[31]The first iron–hulled steamship: Sir William Fairbairn (1789–1874)[32]The first practical screw propeller: Robert Wilson (1803–1882)[citation needed]Marine engine innovations: James Howden (1832–1913)[33]John Elder & Charles Randolph (Marine Compound expansion engine)[33]Military innovationsLieutenant-General Sir David Henderson two areas: Field intelligence. Argued for the establishment of the Intelligence Corps. Wrote Field Intelligence: Its Principles and Practice (1904) and Reconnaissance (1907) on the tactical intelligence of modern warfare during World War I.[34]Special forces: Founded by Sir David Stirling, the SAS was created in World War II in the North Africa campaign to go behind enemy lines to destroy and disrupt the enemy. Since then it has been regarded as the most famous and influential special forces that has inspired other countries to form their own special forces too.Intelligence: Allan Pinkerton developed the still relevant intelligence techniques of "shadowing" (surveillance) and "assuming a role" (undercover work) in his time as head of the Union Intelligence Service.Heavy industry innovationsCoal mining extraction in the sea on an artificial island by Sir George Bruce of Carnock (1575). Regarded as one of the industrial wonders of the late medieval period.[35]Making cast steel from wrought iron: David Mushet (1772–1847)[36]Wrought iron sash bars for glass houses: John C. Loudon (1783–1865)[37]The hot blast oven: James Beaumont Neilson (1792–1865)[38]The steam hammer: James Nasmyth (1808–1890)[39]Wire rope: Robert Stirling Newall (1812–1889)[40]Steam engine improvements: William Mcnaught (1831–1881)[41]The Fairlie, a narrow gauge, double-bogie railway engine: Robert Francis Fairlie (1831–1885)[42]Cordite - Sir James Dewar, Sir Frederick Abel (1889)[43]Agricultural innovationsThreshing machine improvements: James Meikle (c.1690-c.1780) & Andrew Meikle (1719–1811)[44]Hollow pipe drainage: Sir Hew Dalrymple, Lord Drummore (1700–1753)[45]The Scotch plough: James Anderson of Hermiston (1739–1808)[46]Deanstonisation soil-drainage system: James Smith (1789–1850)[47]The mechanical reaping machine: Rev. Patrick Bell (1799–1869)[48]The Fresno scraper: James Porteous (1848–1922)[49]The Tuley tree shelter: Graham Tuley in 1979[50]Communication innovationsPrint stereotyping: William Ged (1690–1749)[51]Roller printing: Thomas Bell (patented 1783)[52]The adhesive postage stamp and the postmark: claimed by James Chalmers (1782–1853)[53]The Waverley pen nib innovations thereof: Duncan Cameron (1825–1901) The popular "Waverley" was unique in design with a narrow waist and an upturned tip designed to make the ink flow more smoothly on the paper.[54]Universal Standard Time: Sir Sandford Fleming (1827–1915)[55]Light signalling between ships: Admiral Philip H. Colomb (1831–1899)[56]The underlying principles of Radio - James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879)[57]The Kinetoscope, a motion picture camera: devised in 1889 by William Kennedy Dickson (1860-1935)[58]The teleprinter: Frederick G. Creed (1871–1957)[59]The British Broadcasting Corporation BBC: John Reith, 1st Baron Reith (1922) its founder, first general manager and Director-general of the British Broadcasting Corporation[60]Radar: A significant contribution made by Robert Watson-Watt (1892–1973) alongside Englishman Henry Tizard (1885-1959) and others[61]The automated teller machine and Personal Identification Number system - James Goodfellow (born 1937)[62]Publishing firstsThe first edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica (1768–81)[63]The first English textbook on surgery(1597)[64]The first modern pharmacopaedia, William Cullen (1776). The book became 'Europe's principal text on the classification and treatment of disease'. His ideas survive in the terms nervous energy and neuroses (a word that Cullen coined).[65]The first postcards and picture postcards in the UK[66]The first eBook from a UK administration (March 2012). Scottish Government publishes 'Your Scotland, Your Referendum'.[67][citation needed]The educational foundation of Ophthalmology: Stewart Duke-Elder in his ground breaking work including ‘Textbook of Ophthalmology and fifteen volumes of System of Ophthalmology’[68]Culture and the artsScottish National Portrait Gallery, designed by Sir Robert Rowand Anderson (1889): the world's first purpose-built portrait gallery.[69]Fictional charactersSherlock Holmes, by Sir Arthur Conan DoylePeter Pan, by J.M. Barrie, born in Kirriemuir, AngusLong John Silver and Jekyll and Hyde, by Robert Louis StevensonJohn Bull: by John Arbuthnot although seen as a national personification of the United Kingdom in general, and England in particular,[70] the character of John Bull was invented by Arbuthnot in 1712[71]James Bond was given a Scottish background by Ian Fleming, himself of Scottish descent, after he was impressed by Sean Connery's performance.Scientific innovationsLogarithms: John Napier (1550–1617)[72]Modern Economics founded by Adam Smith (1776) 'The father of modern economics'[73] with the publication of The Wealth of Nations.[74][75]Modern Sociology: Adam Ferguson (1767) ‘The Father of Modern Sociology’ with his work An Essay on the History of Civil Society[76]Hypnotism: James Braid (1795–1860) the Father of Hypnotherapy[77]Tropical medicine: Sir Patrick Manson known as the father of Tropical Medicine[78]Modern Geology: James Hutton ‘The Founder of Modern Geology’[79][80][81]The theory of Uniformitarianism: James Hutton (1788): a fundamental principle of Geology the features of the geologic time takes millions of years.[82]The theory of electromagnetism: James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879)[83]The discovery of the Composition of Saturn's Rings James Clerk Maxwell (1859): determined the rings of Saturn were composed of numerous small particles, all independently orbiting the planet. At the time it was generally thought the rings were solid. The Maxwell Ringlet and Maxwell Gap were named in his honor.[84]The Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution by James Clerk Maxwell (1860): the basis of the kinetic theory of gases, that speeds of molecules in a gas will change at different temperatures. The original theory first hypothesised by Maxwell and confirmed later in conjunction with Ludwig Boltzmann.[85]Popularising the decimal point: John Napier (1550–1617)[86]The first theory of the Higgs boson by English born [87] Peter Higgs particle-physics theorist at the University of Edinburgh (1964)[88]The Gregorian telescope: James Gregory (1638–1675)[89]The discovery of Proxima Centauri, the closest known star to the Sun, by Robert Innes (1861–1933)[90]One of the earliest measurements of distance to the Alpha Centauri star system, the closest such system outside of the Solar System, by Thomas Henderson (1798–1844)[91]The discovery of Centaurus A, a well-known starburst galaxy in the constellation of Centaurus, by James Dunlop (1793–1848)[92]The discovery of the Horsehead Nebula in the constellation of Orion, by Williamina Fleming (1857–1911)[93]The world's first oil refinery and a process of extracting paraffin from coal laying the foundations for the modern oil industry: James Young (1811–1883)[94]The identification of the minerals yttrialite, thorogummite, aguilarite and nivenite: by William Niven (1889)[95]The concept of latent heat by French-born Joseph Black (1728–1799)[96]Discovering the properties of Carbon dioxide by French-born Joseph Black (1728–1799)The concept of Heat capacity by French-born Joseph Black (1728–1799)The pyroscope, atmometer and aethrioscope scientific instruments: Sir John Leslie (1766–1832)[97]Identifying the nucleus in living cells: Robert Brown (1773–1858)[98]An early form of the Incandescent light bulb: James Bowman Lindsay (1799-1862)[99]Colloid chemistry: Thomas Graham (1805–1869)[100]The kelvin SI unit of temperature by Irishman William Thomson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907)[101]Devising the diagramatic system of representing chemical bonds: Alexander Crum Brown (1838–1922)[102]Criminal fingerprinting: Henry Faulds (1843–1930)[103]The noble gases: Sir William Ramsay (1852–1916)[104]The cloud chamber recording of atoms: Charles Thomson Rees Wilson (1869–1959)[105][106]The discovery of the Wave of Translation, leading to the modern general theory of solitons by John Scott Russell (1808-1882)[107]Statistical graphics: William Playfair founder of the first statistical line charts, bar charts, and pie charts in (1786) and (1801) known as a scientific ‘milestone’ in statistical graphs and data visualization[108][109]The Arithmetic mean density of the Earth: Nevil Maskelyne conducted the Schiehallion experiment conducted at the Scottish mountain of Schiehallion, Perthshire 1774[110]The first isolation of methylated sugars, trimethyl and tetramethyl glucose: James Irvine[111][112]Discovery of the Japp–Klingemann reaction: to synthesize hydrazones from β-keto-acids (or β-keto-esters) and aryl diazonium salts 1887[113]Pioneering work on nutrition and poverty: John Boyd Orr (1880–1971)[114]Ferrocene synthetic substances: Peter Ludwig Pauson in 1955[115]The first cloned mammal (Dolly the Sheep): Was conducted in The Roslin Institute research centre in 1996 by English scientists Ian Wilmut (born 1944) and Keith Campbell (1954–2012).[116]The seismometer innovations thereof: James David Forbes[117]Metaflex fabric innovations thereof: University of St. Andrews (2010) application of the first manufacturing fabrics that manipulate light in bending it around a subject. Before this such light manipulating atoms were fixed on flat hard surfaces. The team at St Andrews are the first to develop the concept to fabric.[118]Tractor beam innovations thereof: St. Andrews University (2013) the world's first to succeed in creating a functioning Tractor beam that pulls objects on a microscopic level[119][120]Macaulayite: Dr. Jeff Wilson of the Macaulay Institute, Aberdeen.[121]Discovery of Catacol whitebeam by Scottish Natural Heritage and the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh (1990s): a rare tree endemic and unique to the Isle of Arran in south west Scotland. The trees were confirmed as a distinct species by DNA testing.[122]The first positive displacement liquid flowmeter, the reciprocating piston meter by Thomas Kennedy Snr.[123]Sports innovationsMain article: Sport in ScotlandScots have been instrumental in the invention and early development of several sports:Australian rules football Scots were prominent with many innovations in the early evolution of the game, including the establishment of the Essendon Football Club by the McCracken family from Ayrshire[124][125][126][127][128]several modern athletics events, i.e. shot put[129] and the hammer throw,[129] derive from Highland Games and earlier 12th century Scotland[129]Curling[130]Gaelic handball The modern game of handball is first recorded in Scotland in 1427, when koKing James I an ardent handball player had his men block up a cellar window in his palace courtyard that was interfering with his game.