say what? Osama explicitly denied any involvement in it and no evidence has proven him guilty of it. Which doesn't mean that he is not an self-proclaimed enemy of the USA, but once you start executing people because of their rhetoric you are no better.
It's really shocking how radical this notion is in the USA today. the terrorists have clearly won.
i think your answer is that the troves of valuable info is a bunch of bullshit. OBL wasn't killed there, there wasn't much of interest in the compound, just some more dead people who may or may not have anything to do with any terrorist operation. The USGov is desperate to find ways to justify the lives and billions of dollars per day they are taking to maintain the Wars. (well, to be fair, they aren't really taking much heat over the brown-skinned lives)
Not all US citizens are duped about this, you are observing the effects of a media monopoly. True many US citizens are looking no further than yourself, but sit with us for coffee sometime, you might be surprised to find signs of intelligent life. and you've got your own dim lemmings wherever you're from too i'd wager!
So what do we have to power densely populated areas??
Your thesis assumes it is possible to maintain the current level of energy consumption. The fact is that our modern society has grown to its present size due to one factor alone: cheap energy. All societies grow and shrink based on the energy available. It may seem that 'nuclear' will provide the ready alternative to the fossils that got us here, but it is physically impossible. It seems on the surface that if you just keep building more nuke plants that the problem is solved but no. the reason is that the essential equation is 'energy return on energy invested', dollars are fictional, this is about the availability of 'free' energy. Nuclear provides a fraction of the energy profit of any fossil source, 1% to 5% depending on the study and the specific fossil (and btw, less profitable than most other alternatives except for solar). this is not a matter of dollars, it is a matter of physics...sorta like if you had to stop at the gas station every 15 miles instead of every 300 miles (but cost the same as what used to give you 300 miles), you'd just quit driving most of the time.
Nuclear looks good bc it is a bad ass power source in a small space but it will not solve the energy problem for society in any way. The notion that we can continue on with the same economics we have been used to for the last 100 yrs is absolutely wrong, it will be drastically different. society and its economic activity will shrink to match the energy profit available, wherever it is available. this is a fact and if your local AEIA says otherwise, well, you know why.
and this does not include the periodic catastrophic nuclear accidents as they are a seperate problem.
Economics are the logic that wins the day in the USA. Half a trillion of public subsidy over 60 years and nuclear is still not economically viable. If nuclear could show the stats we'd be 99% nuclear by now, hell, if baby seal tears could show half the numbers that coal can, we'd be raising them like chickens.
Nuclear energy is far from cost-effective, it survives bc it has a lot of capital momentum and bc it caters to a very emotional fantasies like "cornucopianism" and "technophilia" when the unparalleled expansion we've enjoyed these last 100 yrs is due to the sheer dirty and deadly _economics_ of the fossil fuels.
Anyone who crows about "coming up with" the awesome moniker "Web 3.0" is laughably unclear on the concept of what is generally known as a "nice one", and also unclear on how relatively clever a "nice one" is in the spectrum of creative utterances.
I wonder if his next brainstorm will involve a clever name for the next cellular standard.
if we just stopped building coal plants and build nuclear instead, we would have significantly less pollution in ~10 years.
the pollution from nukes is still there, it's just been transferred to a generation sufficiently removed from the present. (unless something goes wrong, but that probably won't happen ever again;)
The greatest thing about nuke plants is that power stays centralized and certain people make a ton of cash. The EROEI, the measure of most interest, nukes aren't all that. I've read other assessments stating it is closer to 5:1.
The biggest problem facing humankind is the belief that unlimited growth is possible...and desirable.
if we were to assemble our best architects and a devoted team of engineers and technicians, there's no doubt we could automate most of our law enforcement tasks.
yes, no doubt at all Amazon considered whether cooperating with the shadow govt. in summary censorship would harm their reputation amongst their client base and quickly concluded; Hahahahahahahahahah Americans? Hahahahahahaha. pull it.
As others have already said, it's past time for one or both sides to just grow up, swallow their pride, and make sincere peace offers.
