The problem here is that you are only counting food biomass, and extrapolating a definitive conclusion from it that ethanol in general cannot provide 100% fuel requirements.
Yearly, a single suburban home will produce several hundred pounds of lawn clippings, the primary components of which are cellulose and water. Other sources are ornamental tree trimmings, and waste paper pulp products.
Even if cellulosic ethanol cannot be efficiently industrialized, there re other processes to convert carbohydrates into combustible fuels, such as gassification. (Essentially, burning inefficiently in the pesence of water to create carbon monoxide and hydrogen gasses, the combination of which can be catalytically converted into methane, or burned directly as syngas as-is. Some of the stored energy is lost as heat in the reaction, but the same is true of yeast process ethanol, where energy is lost to the mtabolic requirements of the yeast organisms.)
Efficient collection of domestic lawn waste for fuel synthesis kills 2 birds with one stone, as lawn waste is a considerable component of average consumer refuse, which causes many problems for landfills and waste management efforts. Removing it from the waste stream for fuel use is a no brainer, but we simply don't do it.
Discounting this surce of biomass from inclusion in the ethanol calculation is disingenuous.
For me, it was (and still is) the deep hentai-tentacle relationship that IE has with the win32 userspace on modern windows.
You can choose not to use IE as your browser, but if you use windows, you can't choose not to use IE completely. (Because components of IE are used in the default shell, explorer.exe)
I want to see windows and IE be completely seperate, independent entities.
THEN I could see merit in your argument. Let me *UNINSTALL* IE 100% cleanly, and without borking up the system. Then we can talk.
The solution to this is in how you set up the complex, and how you fashion the cage.
Say for instance, you make your hardened datacenter on the ground floor. You make the room itself dome shaped, and use a descending stair inside the center of the roomto get in and out. This lets your cage be seamless. The connecting underground corridor connected to the stair has 3 90degree bends, and 3 doors, all directly below the caged area. This prevents the hallway from transfering any considerable volume of microwaves as if it were a waveguide. The doors need to be metal.
The cage itself is made of multiple laminated layers of drywall mud and metalic insect screening, 1 inch thick.
Climate control for the data center is subteranean, beneath the cage, like the access corridor.
Wouldn't pass fire code, but it would resist this missile attack with ease.
Easily defeated with a line filter, and a consumer grade UPS. (Both inside the cage.)
When the filter cannot condition the line voltage signal, it cuts the power, which kicks the UPS on. The line filter protects the UPS from damage.
The issue then is in having the faraday cage protected systems interact outside the cage in a meaningful way while the attack is in progress. A wired ethernet connection outside the cage would serve as a nifty pigtail antenna, funneling the microwave frequency signal straight into the network hardware in the building. I am sure that wouldn't be a very good thing.
Having the devices inside the cage use a wireless connection is silly. The cage won't let the signal out.
Fiber optic interlinks, protected behind the faraday cage, with a fully caged wired local network topology might work. (All elements outside the cage are non conductive glass fiber.)
This would require dedicated effort to set up though, and would be prohibitively expensive.
I said that it is up to the participants in the session to handle data correction over UDP, and that usually that data type is used by protocols that expect transmission errors and continue anyway without correction. (Because getting a resend comes at too great a performance penalty.)
I believe wireless layer 1 qualifies as "cruddy", even if the adjective isn't quite strong enough. (Especially since it is the equivalent of using wired cabling for multiple non-network uses simultaneously with data with no sharing scheme implemented. Eg, sharing physical layer with a microwave oven.)
802.11a/b/g/n does the best it can, but don't implement multipacket reconstruction to avoid resends. Instead, the radio has to repeatedly shout over the noise floor, and hope the recipient got the datagram, and that a reciept response makes it back. As the popularity of the medium grows (and with it deployments), the noisier the floor gets.
I agree that layer 3 is not the best place, but due to the peculiarities and unreliability of lower levels, i'd rather see it there than up at the presentation layer, or some other rediculous place.