[131]Cycling, invention of the pedal-cycle[132]Golf (see Golf in Scotland)Ice Hockey, invented by the Scots regiments in Atlantic Canada by playing Shinty on frozen lakes.Shinty The history of Shinty as a non-standardised sport pre-dates Scotland the Nation. The rules were standardised in the 19th century by Archibald Chisholm[133]Rugby sevens: Ned Haig and David Sanderson (1883)[134]The Dugout was invented by Aberdeen FC Coach Donald Colmanin the 1920sThe world's first Robot Olympics which took place in Glasgow in 1990.Medical innovationsPioneering the use of surgical anaesthesia with Chloroform: Firstly in 1842 by Robert Mortimer Glover then extended for use on humans by Sir James Young Simpson (1811–1870)[135] Initial use of chloroform in dentistry by Francis Brodie ImlachThe saline drip by Dr Thomas Latta of Leith in 1831/32The hypodermic syringe: Alexander Wood (1817–1884)[136]Transplant rejection: Professor Thomas Gibson (1940s) the first medical doctor to understand the relationship between donor graft tissue and host tissue rejection and tissue transplantation by his work on aviation burns victims during World War II.[137]First diagnostic applications of an ultrasound scanner: Ian Donald (1910–1987)[138]Discovery of hypnotism (November 1841): James Braid (1795–1860)[139]Identifying the mosquito as the carrier of malaria: Sir Ronald Ross (1857–1932)[140]Identifying the cause of brucellosis: Sir David Bruce (1855–1931)[141]Discovering the vaccine for typhoid fever: Sir William B. Leishman (1865–1926)[142]Discovery of Staphylococcus: Sir Alexander Ogston (1880)[143]Discovering the Human papillomavirus vaccine Ian Frazer (2006): the second cancer preventing vaccine, and the world's first vaccine designed to prevent a cancer[144]Discovering insulin: John J R Macleod (1876–1935) with others[8] The discovery led him to be awarded the 1923 Nobel prize in Medicine.[145]Penicillin: Sir Alexander Fleming (1881–1955)[7]General anaesthetic - Pioneered by Scotsman James Young Simpson and Englishman John Snow[146]The establishment of standardized Ophthalmology University College London: Stewart Duke-Elder a pioneering Ophthalmologist[68]The first hospital Radiation therapy unit John Macintyre (1902): to assist in the diagnosis and treatment of injuries and illness at Glasgow Royal Infirmary[147]Pioneering of X-ray cinematography by John Macintyre (1896): the first moving real time X-ray image and the first KUB X-ray diagnostic image of a kidney stone in situ[147][148][149]The Haldane effect a property of hemoglobin first described by John Scott Haldane (1907)[150]Oxygen Therapy John Scott Haldane (1922): with the publication of ‘The Theraputic Administration of Oxygen Therapy’ beginning the modern era of Oxygen therapy[151]Ambulight PDT: light-emitting sticking plaster used in photodynamic therapy (PDT) for treating non-melanoma skin cancer. Developed by Ambicare Dundee's Ninewells Hospital and St Andrews University. (2010)[152]Discovering an effective tuberculosis treatment: Sir John Crofton in the 1950s[153]Primary creator of the artificial kidney (Professor Kenneth Lowe - Later Queen's physician in Scotland)[154]Developing the first beta-blocker drugs: Sir James W. Black in 1964[155] The discovery revolutionized the medical management of angina[156] and is considered to be one of the most important contributions to clinical medicine and pharmacology of the 20th century.[157] In 1988 he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine.Developing modern asthma therapy based both on bronchodilation (salbutamol) and anti-inflammatory steroids (beclomethasone dipropionate) : Sir David Jack in 1972Glasgow coma scale: Graham Teasdale and Bryan J. Jennett (1974)[158]Glasgow Outcome Scale Bryan J. Jennett & Sir Michael Bond (1975): is a scale so that patients with brain injuries, such as cerebral traumas[159]Glasgow Anxiety Scale J.Mindham and C.A Espie (2003)[160]Glasgow Depression Scale Fiona Cuthill (2003): the first accurate self-report scale to measure the levels of depression in people with learning disabilities[161]ECG [Electrocardiography]: Alexander Muirhead. First recording of a human ECG (1869)[162][163]The first Decompression tables John Scott Haldane (1908): to calculate the safe return of deep-sea divers to surface atmospheric pressure[164]Surface Enhanced Raman Scattering (SERS): Strathclyde University (2014) A laser and nanoparticle test to detect Meningitis or multiple pathogenic agents at the same time.[165]Household innovationsThe television: John Logie Baird (1923)The refrigerator: William Cullen (1748)[166]The first electric bread toaster: Alan MacMasters (1893)The flush toilet: Alexander Cumming (1775)[167]The vacuum flask: Sir James Dewar (1847–1932)[168]The first distiller to triple distill Irish whiskey:[169]John Jameson (Whisky distiller)The piano footpedal: John Broadwood (1732–1812)[170]The first automated can-filling machine John West (1809–1888)[171]The waterproof macintosh: Charles Macintosh (1766–1843)[172]The kaleidoscope: Sir David Brewster (1781–1868)[173]Keiller's marmalade Janet Keiller (1797) - The first recipe of rind suspended marmalade or Dundee marmalade produced in Dundee.The modern lawnmower: Alexander Shanks (1801–1845)[174]The Lucifer friction match: Sir Isaac Holden (1807–1897)[175]The self filling pen: Robert Thomson (1822–1873)[176]Cotton-reel thread: J & J Clark of Paisley[177]Lime cordial: Lauchlan Rose in 1867Bovril beef extract: John Lawson Johnston in 1874[178]The electric clock: Alexander Bain (1840)[179]Chemical Telegraph (Automatic Telegraphy) Alexander Bain (1846) In England Bain's telegraph was used on the wires of the Electric Telegraph Company to a limited extent, and in 1850 it was used in America.[180]Barr's Irn Bru, refreshing soft drink produced by Barr's in Cumbernauld Scotland and exported to all around the world, The drink is so widely popular that in Scotland outsells both American colas Coca-Cola and Pepsi. And ranks 3rd most popular drink in the UK with Coca-Cola and Pepsi taking the first two spots.[181]Weapons innovationsThe carronade cannon: Robert Melville (1723–1809)[182]The Ferguson rifle: Patrick Ferguson in 1770 or 1776[183]The Lee bolt system as used in the Lee–Metford and Lee–Enfield series rifles: James Paris Lee[184]The Ghillie suit[185]The percussion cap: invented by Scottish Presbyterian clergyman Alexander Forsyth[186]Miscellaneous innovationsBoys' Brigade[187]Bank of England devised by William PatersonBank of France devised by John LawThe industrialisation and modernisation of Japan by Thomas Blake Glover[188]Colour photography: the first known permanent colour photograph was taken by James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879)[189]Buick Motor Company by David Dunbar Buick[190]New York Herald newspaper by James Gordon Bennett, Sr.[190]Pinkerton National Detective Agency by Allan Pinkerton[190]Forbes magazine by B. C. Forbes[190]The establishment of a standardized botanical institute: Isaac Bayley Balfour major reform, development of botanical science, the concept of garden infrastructure therein improving scientific facilities[191]London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine: founded by Sir Patrick Manson in 1899[78]SERIES-B by JAC Vapour - first UK designed and engineered electronic cigarette[192]See alsoList of British innovations and discoveriesList of domesticated Scottish breedsHomecoming Scotland 2009References"BBC - History - James Watt". Retrieved 2008-12-31."BBC - History - Kirkpatrick Macmillan". Retrieved 2008-12-31."Encyclopædia Britannica: John Loudon Mcadam (British inventor)". Retrieved 2010-06-13."Scottish Science Hall of Fame - Alexander Graham Bell (1847-1922)". Retrieved 2010-02-20."BBC - History - John Logie Baird". Retrieved 2008-12-31.The World's First High Definition Colour Television System. McLean, p. 196."Nobelprize.org: Sir Alexander Fleming - Biography". Retrieved 2008-12-31."Nobelprize.org: John Macleod - Biography". Retrieved 2008-12-31."Robert William Thomson, Scotland's forgotten inventor". Retrieved 2010-06-13.Pelfrey, William (2006). Billy, Alfred, and General Motors: The Story of Two Unique Men, a Legendary Company, and a Remarkable Time in American History. AMACOM. ISBN 978-0-8144-2961-7."Gazetteer for Scotland: Overview of Sir William Fairbairn". Retrieved 2010-06-14."Falkirk Wheel & Visitor Centre". Retrieved 2015-11-30."SKF Evolution online". Retrieved 2010-06-13."Clydesite Magazine: The Real Inventor of the Patent Slip". Retrieved 2010-06-13.The Edinburgh philosophical journal, Volume 2 Printed for Archibald Constable, 1820"The Gazetteer for Scotland: Overview of Thomas Drummond". Retrieved 2010-06-14.The life of Thomas Telford, Civil Engineer: With an introductory history of roads and travelling in Great Britain J. Murray, 1867John Rennie 1761–1821 Manchester University Press NDThe industrial archaeology of Scotland, Volume 2 Macmillan of Canada, 1977 - Social Science"Ayrshire brothers' invention to transform America's railways". BBC. 6 June 2016. Retrieved 7 June 2016."Laying lines". Railway Strategies (103). 6 January 2014. Retrieved 7 June 2016."US Patent Application No: 2008/0072,783 - Railway Rail Handling Apparatus and Method". PatentBuddy. Retrieved 7 June 2016.University of Glasgow :: World Changing:: Establishing fundamental principles in aircraft design"William John Macquorn Rankine". Retrieved 2014-01-13."William Murdoch - The Scot Who Lit The World". Retrieved 2010-06-14."Electric Scotland: Significant Scots - Robert Stirling". Retrieved 2010-06-14."The Gazetteer for Scotland: Overview of Prof. George Forbes". Retrieved 2010-06-14."Encyclopædia Britannica: Sir Dugald Clerk". Retrieved 2010-06-14."How Stuff Works: Could Salter's Duck have solved the oil crisis?". Retrieved 2010-06-14."Pelamis founder honoured for key role in marine energy". The Scottish Government. 