simple: There are nuclear reactors that use the 'spent' fuel. The by products of those reactor return to background radiation level in 200-500 years depending on what the original source was. 500 year?
high security refers to the amount of security needed, not how secure something is; however the implication is if it needs to have a high level of security, then it has a high level of security. But high security doesn't mean it can't be breached. .
Nice to know you are in every conversation the police have. Wait, you can't have becasue I have been in conversation with law enforcement where that same statement was said. And since I have only be in meeting with very few law enforcement officers, I think it's reasonably to thing other officers have said that same thing, or something similar.
" as it would apply to the overwhelming majority of cases." and what defines that? how do you determine which ones?
You are leveraging you ignorance to create arbitrary rules that would make thing worse.
I have read many bills, and I understand them fine. The problem might be you. In fact the vast majority of bills are easy to read by anyone. a small percentage requires someone to have a college level reading ability. Which bring us to the question: what constitutes readable by the 'average' person?
" If you cant write a law in 2 pages, you probably cant effectively legislate the issue with laws anyway" based on... your ass?
"legalese there are huge loopholes" OI wouldn't say huge, when compared to 'plain english' So, if a law uses the word literally, what does it mean? See, that's why it needs to be expanded and is long. I'm terrible sorry you upbringing was so poor you can't comprehend more then 2 pages on a subject, but for people who need to think in complex terms, we need more than 2 pages.
"legalese" It must be written in legalese becasue it is more specific. 'plain English' is far to vague and full of double meanings.
"No more that 2 pages at most." So you're mind can't grasp complex siutation may require complex laws? Is that single line? double? does that include the cover?
" Two or more existing laws are repealed for each new law passed (This can be revised down to one-for-one once the current law books are cut to 1/4 their current size) and you want to through some arbitrary limit on laws as if new situation will never happen?
Understanding the legal system and trying to make specific changes is what you need to do to help. anything else makes you look like an ignorant buffoon...cause you are.
"A nutjob with an undetectable pistol is riskier than a responsible person carrying an assault rifle. that would be a fine argument if we could predict who would become a 'nutjob' in advance and automatically.
very person is a small chemical imbalance from being a 'nutjob' of one type or another.
"... a responsible person carrying an assault rifle. " Except carrying one in civilian use is already a irrational behavior. Doing so means: A) You think it is likely to be needed(unfounded) B) That you don't care about bystander casualties. Most rounds miss, which is fine when you just wan't to hit anybody in a group(enemy line) but on the streets its a different matter.
"Their response to one idea does not characterize them." Maybe not, but the answer to some questions can give a hell of a lot of insight to how they think, or more precisely, don't.
Number of major hijacking or jumbo jets flown into a building since TSA 0 Number of hijackings that happen when private industry did airport security >0
You can't buy a hand gun in an airport. But with this you could make a gun past the screening area, or in a class room, and so on. It also means it's trivial to get around ID checks for felons, and people with mental illness.
'Begging the Question': How effective have those bans been for schools? and
If so, why hasn't it with schools? In those statements you are assuming it hasn't. What do you base this on?
Argument from Personal Incredulity,
Even supposing you can "ban" all guns, the shear volume of guns in the wild will assure there presence indefinitely.
" "Attrition" just isn't an option." of course it is; whoever we could just confiscate them.
"guns in the wild will assure there presence indefinitely. " indefinitely is a long time.
I don't think you know how to have a conversation.
"Find another solution." Why because you can't make an argument? becasue it doesn't feel right? You, and in fact pretty much everyone, has yet to put forth a logical argument to support that, to anything in you post. Ban the sale or gifting of any fire arms. Ban the sale of ammunition.
"How effective have those bans been for schools?" II didn't bring this up becasue I am assuming you are talking about US schools, so I kept it at the fact you have no basis for your premise. I do think it's worth noting that globally it has been very good for school in countries that strict and enforce firearm laws.