This is a common refrain, but false. US backing of Israel makes them several orders of magnitude more powerful, so why should they 'negotiate'?. Israel has routinely committed an atrocity everytime there is a threat of peace breaking out and scoffs at the entire world's opinion of it, saying basically; "what are you going to do about it?"
we're stuck with inbred tribals fighting each other, and there's nothing we can do about it.
Wrong! If the USA were to act as an impartial broker, starting with ending the billions in military support, this atrocity would be over tomorrow. There is no peace simply bc the Israeli leadership has the means and the cover to steal more land and terrorize with impunity, so they do.
I acknowledged the obvious fact on post 3 that _avoiding_ seawater was obviously important, that has never been in dispute. The question is simply how long to wait. OK?
I say they waited too long, and as evidence i submit the fact that the reactors all started to melt down, blew the roofs off and now highly radioactive shit is everywhere.
You say it was appropriate based on some potential of the cooling system failing down the road and forcing us back to square one. I say that doesn't hold much sway in the face of a meltdown now. Whereas delaying the immediate destruction of a billion dollar reactor does have a helluva sway.
and to address your latest straw man, saying that i think 'splashing water on them is just fine' (which you have done in every single post) shows that you're the troll here.
Slashdot Mirror
the only legitimate proof was dumped in the ocean, right next to Sadaam's WMD's...with some yellow cake sprinkled on to mark the spot.
"Osama is clearly guilty, never denied it,"
say what? Osama explicitly denied any involvement in it and no evidence has proven him guilty of it.
Which doesn't mean that he is not an self-proclaimed enemy of the USA, but once you start executing people because of their rhetoric you are no better.
It's really shocking how radical this notion is in the USA today. the terrorists have clearly won.
i think your answer is that the troves of valuable info is a bunch of bullshit. OBL wasn't killed there, there wasn't much of interest in the compound, just some more dead people who may or may not have anything to do with any terrorist operation. The USGov is desperate to find ways to justify the lives and billions of dollars per day they are taking to maintain the Wars. (well, to be fair, they aren't really taking much heat over the brown-skinned lives)
do you REALLY think the US killed Osama a few days ago? ridiculous.
" When you gloat about killing 3000 people..."
1. OBL denied organizing 9/11, all we have is the word of the USG (which has less credibility than OBL to any intelligent observer)
2. OBL was not killed in this recent PR stunt. He died many years ago.
3. Assassinating people without trial is the practice of low-life scumbag terrorists.
Not all US citizens are duped about this, you are observing the effects of a media monopoly. True many US citizens are looking no further than yourself, but sit with us for coffee sometime, you might be surprised to find signs of intelligent life. and you've got your own dim lemmings wherever you're from too i'd wager!
Bin Laden is only responsible for the deaths of around 3000 Americans.
allegedly.
.
here's an interesting article on the Chernobyl death statistics: http://www.counterpunch.org/giambrone04012011.html
So what do we have to power densely populated areas??
Your thesis assumes it is possible to maintain the current level of energy consumption. The fact is that our modern society has grown to its present size due to one factor alone: cheap energy. All societies grow and shrink based on the energy available. It may seem that 'nuclear' will provide the ready alternative to the fossils that got us here, but it is physically impossible. It seems on the surface that if you just keep building more nuke plants that the problem is solved but no. the reason is that the essential equation is 'energy return on energy invested', dollars are fictional, this is about the availability of 'free' energy. Nuclear provides a fraction of the energy profit of any fossil source, 1% to 5% depending on the study and the specific fossil (and btw, less profitable than most other alternatives except for solar). this is not a matter of dollars, it is a matter of physics...sorta like if you had to stop at the gas station every 15 miles instead of every 300 miles (but cost the same as what used to give you 300 miles), you'd just quit driving most of the time.