28 March 2012. Retrieved 2012-03-29."Significant Scots: Henry Bell". Retrieved 2010-06-15."The Gazetteer for Scotland: Overview of Sir William Fairbairn". Retrieved 2010-06-16.The Dynamics of Victorian Business: Problems And Perspectives to the 1870s By Roy ChurchUniversity of Glasgow :: World Changing:: Establishing the Royal Air ForceThe Edinburgh History of Scottish Literature: From Columba to the Union (Until 10707). By Ian Brown"Electric Scotland: Significant Scots - David Mushet". Retrieved 2010-06-17.Houses of glass: a nineteenth-century building type By Georg Kohlmaier, Barna von Sartory, John C. HarveyDictionary of energy By Cutler J. Cleveland, Chris MorrisMaterials processing defects By Swadhin Kumar Ghosh, M. PredeleanuIron: An illustrated weekly journal for iron and steel .., Volume 63 by Sholto PercyRepertory of patent inventions and other discoveries and improvements in arts, manufactures and agriculture MacIntosh 1846American narrow gauge railroads By George Woodman HiltonNature: international journal of science 1917 MacMillanAnnual report of the Indiana State Board of Agriculture, Volume 2 By Indiana. State Board of Agriculture, Indiana. Geological SurveyGreat Scots By Betty KirkpatrickThe English cyclopædia: a new dictionary of universal knowledge, Volume 1 edited by Charles KnightThe new American cyclopaedia: a popular dictionary of general knowledgeJournal of the Society of Arts, Volume 6 By Society of Arts (Great Britain)"The Fresno Scraper - American Society of Mechanical Engineers" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-11-12.The complete guide to trees of Britain and Northern Europe Alan F. Mitchell, David More"William Ged (Scottish goldsmith)". Retrieved 2010-06-13."roller printing (textile industry)". Retrieved 2010-06-13."Arbroath & District Stamp & Postcard Club". Retrieved 2010-06-19.http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/MacNiven_and_CameronCommunication and empire: media, markets, and globalization, 1860–1930 by Dwayne Roy Winseck, Robert M. PikeMilitary communications: from ancient times to the 21st century By Christopher H. SterlingRadiolocation in Ubiquitous Wireless Communication by Danko Antolovic"it was his Scottish protégé, William Dickson, who... ", The Scotsman, 23 March 2002The worldwide history of telecommunications by Anton A. Huurdemanhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/historyofthebbc/resources/in-depth/reith_1.shtml"Radar Personalities: Sir Robert Watson-Watt". Retrieved 2008-12-31."Who Invented the ATM? The James Goodfellow Story". Retrieved 2011-08-26.Encyclopaedic visions: scientific dictionaries and enlightenment culture By Natasha J. YeoThe Early history of surgery William John Bishop - 1995Twenty Medical Classics of the Jefferson Era http://www.hsl.virginia.edu/historical/rare_books/classics/#CullenPicture Postcards By C W Hillhttp://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2012/03/ebookref08032012. Retrieved 2012-04-04.Lyle, T. K.; Miller, S.; Ashton, N. H. (1980). "William Stewart Duke-Elder. 22 April 1898-27 March 1978". Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 26: 85. doi:10.1098/rsbm.1980.0003http://www.nationalgalleries.org/visit/about-the-portrait-gallery/Taylor, Miles (2004). "'Bull, John (supp. fl. 1712–)'". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/68195.http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/304946/John-BullErnest William Hobson. John Napier and the invention of logarithms, 1614. The University Press, 1914.Davis, William L, Bob Figgins, David Hedengren, and Daniel B. Klein. "Economic Professors' Favorite Economic Thinkers, Journals, and Blogs", Econ Journal Watch 8(2): 126–146, May 2011.[1]M Skousen (2007). The Big Three in Economics: Adam Smith, Karl Marx, And John Maynard Keynes p3,5,6.E. K. Hunt (2002). History of Economic Thought: A Critical Perspective, p.3. ISBN 0-7656-0606-2Willcox, William Bradford; Arnstein, Walter L. (1966). The Age of Aristocracy, 1688 to 1830. Volume III of A History of England, edited by Lacey Baldwin Smith (Sixth Edition, 1992 ed.). Lexington, Massachusetts. p. 133. ISBN 0-669-24459-7.The Discovery of Hypnosis- The Complete Writings of James Braid, the Father of Hypnotherapy James Braid, Donald Robertson (ed.) 2009Manson-Bahr, Patrick (1962). Patrick Manson. The Father of Tropical Medicine. Thomas NelsonJames Hutt

Original question: “Why are some people against better gun control in America?”Here’s something I wrote in 2013 that directly addresses that:Gun ControlSo the most recent attempt at "gun control" legislation died in the Senate to the lamentations of the Left and the media (but I repeat myself). Claims that "90%" of the populace supported "universal background checks" and that this legislation "might have prevented the next" rampage shooting have been thrown around, but as Senator Mike Lee put in his recent op-ed Why I Voted Against Background Checks:Gun-control advocates point to polls that show support for expanding background checks. But members of Congress do not get to vote on broad poll questions. They have to vote on specific legislation.As I have said in the past, when gun control laws go on a ballot they most often lose, and usually badly. ("Yes, I support more effective gun control, but not THAT!"). And that is in the popular vote, not in the houses of Congress.It was apparent to anyone who looked that this legislation would have had no effect on the Sandy Hook massacre, yet it was the families of the victims of that slaughter that were trotted out in an attempt to force legislators to vote the way the President wanted, an outright appeal to emotion defeating reason, implying that voting against it would make one an accomplice to the next such event.This essay is inspired in part by perennial gadfly Markadelphia, who in a comment thread raised a couple of points I'd like to expand upon. First:If everyone had supported this bill, the cry for action would have died down considerably.Of course it would, until the next mass shooting. Whereupon, emboldened by their success in this case, additional legislation would be passed to help "prevent the next" mass shooting that this legislation failed to prevent.There would have been virtually no chance for a new AWB or ammo clip limit.See above.You see, we've seen this strategy employed successfully in England. A heinous act committed with firearms, followed by legislation that either had nothing to do with that act, or would have had no effect in preventing that act. But it was seen as DOING SOMETHING. It was promoted as "doing something." As Say Uncle puts it, Gun Control: What you do instead of something. But it's not. It's something else.Yet with nothing being done, the next shooting will almost certainly bring more support and voters to the side of the Diane Feinstein's[sic] and Michael Bloomberg's[sic] of the world.No, I don't think so. Twenty dead children didn't do it. Newtown, Connecticut was not Dunblane, Scotland.Why not?Because enough people now refuse to take the blame for something we didn't do that we're politically powerful. We refuse to be shamed. We reject shaming. And as Instapundit put it recently,It’s pretty irritating, being shamed by people who have none themselves.Word.And in this battle, numbers count. Democracy, don't you know. And democracy works for those who show up.There is a poll on the right sidebar of that Mike Lee op-ed, asking readers whether they strongly agree, agree, don't know, disagree or strongly disagree with the Senator's piece. At the time of this writing, 55% agree, with 43% strongly agreeing. Only 36% percent strongly disagree. A similar poll on another op-ed supporting magazine size restrictions shows 74% in opposition to the editorial. Of the people who feel strongly enough to read or at least vote on these op-eds, those who support the right to keep and bear arms are in the significant majority. Supposedly 90% of the populace supports universal background checks? Well, according to a Gallup poll taken after the Sandy Hook massacre, Only 4% of Americans Think Gun Control is an Important Problem. Other current polling indicates that 51% of people now believe a gun in the home increases safety, with only 29% saying it makes a home more dangerous.Politicians know who votes. Gun owners vote.The reality is that the NRA doesn't really give a crap about the second amendment anymore. They see the shrinking number of people buying guns (even though that smaller percentage are buying more guns) and know that any sort of increased background check system is going to be mean because some of those people will fail.There's two parts to this I want to address. First, the assertion that there's a "shrinking number of people buying guns." Kathy Jackson (The Cornered Cat) wrote on her Facebook page recently:"The greatest pleasure in life is to do what people say you cannot do." – Walter BagehotLast year, I sat at a bar with a friend and listened to a friend list a dozen very logical, well-explained reasons why I'd never be able to fill serious training classes with female shooters alone, or build a business based on that model, or get any respect for teaching women's classes only.This year, I have a completely full calendar with fully-filled classes all over the country, most of them for women only.Life is sweet.And Kathy is not alone. Does that sound like a "shrinking number of people" getting into firearms? I don't know about anyone else, but I have added on average 2.5 firearms per year to my collection for the last several years. (I know, I know, but I can't afford one-gun-a-month.) With the economy the way it's been, I certainly haven't been buying in bulk. But I and people I know have been reporting a lot of newbies buying guns and showing up at the range. The National Instant Check System (the "background check" that supposedly this bill was to strengthen) reports record usage, having "nearly doubled in the past decade." Markadelphia, the New York Times and CNN would have you believe that a shrinking demographic is spending more than double what it used to, apparently building arsenals. I don't think so, and I've said why before.In fact, after Sandy Hook you can't find much on the shelves in gun stores anywhere in the country, only this time ammo is harder to find than firearms. (.22 Rimfire? Seriously?) Yet violent crime and especially violent crime involving firearms has declined pretty steadily to levels not seen since the 1960's, so it has become obvious to anyone who looks that more guns do not equal more crime. Add to that the spread of concealed-carry legislation that was predicted to bring "blood in the streets" in every state where it was proposed. Instead the worst accusation that can be made is that concealed-carry might not have contributed to the overall decline in violent crime. In view of these facts you can begin to understand why "gun control" is off the radar even for many people who don't own them. Add to that Sept. 11, 2001 and other events, and it becomes apparent why more people are buying them. But that goes against The Narrative.The second assertion is that "any sort of increased background check system is going to be[sic] mean less gun sales because some of those people will fail." This is a two-parter also. First, let's look at the NICS system and its history. Markadelphia says in another comment in that thread:As I said above, the real problem is the ongoing