By definition, UDP sessions don't have delivery garantees like TCP does. That's what TCP does! It provides a mechanism for clients to ensure integrity and ordering of received packets. Netbios is an encapsulated protocol over IP, which uses TCP to ensure delivery. ICMP... really? Are you really asking for delivery correction on multi packet ICMP? For real? You do realize that fragmented ICMP is a nono, right, and that ICMP should be wholly contained in single packet messages?
While true that I wouldn't work for UDP, the clearing of traffic normally consumed by TCP requests and responses would improve performance of UDP by making the medium more available even if the coded TCP method has no direct implication with UDP. (It is up to the UDP session members to negotiate and handle lost datagrams. Not the network stack. UDP is intended for custom user protocols that can't easily live inside a TCP/IP packet, like large video or streaming audio feeds. Normally these protocols can deal with loss, and the burden of ensuring 100% delivery comes at prohibitive performance costs, so UDP with acceptible loss is ideal.)
He needs closer to 20 to do it safely. Short version: either he cauterizes the economy's aorta, and watches the country die, or he's blowing smoke to get re-elected.
There also exists a chemical abortion drug other than plan B, but can't recall the name. I think it starts with M. (I am not an OBGYN afterall. )
It works up through 2 months gestation, but due to placental infiltration, is too dangerous to use after that time. That's well within first trimester.
Second trimester is unfortunate, but I can see how women would fail to be sure up until then. (You can't just rush to the OBGYN and get a test any time of the day, afterall, and home pregnancy tests require the test taker to have been pregnant for awhile to be conclusive.) I would expect women who chose abortion at this stage to d so for well considered reasons, as getting one can have lasting psychological effects on the woman. For those that do, and are perfectly sure, there are many relatively uninvasive approaches.
Third trimester, outside of extremely morbid circumstances, should be avoided. They place the woman in considerable risk of being permanently harmed, which should only be done for very specific reasons. "I don't want to be pregnant!" Is not one of them. A ceasarian will make you not pregnant anymore too, and has better post operative care.
I specifically listed the stereotypes for a reason. If you have your head so far up your ass that you could not possibly comprehend why, you should be the one to be quiet.
As I said, this is what I SEE. As in, what is heavily portrayed by both major parties. (Rather, what each group says about the other.)
Of course it isn't completely true.
A shocking number of people are pro-Romney for purely religious reasons, and are completey oblivious to the horrors that his pro-corporation policy would cause.
A shocking number of people support obama for his very recent decision to spontaneously support gay marriage. About the only thing Obama seems to care deeply about was his healthcare system, which would be better replaced simply by increasing the number of doctors.
The assertion that obama wants to cut military budgets is laughable. Do you have any idea what percentage of the american public is employed, either directly or indirectly, by miliary industrial contractors, like Ratheon, Boeing, Learjet, Lockheed-Martin and pals? Here's a hint. More than half. (You have to factor supply lines in too. People who make boxes for the components to ship in. People who make adhesives and sealants. People who screws and airguns. All are sustained by a market created by military expenditure. Removing that would cause unspeakable financia ruin. I don't believe obama is that stupid. Instead, I say his claims to willfully slash federal budgets for military expenditure are just hot air for election time.)
It would appear so. This happens to centrists from both partisan camps: they rent extreme enough for either side.
When we criticize, we are denounced in the same way the "evil other side!" Are. In this case, I was immediately accused of being anti-abortion, which is false. Accused of wanting increased military spending, which is false, accused of hating women, which is false, and accused of wanting to see old people tossed out on the street, which is false.
He then said I should support obama, because of my positions, despite my open stating why I won't do so.
Apparently my lack of zealous fervor is what he finds disgusting. This happens frequently with centrists actually. We are universally reviled by the partisan crowd.
Should have read "Kill", not "likk". I have serious problems with this rediculous froyo device.
Again, as I pointed out, killing government military spending will result in a major unemployment spiral, because many state economies, especially in traditionally republican states, are hoplessly dependent upon major military contractors landing big contracts to keep people employed.
Analogy: voting to kill FoxConn in the foxconn factory city.
This is why it is a white elephant, and they try so hard to ignore it, while simultaneously awarding bigger and bigger contracts, and why obama's promise to cut the spending is laughably farsical.