You are just repeating logically fallacious argument the PR controlled NRA has been spewing. All of it is based nowhere near reality.
"we -aren't- planning on attacking the Russians, are we?" Of course we are. Just like we have plans for 100's of military moves. Whether or not we implement those plans is another question.
"The days of Red Baiting should be over" Putin is doing his best to bring it back. His moves really seem to be to bring back a single power* and muscle his way around. He's entrenching a theocracy, arresting minor dissenter, and undoing all the democratic gain over the last 30 years. His moving to control certain oil interests
errr. I didn't' want to imply it was the same single power, just a centralized power.
Why do you assume nuke? IT could be a conventional weapon fired from sea. And yes, current nukes are accurate enough. Anything small enough to warrant this would be conventional.
Yes. I've never understood why TV manufactures tolerate the way images are piped to TVs in stores. A local best buy had a 4k running 4k footage. Just...beautiful.
You can tell the difference with 4k. It's stunning. If it were any greater a blind person could tell the difference~ BTW, I was looking at 2 TVs side by side, and there was no sales person. My son and I were astonished at how great it looked. It was only after I talked to someone working there did we find out it was 4k. Which was a surprise, becasue until then I thought it was years off.
"Almost 100% unavailable." Therefore it's available. and almost 100% unavailable is not the same as "There is no 4k media shot in the real world. " There fore I am right and you have changes you mind.
There are several 4k clip on Netflix right now. Granted they are only about 7 minutes. Youtube had 4k. I'm pretty sure it will be back.
Slashdot Mirror
You can generate weaonpized fuel to Thorium reactors, it's just harder.
simple:
There are nuclear reactors that use the 'spent' fuel. The by products of those reactor return to background radiation level in 200-500 years depending on what the original source was. 500 year?
looked like that now. We would be there.
high security refers to the amount of security needed, not how secure something is; however the implication is if it needs to have a high level of security, then it has a high level of security. But high security doesn't mean it can't be breached.
.
A) You can make a firing pin out of 'ordinary' materials,
B) Some ammunition isn't detectable with metal detectors.
Nice to know you are in every conversation the police have.
Wait, you can't have becasue I have been in conversation with law enforcement where that same statement was said.
And since I have only be in meeting with very few law enforcement officers, I think it's reasonably to thing other officers have said that same thing, or something similar.
Based on..?
Complex society will be...complex.
" as it would apply to the overwhelming majority of cases."
and what defines that? how do you determine which ones?
You are leveraging you ignorance to create arbitrary rules that would make thing worse.
I have read many bills, and I understand them fine. The problem might be you.
In fact the vast majority of bills are easy to read by anyone. a small percentage requires someone to have a college level reading ability.
Which bring us to the question: what constitutes readable by the 'average' person?
" If you cant write a law in 2 pages, you probably cant effectively legislate the issue with laws anyway"
based on... your ass?
"legalese there are huge loopholes"
OI wouldn't say huge, when compared to 'plain english' So, if a law uses the word literally, what does it mean?
See, that's why it needs to be expanded and is long. I'm terrible sorry you upbringing was so poor you can't comprehend more then 2 pages on a subject, but for people who need to think in complex terms, we need more than 2 pages.
"legalese"
It must be written in legalese becasue it is more specific. 'plain English' is far to vague and full of double meanings.
"No more that 2 pages at most."
So you're mind can't grasp complex siutation may require complex laws? Is that single line? double? does that include the cover?
" Two or more existing laws are repealed for each new law passed (This can be revised down to one-for-one once the current law books are cut to 1/4 their current size)
and you want to through some arbitrary limit on laws as if new situation will never happen?
Understanding the legal system and trying to make specific changes is what you need to do to help. anything else makes you look like an ignorant buffoon...cause you are.
Yeah, it's easy to hide a crossbow.
"A nutjob with an undetectable pistol is riskier than a responsible person carrying an assault rifle.
that would be a fine argument if we could predict who would become a 'nutjob' in advance and automatically.
very person is a small chemical imbalance from being a 'nutjob' of one type or another.