violence that is non-spree related.Oh, really? Well first let's look at how the NICS system has been used since it was implemented following the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban (that wasn't - but was a "good first step.") The NICS system began operation in November 1998, touted as a tool that would help keep guns out of the hands of criminals. In the interim, background checks were handled at the state level. A Department of Justice report on the system for the year 2010 was published in 2012, entitled Enforcement of the Brady Act, 2010: Federal and State Investigations and Prosecutions of Firearm Applicants Denied by a NICS Check in 2010 (a PDF file). Pertinent excerpts:The FBI conducted over six million NICS transfer checks in 2010 and denied over 72,000 applications, a denial rate of about 1%. The most common reason for denial by the FBI was a record of a felony indictment or conviction (over 47%), followed by fugitives from justice (19%), and state law prohibitions (about 11%) Other reasons included drug use or addiction (about 10%), domestic violence misdemeanor convictions (over 6%), and domestic violence restraining orders (over 4%)(My emphasis.) So, of 72,000 denials, 97% were for things that falsely filling out the BATFE Form 4473 meant that the person denied had put his or her signature on a confession to a felony that comes with a 5-year sentence.The DENI (ATF’s Denial Enforcement and NICS Intelligence) Branch screened 76,142 NICS denials received from the FBI during 2010, and referred 4,732 denials (approximately 6%) within the established guidelines to field divisions. The referred cases were made up of 2,265 delayed denials (3% of all denials) and 2,467 standard denials (over 3%). The remaining denials (71,410, or nearly 94%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned or canceled. Overturns occurred after review by the DENI Branch or after the FBI received additional information. The FBI canceled a small number of denials in cases where a NICS check should not have been conducted.--Field offices declined to refer 4,184 cases for prosecution. The most common reasons for declinations were no prosecutive merit (1,661 cases or almost 40%), federal or state guidelines were not met (1,092 cases or 26%), and subjects found to not be prohibited (480 cases or about 12%).Other reasons for declination by a field office included closure by a supervisor (457 or 11%) and no potential or unfounded (396 cases or about 10%).--A total of 62 Federal charges from the 2010 cases were referred by field offices for consideration by prosecutors.--Of the 62 charges referred from the 2010 cases, 18 (29%) had been declined by a prosecutor as of December 13, 2011. A guilty plea was obtained on 13 charges (about 21%) and 10 charges (about 16%) were dismissed as part of a plea agreement . Twelve charges (approximately 19%) were still pending action by a prosecutor as of December 13, 2011.(Again, my emphasis.) So out of 76,142 denials in 2010, a year in which the data that USAToday says produced 14.4 million background checks, not "over six million" (though 14.4 is greater than six), sixty-two violators were referred for prosecution. That's (carry the three...) 0.5% of all background checks resulting in denials, and 0.08% of the denials referred for prosecution. And not all referrals yielded a sentence. Eighteen (29%) weren't prosecuted. Nearly half ("47%") of the 76,142 denials were due to a "record of a felony indictment or conviction." Now, either those records are severely screwed up, or a LOT of felons signed their names to a confession...and just walked away scot-free. (Bear in mind, I'm not at all happy about what qualifies as a "felony" these days, but still....)The Brady Campaign report Brady Background Check: 15 Years of Saving Lives (PDF) proclaims that over that 15 year period through 2008 the background check "blocked" 1,631,000 purchases, but the DoJ report states that from 2006 through 2010 a total of only 209 guilty pleas or guilty verdicts were recorded due to background check prosecutions. Moreover, the "referrals for prosecution" declined from 273 in 2006 to 62 in 2010."So what?" you may ask. Well, if the prohibited person wasn't put in jail, what was to stop him or her from getting a gun some other way? I mean, if we're not even willing to imprison the stupid felons, what's the point? It's as though the DoJ didn't want the background system to do the job we were told it was created to do. And if a Federal program fails, what is the inevitable result of that failure? Do It Again, ONLY HARDER!UPDATE:John Lott looks at background check denials and concludes that the records ARE severely screwed up. Which makes my next point more likely:But what if the purpose of the background check system isn't to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Then what is it for? What if its actual purpose is "less gun sales"? Each year we've added well in excess of four million new or imported old guns to those already in circulation, bringing the total in private hands to somewhere in excess of 310 million by one recent estimate. (PDF) Well, obviously it's failed there too, and thus: Do It Again, ONLY HARDER!And when Sandy Hook occurred, what was the proposed banner legislation? Strengthened background checks! (Along with the inevitable "assault weapon ban" and magazine restriction renewal, of course.)I concur totally that "the real problem is the ongoing violence that is non-spree related" which has been declining without new gun control laws, but apparently neither the government nor the "gun safety" groups do. Why do I say that? Well, instead of just taking them at their word, I observe their actions - with the exception of the Violence Policy Center which states plainly that its charter is the disarming of the American public. If "the ongoing violence that is not spree-related" was what was being addressed, we wouldn't be having this argument.It has been well documented for decades that the majority of violent crime up to and including homicide is committed by a small, identifiable population - people with prior police records of violent offenses:* From 1990 to 2002, 18% of felony convictions in the 75 largest counties were for violent offenses, including 7% for assault and 6% for robbery.* Six percent of those convicted of violent felonies were under age 18, and 25% were under age 21. Ten percent of murderers were under 18, and 30% were under 21.* Thirty-six percent of violent felons had an active criminal justice status at the time of their arrest. This included 18% on probation, 12% on release pending disposition of a prior case, and 7% on parole.* Seventy percent of violent felons had a prior arrest record, and 57% had at least one prior arrest for a felony. Sixty-seven percent of murderers and 73% of those convicted of robbery or assault had an arrest record.* A majority (56%) of violent felons had a prior conviction record. Thirty-eight percent had a prior felony conviction and 15% had a previous conviction for a violent felony.--An estimated 70% of violent felons in the 75 largest counties had been arrested previously. Seventy-three percent of those convicted of robbery or assault had an arrest record, as did 67% of murderers, and 53% of rapists.Sixty percent of violent felons had multiple prior arrest charges, including 40% with 5 or more, and 23% with 10 or more. About a fourth of those convicted of robbery (26%) or assault (24%)had 10 or more prior arrest charges, as did about a fifth of murderers (21%) and a tenth of rapists (10%).A majority (57%) of violent felons had been arrested previously for a felony. The percentage with a felony arrest record ranged from 40% of rapists to 63% of robbers. Fifty-nine percent of those convicted of assault and 58% of those convicted of murder had at least one prior felony arrest.Forty-four percent of violent felons had more than one prior felony arrest charge, and 22% had at least five.Criminal violence is a behavior, but it's much easier to attack a physical object, a deodand, rather than face politically incorrect facts. It's much safer to attack the law abiding gun owner in rural Arkansas or suburban Houston than Crips or Bloods in South Side Chicago, for example.Yes, "the real problem is the ongoing violence that is non-spree related." Like the 319 school-age children shot in gun-control haven Chicago between January 1 and June 15, 2011. Twenty dead schoolchildren in Sandy Hook? What about the 24 dead children in Chicago, where no one can legally own a handgun, much less an "assault weapon"? Where everyone in Illinois who wants to legally own a gun must have a Firearms Owner ID (FOID) card. How's that working out? And bear in mind, criminals are legally exempt from registering their firearms because to do so would violate their Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.Apparently, dead children don't really matter to gun control supporters unless they're little white kids killed with an AR-15 or an AK-47. I'm a racist for pointing this out, but I refuse to be shamed into ignoring it.As noted, overall violent crime is down. Homicide is at rates not seen since the 1960's, and where homicide does occur is largely in densely populated urban areas, mostly by a small, easily identifiable demographic. All of this is in the face of a nationwide easing in the restrictions on firearms and their carriage. If "the ongoing violence that is not spree related" was the concern, then the gun control forces should be pleased. Instead they are desperate because "the ongoing violence that is not spree-related" isn't, in their minds, "the problem."Back in 2006 when I wrote The Other Side, I noted the single article of faith shared by all members of that Other Side™:There are too many guns.That's the single thing our side needs to keep in mind, the lens through which we need to analyze every action their side takes. Because they concern themselves exclusively with "gun deaths" and "gun violence," the problem is too many guns. From that perspective, it's a tautology: fewer guns must mean fewer "gun deaths" and less "gun violence." I've quoted this before, but it's appropriate once again - from the conclusion of the gun control study commissioned by the Carter Administration in 1978, published in 1983 and titled Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America:The progressive's indictment of American firearms policy is well known and is one that both the senior authors of this study once shared. This indictment includes the following particulars: (1) Guns are involved in an astonishing number of crimes in this country. (2) In other countries with stricter firearms laws and fewer guns in private hands, gun crime is rare. (3) Most of the firearms involved in crime are