Nuclear looks good bc it is a bad ass power source in a small space but it will not solve the energy problem for society in any way. The notion that we can continue on with the same economics we have been used to for the last 100 yrs is absolutely wrong, it will be drastically different. society and its economic activity will shrink to match the energy profit available, wherever it is available. this is a fact and if your local AEIA says otherwise, well, you know why.
and this does not include the periodic catastrophic nuclear accidents as they are a seperate problem.
you'll never give em up, face it. you love those crazy diamond cum trolls.
of them.?
Economics are the logic that wins the day in the USA. Half a trillion of public subsidy over 60 years and nuclear is still not economically viable. If nuclear could show the stats we'd be 99% nuclear by now, hell, if baby seal tears could show half the numbers that coal can, we'd be raising them like chickens.
Nuclear energy is far from cost-effective, it survives bc it has a lot of capital momentum and bc it caters to a very emotional fantasies like "cornucopianism" and "technophilia" when the unparalleled expansion we've enjoyed these last 100 yrs is due to the sheer dirty and deadly _economics_ of the fossil fuels.
But if something goes wrong, say it shatters from a meteor strike, it could turn a significant area into a bad-luck zone for the next 10,000 years.
Anyone who crows about "coming up with" the awesome moniker "Web 3.0" is laughably unclear on the concept of what is generally known as a "nice one", and also unclear on how relatively clever a "nice one" is in the spectrum of creative utterances. I wonder if his next brainstorm will involve a clever name for the next cellular standard.
for sure, and throw in teleportation tech, that would be awesome
if we just stopped building coal plants and build nuclear instead, we would have significantly less pollution in ~10 years.
the pollution from nukes is still there, it's just been transferred to a generation sufficiently removed from the present. (unless something goes wrong, but that probably won't happen ever again;)
The greatest thing about nuke plants is that power stays centralized and certain people make a ton of cash. The EROEI, the measure of most interest, nukes aren't all that. I've read other assessments stating it is closer to 5:1.
The biggest problem facing humankind is the belief that unlimited growth is possible...and desirable.
if we were to assemble our best architects and a devoted team of engineers and technicians, there's no doubt we could automate most of our law enforcement tasks.
welcome this new rule mangling elite
>Fuck you for defending an alleged rapist.
Fuck you for conflating Wikileaks with Assange, and for parroting blatent slander and for being a TOOL.
yes, no doubt at all Amazon considered whether cooperating with the shadow govt. in summary censorship would harm their reputation amongst their client base and quickly concluded; Hahahahahahahahahah Americans? Hahahahahahaha. pull it.
they are dead to me.
Google as big brother, good?
Berlusconi-esque
As others have already said, it's past time for one or both sides to just grow up, swallow their pride, and make sincere peace offers.
This is a common refrain, but false. US backing of Israel makes them several orders of magnitude more powerful, so why should they 'negotiate'?. Israel has routinely committed an atrocity everytime there is a threat of peace breaking out and scoffs at the entire world's opinion of it, saying basically; "what are you going to do about it?"
we're stuck with inbred tribals fighting each other, and there's nothing we can do about it.
Wrong! If the USA were to act as an impartial broker, starting with ending the billions in military support, this atrocity would be over tomorrow. There is no peace simply bc the Israeli leadership has the means and the cover to steal more land and terrorize with impunity, so they do.
Jeez, you're hotter than unit 2!
OK listen, I think I can clear this up for real:
I acknowledged the obvious fact on post 3 that _avoiding_ seawater was obviously important, that has never been in dispute. The question is simply how long to wait. OK?
I say they waited too long, and as evidence i submit the fact that the reactors all started to melt down, blew the roofs off and now highly radioactive shit is everywhere.
You say it was appropriate based on some potential of the cooling system failing down the road and forcing us back to square one. I say that doesn't hold much sway in the face of a meltdown now. Whereas delaying the immediate destruction of a billion dollar reactor does have a helluva sway.
and to address your latest straw man, saying that i think 'splashing water on them is just fine' (which you have done in every single post) shows that you're the troll here.
This post is 100% straw man. I've dealt with you honestly and everything of substance is answered several times above.