A 3rd trimester abortion cannot be made easy. The fetus is the size of a football. (American.)
For the same degree of invasiveness, the woman could choose a ceasarian section, with a very good chance the fetus will live. (It is functionally no different from a premature birth.)
3rd trimester abortions require curretage. Look it up. Its basically having the inside of her womb, which is by then swollen with bloodvessels to supply the placenta the fetus is attached to with oxygen and nutrients, scraped with a knife that resembles a spatula with a hole cut in the center, with sharp edges, so she gets scraped like a potato with a potato peeler. That is what currettage is. By comparison, a ceasarian section is a vertical surgical insision, followed by removal of the fetus and more controlled removal of the placental mass.
In terms of postoperative complications, both are nearly equal. Many women require histerectomies after botched 3rd trimester abortions. They rent something you get on a whim. Ever.
Obama has an established track record of saying one set of things, then actually doing whatever the right wing wants in regard to military expenses.
He is the president. His power is VETO. He should have used it. He did not. Instead he endorsed legislation that increased military expenditures, and got the US involved in libya; and increased the amount of assfucking the government is legally allowed to do to private citizens. If that's left, I don't wanna see what the right has to offer.
Your argument relies on the dumbfounding proposition that what Obama says he is going to do, is what he will actually do.
I am basing my pessimistic view around his previous track record instead.
The "difference" between the candidates and their policies boils down to how long it is before the US government is completely bankrupt. That is all.
Obama just offers social services, while Romney wants to cut them. (The truth is that they should likk the white elephant in the room that military expenditure represents with great justice in their hearts, and slash government intelligence projects focused on spying on US citizens along with it.)
Neither will do so, for a very simple reason. A HUGE portion of the economy is vitally dependent upon military contracts, without which, the current economic downturn would look like a blip.
I don't envy politicians. The choice they would be forced to make here is unpleasant from every angle, and they will be demonized regardless, but it is important to know that it is a problem of their own creation.
But since you asked for clarification on the war issue: I think the US should stop involving itself in every little dispute the world pukes up. We need to cut military expenditure, not increase it. Clearly, we didn't learn anything from the fall of the soviet union about unsustainable military presences.
And now, the major thing you cannot seem to fathom:
I DON'T SUPPORT EITHER CANDIDATE AT ALL.
*AT ALL*
Yes. I voted in the primaries. I did NOT vote for Romney. (Nor did I vote for the other Right wing troll the GOP vomitted up. I actually voted for Paul on the primary, hoping he would win the nomination by popular vote, which he did in many areas, but was rejected wholesale by the GOP anyway.)
I do not favor Obama, despite many liberal leanings, due to his abysmal performance the past 4 years, and before that, I didn't support him because his promises he made while campaigning were completely impossible to meet by a president.
My prediction: Obama is lying and will do exactly the same things he's done the past 4 years-- which is to sign practically everything put in front of him while going on vacation and blame it all on the bush era, and Romney is a war mongering douche, and is shamelessy open about how he's going to shove hard corporate cock down every man woman and child in the country.
Election outcome prediction: Obama wins due to Paul split of vote on the right, followed by radical increase in govt spending.
A choice between Obama and Romney is a choice between Kang and Kodos.
I clearly see that both are corrupt, and do not have my, nor our nation's interests in mind. Regardless of how small the chance of victory is for the 3rd party, the ethical choice is to choose him.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!" Is what has systematically killed this country for 50 years.
Just so you know what my personal policies are regarding the issues you just lobbed at me blithely, again, despite two previous postings pointng out that "criticism of Obama != support of Romney" for you, As the saying goes, "third time's the charm."
I support people getting abortions, within reason. For instance, I am in favor of things like "plan B" which induces a chemical abortion during the first trimester. I think it should be OTC, with a free pharmicist consult to prevent dangerous off-label use. (It can cause life threatening bleeding if used on a later stage pregnancy, for instance.) I am against 3rd trimester abortion of any kind. (Seriously, the woman didn't know she was pregnant for 6 months before then? For real?) Religion isn't the issue. I am agnostic. In terms of risk of complications, a ceasarian and a D&E with currettage (literally, having the womb scraped with a kife) are about on par, except that one kills the fetus, and the other does not. Barring extreme medical interventions, 3rd trimester abortion has no medical benefit whatsoever, and cannot be supported rationally.