cheap Saturday Night Specials, for which no legitimate use or need exists. [Still true. - Ed.] (4) Many families acquire such a gun because they feel the need to protect themselves; eventually they end up shooting one another. (5) If there were fewer guns around, there would obviously be less crime. (6) Most of the public also believes this and has favored stricter gun control laws for as long as anyone has asked the question. (7) Only the gun lobby prevents us from embarking on the road to a safer and more civilized society.The more deeply we have explored the empirical implications of this indictment, the less plausible it has become. We wonder, first, given the number of firearms presently available in the United States, whether the time to "do something" about them has not long since passed. If we take the highest plausible value for the total number of gun incidents in any given year - 1,000,000 - and the lowest plausible value for the total number of firearms now in private hands - 100,000,000 - we see rather quickly that the guns now owned exceed the annual incident count by a factor of at least 100. This means that the existing stock is adequate to supply all conceivable criminal purposes for at least the entire next century, even if the worldwide manufacture of new guns were halted today and if each presently owned firearm were used criminally once and only once. Short of an outright house-to-house search and seizure mission, just how are we going to achieve some significant reduction in the number of firearms available?To members of the gun subculture who have been around guns all their lives and have owned and used guns as long as it has been legal for them to do so, the indictments of gun control advocates must appear to be incomprehensible, if not simply demeaning. We should not be surprised to learn that they may resent being depicted as irresponsible, nervous, potentially dangerous, prone to accidental or careless firearms handling, or as using their firearms to bolster sagging masculine self-images. Of course, from their viewpoints, they have none of these characteristics and in all likelihood resent being depicted as a demented and bloodthirsty lot when they are only guilty of embracing a set of rather traditional, rural, and masculine values. Indeed, one can only begin to understand the virulence with which gun control initiatives are opposed in these quarters when one realizes that what may be at stake is a way of life.Or a system of government.Logically, if the problem is "too many guns," then the only logical solution must be to reduce the number of uncontrolled ones to some arbitrary value indistinguishable from zero. Yet we peons won't comply, and we tell our elected representatives so. We also tell them with our wallets. Gun store shelves are empty. NRA membership has surged. And the Violence Policy Center has problems making payroll. What is left for gun ban, er, control, um, safety forces to agitate with?Despite claims to the contrary, mass shootings have not increased but media coverage of them has.As Professor Brian Anse Patrick explained in his book The National Rifle Association and the Media: The Motivating Force of Negative Coverage, the media overwhelmingly sees itself as the clergy of the Church of State:Journalists acquire importance in the mass democratic system precisely because they gather, convey, and interpret the data that inform individual choices. Mere raw, inaccessible data transforms to political information that is piped to where it will do the most good. Objective, balanced coverage becomes essential, at least in pretense, lest this vital flow of information to be thought compromised, thus affecting not only the quality of rational individual decision-making, but also the legitimacy of the system.Working from within the perspective of the mass democracy model for social action it is difficult to specify an ideal role model of journalistic coverage other than a "scientific objectivism" at work. An event (i.e., reality) causes coverage, or so the objective journalist would and often does say. Virtually all of the journalists that I have ever talked with regard coverage as mirroring reality.--An ecclesiastical model most appropriately describes this elite journalistic function under mass democracy. Information is the vital substance that makes the good democracy possible. It allows, as it were, for the existence of the good society, a democratic state of grace. Information is in this sense analogous to the concept of divine grace under the pre-Reformation Roman Catholic Church. Divine grace was essential for the good spiritual life, the life that mattered. The clergy dispensed divine grace to the masses in the form of sacraments. They were its intermediaries, who established over time a monopoly, becoming the exclusive legitimate channel of divine grace.--Recollect that the interposition of intermediaries, the clergy, along a vital spiritual-psychological supply route was the rub of the Reformation. The clergy cloaked themselves in the mantle of spiritual authority rather than acting as its facilitators. Many elite newspapers have apparently done much the same thing, speaking and interpreting authoritatively for democracy, warranting these actions on the basis of social responsibility.--Journalists, particularly elite journalists, occupy under mass democracy this ecclesiastical social role, a functional near-monopoly whose duty becomes disseminating and interpreting the administrative word and its symbols unto the public. Democratic communication in this sense is sacramental, drawing its participants together into one body. We should not overlook the common root of the words communication, community, and communion.--What might be termed as the process of democommunication has aspects of transubstantiation an interpretive process by which journalists use their arts to change the bread and wine of raw data into democratically sustaining information. Democracy is a kind of communion. Objectivity and social responsibility become social necessities, legitimating doctrines much like the concept of papal infallibility, which had to emerge to lend weight to interpretive pronouncements.In this light, even the laudable professional value of objectivity can appear as a nearly incredible claim. Both claims, objectivity and infallibility, function to lend credence, authority, and an impeachment-resistant moral/scientific base to organizational or professional products. Both are absolute in nature. Both also serve the quite necessary social function of ultimately absolving from personal responsibility or accountability the reporter, whether ecclesiastical or secular, who is, after all, merely duty-bound to report on the facts. As it is in heaven, so it will be on Earth; and as it is on Earth, so shall it appear in The New York Times.Or as former President of CBS News Richard Salant put it:Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have.I go through this in detail in my January 2008 essay The Church of the MSM and the New Reformation, but the gist of it is, journalists overwhelmingly have what Professor Patrick calls "an administrative control bias," and see government as the solution to all problems by controlling everything centrally. They are anti-gun not because they're Leftists, but because they're authoritarians (a distinction almost without a difference, I know,) and "Guns simply invite administration." I mean, seriously.And government itself is, by definition, run by authoritarians. St. George Tucker in his 1803 Constitutional law review Blackstone's Commentaries wrote:The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.It's always been that way. As Mao Zedong put it,Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.And authoritarians are loath to share power.So the authoritarians in government, aided by the authoritarians in the media and their useful tools in the "gun safety" movement work together in their attempt to reduce the number of guns in private hands to some value indistinguishable from zero. But how to go about it? Using England as the archetype:Make gun ownership difficult thus reducing the number of lawful gun owners through attrition.Increase the difficulty and expense involved in complying with regulations,Keep making ownership more and more onerous through rule changes and fee changes.Carry out publicized prosecution of gun owners for petty or trivial violations, producing a chilling effect on other owners.Demonize guns and gun ownership in the media.Once the population of gun owners has been decreased sufficiently to make their population politically ineffective, crank up the regulation even further - impose licensing and registration.Once the population of legal gun owners is small enough to be politically impotent, start confiscation.Look at what it takes for a person who already owns guns to buy a new rifle in Australia:Shooting Buddy arrived down from "up north" yesterday so this morning we decided to attack the paperwork for the new rifles.The forms have to be completed on-line and then you take them to the Post Office for them to be sent to Firearms Branch.I logged into the online forms process on one of my computers and the form didn't display - not to be discouraged I woke up one of my other computers and tried again and this time it worked.We decided to do Shooting Buddy's application first. The form is interactive, so depending on how you answer questions additional ones come up. I am sure there are questions on there that weren't on the form last time I did it, that or I've blanked it out of my mind! You have to answer questions about names / previous names / addresses / previous addresses (sure, list all previous addresses with dates!) / criminal convictions / medication / VROs etc, etc.Once you get through these type of questions you actually get to the bit to do with the firearms. To be honest this bit was quite simple - as you require a Firearms Serviceability Certificate for each firearm which contains all the relevant details (make, model, serial number, calibre) you don't actually have to fill this in on the form - only the Serviceability Certificate Number (and attach it to your application).I only ended up having to ring the Firearms Branch twice during the process. Once was regarding how to put the 'other licencee' information (i.e. my information) in and the other time was at the end of the process as the guy on the phone had mentioned an additional form (Co-Users Permission Form) to me but the application process did not refer to this form at all. (Yes, you do need to submit it).After filling in the six pages of information for Shooting Buddy we went to print it, which requires it to contact via the Internet to Firearms Branch and get a unique barcode - and