Your source also says: "Climate Change isn't about the environment. It's about money and control, and the same is true with the anti-gun movement as well."
This should allow you to understand it is a really bad source. I guess that starting from that, it is easy to prove that the numbers you cite are wrong.
All in all, isn't it obvious that only gun-free zones is a better solution that only gun-allowed zones?
"The new Alpine railroad (NLFA) will cost 300M CHF less than planned, because the digging and concreting of the Gothard tunnel have cost less than expected.
The final bill is expected to be between 23 and 23.5 billions CHF instead of 24 millions CHF."
In either case, it is in my opinion difficult to determine if this is good or bad PR, and if this is good or bad in terms of morals. However, more tendency towards provocation might bring the answer.
Osamu Tezuka, author of Jungle Emperor Leo, was a huge fan of Disney's work, and he was his main influence. Personally, I love to see this as a tribute rather than as plagiarism. And I'm saddened every time this story pops up, especially when it's framed like that.
About the possible flaws in the reviewing process, the open-access publisher Frontiers (recently acquired by the Nature Publishing Group) proposes to reveal the names of the reviewers once the paper has been accepted, since they take part in the writing process:
"Frontiers is striving to remove any bias from the review process and acknowledge the reviewers for the significant contributions in improving the paper. To guarantee the most transparent and objective reviews, the identities of review editors remain anonymous during the review period. Only in case an article is accepted do their names appear on the published manuscript, without exceptions. However, if for any reasons a review editor withdraws during any stage of the review process, his/her name will not be disclosed." [Source : http://www.frontiersin.org/Design/pdf/ReviewGuidelines.pdf]
I wasn't implying that the publishers but the reviewers were getting public money for that. Having spent around 12 hours between Sunday and Monday to write a single review for a journal paper, I must say that I am pretty surprised that this system has been working until now… The scientists are united in making their reviews, while someone on top is getting so much money for it (this catches up with your argument). I can't help myself considering us as naive people.
Of course they see a dime: they receive public money. Elsevier are such geniuses: public money paid papers need to be paid a second time, and still, they remain unavailable for the public who has paid for it (twice). Rich geniuses.
It is sad that what you say has nothing to do with the article linked, which has interesting content for science as a whole---not just R.
Instead of being positive and considering the community, you just bring a negative and unrelated message (that silly "airplane anecdote"). So yes, sad.
This is so funny: non-conspiracy posts in this thread are currently being downvoted.
Thus I feel the need to comment your post: Frontiers recognised the scientific value of this paper, but had to retract it because of persons like you, that only know censoring the others when it comes to discuss ideas. Science cannot go forward with that kind of attitude.
D. E. Knuth would not agree: "(Encrypted messages that I get from "gmail.com" are also gibberish and unreadable without great pain.) Send PLAIN ASCII TEXT ONLY."
Ouch.
[1] https://ianrenton.com/blog/adventures-in-emoji/