"... a responsible person carrying an assault rifle. "
Except carrying one in civilian use is already a irrational behavior. Doing so means:
A) You think it is likely to be needed(unfounded)
B) That you don't care about bystander casualties. Most rounds miss, which is fine when you just wan't to hit anybody in a group(enemy line) but on the streets its a different matter.
"Their response to one idea does not characterize them."
Maybe not, but the answer to some questions can give a hell of a lot of insight to how they think, or more precisely, don't.
Jacketless rounds, and plastic bullets. It would only need to fire a very short distance.
Number of major hijacking or jumbo jets flown into a building since TSA 0
Number of hijackings that happen when private industry did airport security >0
So you want to take away the right of the people to vote for whomever they like? Cause that's what term limits mean.
way to miss the point.
You can't buy a hand gun in an airport. But with this you could make a gun past the screening area, or in a class room, and so on. It also means it's trivial to get around ID checks for felons, and people with mental illness.
You seem to suffer form the simple minded idea that criminals are 'all in'. That if they will commit one crime, then they will commit any crime.
They are not.
you post is nothing but logical fallacys.
'Begging the Question':
How effective have those bans been for schools?
and
If so, why hasn't it with schools?
In those statements you are assuming it hasn't. What do you base this on?
Argument from Personal Incredulity,
Even supposing you can "ban" all guns, the shear volume of guns in the wild will assure there presence indefinitely.
" "Attrition" just isn't an option."
of course it is; whoever we could just confiscate them.
"guns in the wild will assure there presence indefinitely. "
indefinitely is a long time.
I don't think you know how to have a conversation.
"Find another solution."
Why because you can't make an argument? becasue it doesn't feel right? You, and in fact pretty much everyone, has yet to put forth a logical argument to support that, to anything in you post.
Ban the sale or gifting of any fire arms. Ban the sale of ammunition.
"How effective have those bans been for schools?"
II didn't bring this up becasue I am assuming you are talking about US schools, so I kept it at the fact you have no basis for your premise. I do think it's worth noting that globally it has been very good for school in countries that strict and enforce firearm laws.
You are just repeating logically fallacious argument the PR controlled NRA has been spewing. All of it is based nowhere near reality.
"we -aren't- planning on attacking the Russians, are we?"
Of course we are. Just like we have plans for 100's of military moves. Whether or not we implement those plans is another question.
"The days of Red Baiting should be over"
Putin is doing his best to bring it back. His moves really seem to be to bring back a single power* and muscle his way around. He's entrenching a theocracy, arresting minor dissenter, and undoing all the democratic gain over the last 30 years. His moving to control certain oil interests
errr. I didn't' want to imply it was the same single power, just a centralized power.
Why do you assume nuke? IT could be a conventional weapon fired from sea.
And yes, current nukes are accurate enough. Anything small enough to warrant this would be conventional.
Yes. I've never understood why TV manufactures tolerate the way images are piped to TVs in stores.
A local best buy had a 4k running 4k footage. Just...beautiful.
Sitting at the same distance, 4k is better. Maybe you living room changes shape based on the size of the TV?
You can tell the difference with 4k. It's stunning. If it were any greater a blind person could tell the difference~
BTW, I was looking at 2 TVs side by side, and there was no sales person. My son and I were astonished at how great it looked.
It was only after I talked to someone working there did we find out it was 4k.
Which was a surprise, becasue until then I thought it was years off.
I'm waiting for them to put cameras around the field so they can do matrix like shots.
"Almost 100% unavailable."
Therefore it's available.
and almost 100% unavailable is not the same as "There is no 4k media shot in the real world. "
There fore I am right and you have changes you mind.
There are several 4k clip on Netflix right now.
Granted they are only about 7 minutes.
Youtube had 4k. I'm pretty sure it will be back.
Every major content creator is moving to 4k.