for some reason this didn't work and we lost all of the entries and had to start again. Filling it in the second time was a bit quicker!Validated and printed and then it was time to repeat the whole process for me.No problems this time and once that paperwork was also printed and supporting documentation photocopied, we headed off down to the Post Office.So for my application I had a five page printed form, a Firearms Serviceability Certificate for my firearm, a copy of Shooting Buddy's Firearms Serviceability Certificate, the Property Letter and the Co-Users Permission Form signed by Shooting Buddy.Shooting Buddy's collection of paper was similar but he had a six page printed form as he had different answers to some of the questions than I did.At the Post Office we had a short wait in the queue (apparently we were in the wrong queue but given that there was no signage showing two queues I didn't worry about that too much). Then the lady behind the counter had a look through my Firearms Application form and attachments (slight change from the last time I did this process where the initial response was "Do we process theses?") and then she asked me for 100 points proof of identification. No where in the online forms or documentation do I recall reading that I needed to supply this, however, luckily I did have enough cards in my wallet to prove that yes, I am who I say I am. (Interestingly enough the "Working with Children" Card does not count (even though it has photo, address and signature and itself was obtained with a 100 points ID check). My Medicare card - First Name & Surname only - and Credit Card - full name only - were taken in preference.Once she had scanned the form's barcode, entered the reference numbers off each of the identification cards, asked for $72.50 and printed me a receipt it was Shooting Buddy's turn.The legal hoops one must go through in Australia and the UK are designed not to reduce violent crime, but to control the number of legal guns in circulation - to make legal ownership so onerous that very few people will make the effort.Now look what it takes to buy a BB GUN in New Jersey:"You'll need a license for that," the clerk informed me when I asked to see a modestly-priced BB gun. Surprised but undaunted, I whipped out my drivers license and slid it across the counter. At which point it was obvious to me that it was obvious to him I'm not a gun person."To buy a gun in New Jersey you need a Firearm Purchaser ID Card from your Township's police chief. Even a BB gun. Can't even take one down to show you without it."For better or worse, there would be no BB gun that day. Not for me anyway. Without a comprehensive criminal background check first I couldn't buy one. I couldn't even look at one. Not even a pink one.Read that whole piece, and note that the author was pissed off enough to go through with the ridiculous effort and expense to get a New Jersey Firearm Purchaser ID card. But how many people are dissuaded? And yet Chris Christie wants to make it more difficult. Why? Well, he says:It’s hard for me to sit here today and say, ‘If all these things got imposed we’d see an ‘X’ percentage drop in gun violence in this state.’ I don’t know. Bad people are going to do bad things and so, would greater penalties deter people? You hope they do.And I think he's being honest about that (wrong, but he believes it), but look at another example, Massachusetts:In 1998, Massachusetts passed what was hailed as the toughest gun-control legislation in the country. Among other stringencies, it banned semiautomatic "assault" weapons, imposed strict new licensing rules, prohibited anyone convicted of a violent crime or drug trafficking from ever carrying or owning a gun, and enacted severe penalties for storing guns unlocked."Today, Massachusetts leads the way in cracking down on gun violence," said Republican Governor Paul Cellucci as he signed the bill into law. "It will save lives and help fight crime in our communities." Scott Harshbarger, the state's Democratic attorney general, agreed: "This vote is a victory for common sense and for the protection of our children and our neighborhoods." One of the state's leading anti-gun activists, John Rosenthal of Stop Handgun Violence, joined the applause. "The new gun law," he predicted, "will certainly prevent future gun violence and countless grief."It didn't.The 1998 legislation did cut down, quite sharply, on the legal use of guns in Massachusetts. Within four years, the number of active gun licenses in the state had plummeted. "There were nearly 1.5 million active gun licenses in Massachusetts in 1998," the AP reported. "In June [2002], that number was down to just 200,000." The author of the law, state Senator Cheryl Jacques, was pleased that the Bay State's stiff new restrictions had made it possible to "weed out the clutter."That's what law-abiding gun owners are to our elected officials: "clutter." And the number of law-abiding gun owners was cut by over 87%. But criminals?But the law that was so tough on law-abiding gun owners had quite a different impact on criminals.Since 1998, gun crime in Massachusetts has gotten worse, not better. In 2011, Massachusetts recorded 122 murders committed with firearms, the Globe reported this month — "a striking increase from the 65 in 1998." Other crimes rose too. Between 1998 and 2011, robbery with firearms climbed 20.7 percent. Aggravated assaults jumped 26.7 percent.Don’t hold your breath waiting for gun-control activists to admit they were wrong. The treatment they prescribed may have yielded the opposite of the results they promised, but they’re quite sure the prescription wasn’t to blame.Gun laws strengthened, "gun death" and "gun violence" increased. Of course they won't admit they were wrong, even when faced with the fact that the Boston Marathon bombers were armed without having gotten handgun licenses first. Or explosive licenses, for that matter. The philosophy cannot be wrong! Do It Again, ONLY HARDER!They won't admit that they were wrong because this is the outcome that is desired, because from an authoritarian perspective, "guns simply invite administration." The "Fast and Furious" scheme that "walked" guns across the border into Mexico with no effort to interdict or trace them was, without a doubt, a government effort to inspire outrage over "lax gun laws" - laws that the Department of Justice and Homeland Security deliberately violated in order to put these weapons into the hands of drug cartels. The body count, attached to guns traced back to border gun shops was to have inspired calls for a renewed assault weapon ban and stronger gun laws. This is the only analysis of the program that makes any logical sense, but it blew up in the administration's face when a Border Patrol agent became one of the bodies. Violators of the existing background check system aren't prosecuted because the powers-that-be aren't interested in disarming the criminals, only the law-abiding.Declining violent crime is the death-knell for gun control, and its supporters know it. Worse, the authoritarians in government know it, too. Add to that the spreading public realization that gun control doesn't make society safer, and another nail is hammered into the coffin. The UK has universal licensing and registration, has banned full-auto weapons, semi-auto rifles and shotguns, and all handguns, yet these laws seem to have no effect on the number of guns still in criminal hands. Criminals there can get machine guns, pistols and hand grenades, and they're still trying "to reduce the number of guns on the streets," by closing "loopholes" in the "strictest gun laws in the world" though officials admit "where there's a will there's a way." Economics 101: Supply and Demand. More people every day realize that we don't need to follow their failed example.More than 300 million guns are in an unknown number of private hands here. The vast majority of gun owners are not licensed. The vast majority of firearms are not registered. Their trail ends at the Form 4473 in a dealer's file cabinet or box somewhere, and what happened to them after that is known only to the current owner. It's been this way for decades. But in order to "control" something, you must know where it is, and who has it.And the only people who will tell you who they are and what they own are the law-abiding. "Universal background checks" are the gateway to a registration system, despite denials by the parties supporting both."Gun Control" isn't about guns, it's about control. It isn't about disarming criminals, it's about disarming the law-abiding. It isn't about making the public safer, it's about controlling us. We've had almost two decades of increasing gun ownership and declining violent crime rates, and that has resulted in a population that in the majority does not view firearms as talismans of evil nor gun owners as social pariahs. As Teresa Nielson Hayden put it back in 2002:Basically, I figure guns are like gays: They seem a lot more sinister and threatening until you get to know a few; and once you have one in the house, you can get downright defensive about them.And as the GeekWithA.45 put it in 2005:In a truly civil society peopled primarily by enlightened, sober individuals, the carriage of arms might be deemed gratuitous, but it is nonetheless harmless.In a society that measures up to anything less than that, the option to carry arms is a necessity.America has achieved an armed population sufficiently large enough and motivated enough to effectively resist the authoritarian urge to disarm it. It is a never-ending struggle though, because The Other Side will not stop.

"When you look at a wind turbine, you can find the bird carcasses and count them. With a coal-fired power plant, you can't count the carcasses, but it's going to kill a lot more birds." - John Flicker, National Audubon Society, president.Sibley and Monroe estimated that there are about 9,703 species of birds[x]. They are found on all major land masses and over the oceans. Total populations are difficult to estimate due to seasonal fluctuations but Sibley & Monroe accepted that there are between 100 and 200 billion adult birds in the world. Kevin Gaston and Tim Blackburn[xi] doubled that estimate with 200 to 400 billion. Birds are killed by wind turbines and solar installations, but it turns out that the numbers of birds already killed by pollution from oil and gas, buildings, high tension lines, vehicles, cats, dogs and pesticides are so much greater that there is clearly a perception twist going on here, which is likely deliberate. This is not to say that we should be complacent about bird deaths. It’s a universally accepted fact that all parties are against any kind of animal mortality as a result of our energy activities. The presentation of it though, ought to be based on the factual wider context of bird deaths from other causes. The Altamont pass was one of the first locations in the U.S. that was preserved for wind power due to the excellent winds funneled by the hills. At the time bird deaths were not on the minds of the individuals who created this wind resource.BIRD DEATHS FROM DIFFERENT CAUSESBird deaths from different causes, showing that wind turbines are the least of threats among many. Source, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, U.S. Forestry Service. Not included in this chart are numbers of bird deaths caused by pollution and climate change which are responsible for the ongoing 6th extinction event.Even institutions who are protective of birds, the National Audubon Society, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Wildlife Society all have commissioned studies that result in the same conclusions afforded by the above chart.Bird deaths by wind turbines do not remotely compare with the impact of cats, cars, power lines or buildings. As wind power increases its penetration however, its currently small impact on birds will grow less than proportionately as operators learn how to avoid avian mortality by siting, colors on blades, kick in speeds and other methods. Perception of bird deaths can halt wind turbine installations during the public planning phase and then effective resistance can scuttle installation plans. It turns out though, that wind turbines are responsible for only 1 in every 10,000 bird deaths.Small birds are killed in the millions by housecats while wind turbine casualties tend to be relatively larger bird species. Bigger birds, normally not the direct target of a housecat, like the protected Bald Eagles and other birds of prey, are more likely to be killed by a wind turbine than by a cat. Balanced against this must be the effect of coal and oil on birds mentioned in the earlier solar report. Many energy technologies apparently are bad for birds, but wind and solar are far from being the worst culprits. In 2013 a study[xii] by Smallwood indicated that the estimates of wind turbine bird deaths may be understated for three reasons. Estimates of bird deaths by wind turbines depended on counting carcasses found under the turbines. It was entirely possible that searches were done in less than efficient ways and in inadequate search radiuses. Additionally, carcasses could easily be removed by predators and his bird death estimate was 573,000, slightly higher than others.A 2005 study by the USDA Forest Service, was an early indication that wind turbines were a very small impact on overall bird populations.[xiii] The National Audubon Society produced a study[xiv], funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in September, 2014 which took seven years to finish and which looked closely at 588 of the total 800 species of bird found in North America. 314 of these species are threatened in some way with a loss of environment by the end of the century. Climate change (therefore CONG) is blamed for effectively potentially destroying the ecosystem for 28 species. This data is not included in the chart above in Figure 31. The Bald Eagle and state mascots are at serious risk due to climate change which reduces the bird’s range and alters the lifecycle of their food sources. Bird mortality from fossil fuel pollution and climate change represents a far higher risk than wind turbines as far as the Audubon Society is concerned.A recent study[xv] by the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI), highlighted climate and environmental impacts on 1,154 native bird species in North America, Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. The study was compiled by experts from all three countries and accounted for population trends and breeding ranges as well as the severity of threats. Due to changes in the environment, caused by man, birds in every habitat, but especially oceans and tropical forests are of highest conservation concern. In geological-time terms, these species-level impacts are happening in a human instant. 432 species merit a level of “high concern” due to declining populations and habitat loss and climate change. Species with long migration paths have suffered 70% losses in the last 50 years. We are all familiar with some famous bird species that have gone extinct such as the Dodo, the Great Auk, the Emu and of course the Passenger Pidgeon mentioned below. The oldest international nature conservation group, BirdLife International says that since the year 1500, 140 bird species have found extinction, and 22 of those in the last 50 years[xvi]. The rates of extinction are accelerating.I want to use evocative language here. The legacy of the Earth’s embrace of life and its eager occupation of different environments is something I believe we can so much better appreciate, since we are intimately a part of that process. We are part of a huge evolutionary, life miracle that we are only just now beginning to explore. Previous estimates for the number of species on Earth ranged from 3 to 100 million. PLos Biology published a report[xvii] in 2011 which was written by the Census of Marine Life scientists. It established a more accurate estimate of 8.74 million species on Earth of which 7.77 million are animals (only 953,4343 described). They used statistical methods to provide a more realistic estimate which nonetheless gave an error level of +/- 1.3 million. Bacteria and other small organisms were not counted. 86% of all land creatures and 91% of ocean creatures have yet to be identified. Only 1.2 million species have been officially registered in the Catalogue of Life and the World Register of Marine Species. The detail of the success of the DNA molecule in evolving all these species in this life encouraging Earthly environment over billions of years will never be properly appreciated, but it is at risk from our misadventure with the chemical legacy of CONG and our despoliation of habitats, both marine and terrestrial. We know more about the 22 million books in the Library of Congress than we know about our fellow species on Earth. We are also putting many species in danger of extinction because of the use of fossil fuels in what’s been termed the 6th great extinction level event, currently underway.Another great perspective on this is the work of a collector of natural sounds, Bernie Krause[xviii] who has spent decades capturing the sounds of nature around the world in places as far afield as Alaska and the Amazon, the Arctic and Fiji, the Great Plains and Mexico’s Chihuahuan grasslands. He also has an astonishing TED talk[xix] in which he describes how he separates sound into geophony; or wind, water and Earth sounds, biophany; the sounds of natural organisms and anthrophany; predictably the sounds of human noise. What he has recently discovered is very sobering. Recordings taken in the 1970’s compared to recordings taken in the same location today show declines or disappearance of species. Nature is going silent over the Anthropocene. John Bakeless, in his book on discovering America[xx], talks about how early explorers were acutely interested in the sound of nature and developed a faculty of listening and observing to identify birds and insects. I remember our guide, on the last day of a 10 day Colorado river rafting expedition on the calmer 60 miles of the Colorado River just prior to Lake Mead, asking all 28 of the rafters to sit for 30 minutes and listen carefully to nature and then exchange what they had heard. Indeed, there was a sudden realization of insects buzzing, water chirping under the raft, wind in the leaves of trees, echoes of sounds around rock walls and birds, distant and close, calling for myriad purposes of alarm, food or connection. My point here is that while human impacts on the Earth’s wildlife are currently very severe because of our chemical CONG energy impacts, moving to renewable energy reverses the situation over time, even if there are more humans around.Birds are famously victims of the huge wind turbine blades. This is certainly true and although bird fatalities from the house cat, vehicles and building windows account for literally millions or billions more, it doesn’t excuse the wind turbine’s effects impact. Efforts are made to relocate turbines out of birds’ migration paths. Also, most song birds migrate flying at a height of 2,000 to 4,000 feet, well above the tallest wind turbines, at least so far. There is a very disturbing YouTube video of a large, elegant bird of prey being struck down by such a rotating blade[xxi]. In an awful European case, there was the death of a rare swift, the White-throated Needletail, the world’s fastest flying bird[xxii]. The poor exhausted creature was spotted by a group of 30 birdwatchers who had made a special trip to the isle of Harris in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland. The sighting was only the 9th time that the bird had been seen since 1846, in Essex, UK. The last time it had been seen at all was 1991. The assembled enthusiasts assembled in the appropriate location and waited for hours before being rewarded by sighting the bird. They were summarily horrified to see the rare bird, which had flown all the way from Australia, perhaps several times, knocked down and killed by the rotating blade of a wind turbine.[xxiii]Between 2004 and 2009 in Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas, just 85, unprotected, migratory birds were deemed to have died due to exposure to oil and gas facilities owned by Exxon Mobil. The Justice Department fined the company $600,000 or about $7,000 for each bird killed.Exxon pleaded guilty and cooperated with the department spending a further $2.5 million to clean up the sites. It turned out that the fine was equal to twenty minutes of Exxon’s profits, based on $8.6 billion earnings for the first half of 2009[xxiv]. Other fossil fuel companies have been fined. BP paid $100 million for the impact of its 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill on migratory birds. Pacificorp, which operates coal fired power stations, paid $500,000 in 2009 after 232 eagles along power distribution lines between its substations were found to have been electrocuted.[xxv]Wind farms started to kill birds on a regular basis prompting calls of hypocrisy against those claiming that wind was an environmental solution. Wind farms have been fined for killing birds too, however. Duke Energy was fined $1 million for the deaths of 14 eagles and 149 other birds, including hawks, blackbirds, wrens and sparrows, between 2009 and 2013. Duke were also called upon to restore and do community service (how do you ask a large utility to do that!) and were placed on 5 years of probation while they put together an environmental compliance plan to prevent bird deaths. Interestingly, Duke then applied for a permit to kill eagles, to help provide a context within which the system can absorb the inevitability of bird deaths. Another group, the Wind Capital Group applied for such a license only to be embroiled in an argument over its granting, by the Osage Nation in opposition. Many applications for this license have been filed. Environmentalists complain bitterly when President Obama’s administration, eager for non-polluting wind power, announced a new federal rule that allows wind farms to lawfully kill birds of prey.There is some evidence that birds change their behavior when in the presence of wind farms. Lowther in 1998 discovered that studying a 22-turbine wind farm in Wales, UK, no birds were killed by the turbine and in fact they were seen to have shifted their activity to a different location. Some wind farms have no bird fatalities at all. A study[xxvi] published in the Journal of Applied Ecology by Pawel Plonczkier and Ian Simms monitored migrating flocks of pink-footed geese using radar as they returned during migration to the shores of Lincolnshire, UK. Monitoring the movement of the birds over 4 years from 2007 to 2010, established that two new wind farms effectively caused the geese to change their flight paths. The proportion of goose flocks flying outside the wind farm locations climbed from 52% to 81% in this time and even geese flying through the windfarm area had increased their altitude to climb above the turbines.An Australian online group called RenewEconomy had an article which summarizes the whole bird situation quite nicely called “Want to save 70 million birds a year? Build more wind farms”, drawing attention to the impact of CONG on birds. Replacing all fossil fuel worldwide, it says, would save about 70 million birds a year establishing wind farms as a strong net benefit for birds. Author Mike Bernard[xxvii] explains that wind farms kill less than 0.0001 percent of birds killed by human activities annually out of a total 1.5% of human caused mortality.Bats and Barotrauma - The other species which more recently became synonymous with death by wind turbine blade is bats. Most of the damage is done to migratory bat species in the autumn. Bats are famously known for their ability to echo locate hard objects in their local environment, such as tree branches or cave walls, and even insects on the wing while they are feeding. They can detect moving objects better than stationary objects so the high death rate from wind turbine blades was puzzling. Several explanations were proposed but 90% of the bat fatalities involved internal hemorrhaging just as might be expected with damage caused by sudden air pressure changes.Birds have a more resistant respiratory anatomy and are killed by being hit by the blades, whereas the bats do avoid the blades, but come so close that pressure changes around the blades cause the damage to their lungs. The mammals have larger, flexible lungs and hearts. Birds have compact, rigid lungs with very strong pulmonary capillaries which can resist the higher-pressure changes, even though the blood/gas barriers are thinner than those of the bats. An airfoil on a plane pushes against the wind but a wind turbine blade is moved by the wind. In either case, the airfoil cross section causes significant differences in air pressure. The greatest area of low pressure exists at the fast moving (approximately 180 mph) tip of the blade and cascades downwind from the moving blade. A zone of low pressure can cause a bat’s lungs to expand causing tissue damage, or barotrauma.A study[xxviii] was paid for by fossil fuel companies like Suncor and Shell, but also from wind turbine companies such as TransAlta Wind and Alberta Wind Energy Corporation as well as academic institutions. They found bat bodies from hoary and silver-haired bats killed at a wind farm in south western Alberta, Canada and examined them for internal injuries. Of 188 bat bodies collected, 87 had no external physical injury. Very few bats had external injuries without internal bleeding.In 2012, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory conducted pressure studies[xxix] on mice, which were used because they are a close approximation to bats and discovered that pressures of only 1.4 kilopascals (kPa) were experienced by the bats at the blade tips in 11 mph winds but that it took 30 kPa to cause fatality in mice. There was no suggestion by NREL for an alternative cause of death however. At low windspeeds the pressures are even lower and yet it is at the low speeds that the bats fly which further confuses the issue.[i] Wind energy is considered a disaster responding to the hoax of climate change in this vociferous website which of course also discusses wind turbine syndrome. Available at: What is Wind Turbine Syndrome?[ii] The Caithness Windfarm Information Forum. Available at: Caithness Windfarm Information Forum[iii] RenewableUK. A leading renewable energy trade association. Available at: http://www.renewableuk.com/en/events/conferences-and-exhibitions/renewableuk-2015/[iv] Risø National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy. Available at: Risø National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy[v] Available at: LiveLeak.com - Two Dead in Windmill Fire[vi] David Wahl, Philippe Giguere. Ice Shedding and Ice Throw – Risk and Mitigation. Wind Application Engineering. GE Energy. Available at: http://www.cbuilding.org/sites/cbi.drupalconnect.com/files/ger4262.pdf[vii] Cattin et al. Wind Turbine Ice Throw Studies in the Swiss Alps. EWEC 2007. Based on studies of a 600 kW Enercon E-40 at 2,300 mASL in Swiss Alps[viii] Summary of Wind Turbine Accident Data to 30 September 2014. PDF. Caithness Windfarm Information Forum.[ix] Payback time for renewable energy. NREL factsheet. Available at: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57131.pdf[x] Sibley and Monroe. 1992.[xi] Kevin J. Gaston and Tim M. Blackburn. April 1997. How many birds are there? Available at: How many birds are there?[xii] K. Shawn Smallwood, “Comparing bird and bat fatality-rate estimates among North American wind-energy projects”, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 26 Mar. 2013. Available at: Comparing bird and bat fatality-rate estimates among North American wind-energy projects[xiii] Wallace P. Erickson, Gregory D. Johnson and David P. Young Jr. A Summary and Comparison of Bird Mortality from Anthropogenic Causes with an Emphasis on Collisions. USDA Forest Service. PSW-GTR-191. 2005. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/Asilomar/pdfs/1029-1042.pdf[xiv] Erickson WP, Wolfe MM, Bay KJ, Johnson DH, Gehring JL (2014) A Comprehensive Analysis of Small-Passerine Fatalities from Collision with Turbines at Wind Energy Facilities. PLoS ONE 9(9): e107491. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0107491[xv] State of North America's Birds 2016. North American Bird Conservation Initiative. Available at: Main Results[xvi] BirdLife International (2014) We have lost over 150 bird species since 1500. Presented as part of the BirdLife State of the world's birds website. Available from: BirdLife Data Zone[xvii] PLos Biology published a report in 2011 which was written by the Census of Marine Life scientists. Available to: How Many Species Are There on Earth and in the Ocean?[xviii] Bernie Krause. A recorder of natural sounds in many global habitats. Available at: The World's Disappearing Natural Sound[xix] Bernie Krause. TED Talk. The voice of the natural world. TEDGlobal 2013 · 14:48 · Filmed Jun 2013. Available at: The voice of the natural world[xx] John Bakeless. America As Seen by Its First Explorers: The Eyes of Discovery. Dover Language Books & Travel Guides. Paperback – January 20, 2011. Available at: America As Seen by Its First Explorers: The Eyes of Discovery (Dover Language Books & Travel Guides): John Bakeless: 0800759260317: Amazon.com: Books[xxi] Bald Eagle seriously injured by wind turbine. Available at: Bird killed by green energy[xxii] The White Throated Needletail death on YouTube. Geobeats news service. July 1, 2013. Available at: Rare Bird Killed by Wind Turbine in Front of Horrified Spectators[xxiii] Rare swift killed by Scottish wind turbine. Available at: Birdwatchers see rare bird killed by wind turbine[xxiv] Exxon Mobil pleads guilty to bird deaths. Available at: ExxonMobil pleads guilty to killing birds[xxv] BP and Pacificorp pay fines for killing birds. Available at: The Obama Administration Is Ignoring The Massacre Of Thousands Of Hawks, Falcons, And Eagles Every Year[xxvi] Pawel Plonczkier and Ian C. Simms. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2012. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02181.x/epdf[xxvii] Mike Barnard. 10 August, 2012. Want to save 70 million birds a year? Build more wind farms. RenewEconomy. Available at: Want to save 70 million birds a year? Build more wind farms[xxviii] Erin F. Baerwald, Genevieve H. D’Amours, Brandon J. Klug and Robert M.R. Barclay. Barotrauma is a significant cause of bat fatalities at wind turbines.[xxix] “NREL Study Finds Barotrauma Not Guilty”, November 27, 2012. Available at: http://www.nrel.gov/wind/news/2013/2149.html[xxx] Germany has 74% of its power supplied by renewable energy. 2014. Available at: For One Hour, Germany Was Powered By 74% Renewables - Gas 2[xxxi] Information supplied by Agora Energiewende, a research institute in Berlin, showed that Germany’s demand for electricity was almost 100% supplied by renewable energy including a large amount of wind on the 15th May, 2016. Available at: Germany Just Got Almost All of Its Power From Renewable Energy[xxxii] Posthumous pardons of First World War shellshock victims. Available on: Pardoned: the 306 soldiers shot at dawn for 'cowardice'[xxxiii] Information Paper: Evidence on Wind Farms and Human Health. February 2015. PDF. National Health and Medical Research Council. Available at: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/eh57a_information_paper.pdf[xxxiv] Ian Clark, William N. Alexander, William J. Devenport, Stewart A. Glegg, Justin Jaworski, Conor Daly, and Nigel Peake. "Bio-Inspired Trailing Edge Noise Control", 21st AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, AIAA AVIATION Forum, (AIAA 2015-2365). Available at: Bio-Inspired Trailing Edge Noise Control[xxxv] UK Renewable Energy Roadmap. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48128/2167-uk-renewable-energy-roadmap.pdf[xxxvi] Positive environmental impacts of offshore wind farms. European Wind Energy Association. Available at: http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/files/members-area/information-services/offshore/research-notes/120801_Positive_environmental_impacts.pdf