Medical care is a serious problem as well, but the problem with the "all eggs in one basket" approach by government causes a situation rife with abuse, which happens right now, routinely. Rather than a shortlist of medical suppliers authorized to work through medicare, I would rather see patients receive a fixed credit from medicare, and search for the best provider for their specific needs. That way hospitals have to compete for medicare funding. I would like to see US pharmecutical companies be prohibited from selling pharmecuticals at rediculous premiums domestically, and for peanuts abroad as well. This alone would almost completely fix medicaid. Additionally, I would like to se a mandate to the AMA that they train a radically increased percentage of physicians each year, to drive down the costs of care by increasing supply.
As for my sexual preference, you have it wrong. I am asexual, and don't give a shit what people do with their equipment. I cannot condone anyone being treated disrespectfully over something as rediculous as who they or don't find attractive.
Now. Care to shoe-horn me into the Romney camp some more, or are you satisfied?
Religious right: "we love Romney! He's a good christian(tm) like us, and 'hayts teh gayz!' And thinks abortion is evil like us! We don't like Obama, because he sided with Teh Gayz and the baby killers, and wants to give those evil sinners our tax money!" (Nevermind that almost none of us are actually true adherents of the beliefs we claim to aspire to, or we wouldn't 'hayte teh gayz' like we do, and wouldn't try to force our reigious beliefs down the rest of the nation as a whole, because we wouldn't want to be hypocrites, something GOD (as in, red letters) says he simply cannot tolerate. Also, Obama's black. We won't say that publicly, because it's racist, and we have a dirty trac record, but yeah. Its an issue. Also, Obama's totally a socialist, out to take all the hard earned money from god-fearing americans, and give them to shiftless, lazy people who are too lazy to go out and get jobs! Nevermind that there aren't any jobs for them to take even if they did, because of our immigrant labor policies! It's so much easier to abuse foriegn laborers than poor domestic ones!"
Liberal Left: "we love Obama, because he said he is for gay marriage, and supports a woman's right to choose not to be pregnant. He strongy supports intellectual properties and wants to help creative industries remain profitable while giving government funds to help the poor escape poverty. (Nevermind that he only JUST came out in support of those social issues as a result of Romney choosing to not support them, and that his fiscal policies for the past term have been absolutely disasterous, and that historical precident for large scale welfare programs shows a dreadful prognosis long term. He's our candidate. Also, He's black, so he's a minority, and that's edgy. We like that. We won't say that publicly though, because that's racist. Also, voting for him pisses the religious people off, and we like that, because we think they are dumb.)
Libertarians, Moderate centrists, independents: "Seriously, you expect us to choose between somebody that has endorsed legislation that has expanded government powers to defeat due process and harm our citizens, repeatedly and consistently for 4 years, while authorizing expanded military budgets while claiming emphatically that his doing so is all Bush's fault despite his being out of office for 4 years and having the power to veto and recind previous executive orders this whole time, failing to deliver on pretty much all of his promises, and who's financial policies are the thing of nightmares-- and somebody who is pretty much the poster child for graft, corruption, and hypocrisy, who has openly stated that he is fully in favor of corporations being considered equal to living breathing people in terms of rights, despite the lack of culpability for civic offenses, and requirements for public services, and is clearly not going to act in the interests of the american public at large? You honestly expect us to choose between a stupid narcisist with a bright smile, and a raging sociopath? REALLY !? ARE YOU FUCKING CRAZY!?"
It's bsically a cute expression for a not very cute subject. Due to the appearance of the statement I made, I felt it prudent to point out that I was not employing the statement as a cute-ified slur about Obama's race and behavior, as some readers would falsely believe. That is all. It was more intended that they are both exactly the same "lunch", but with different combinations of food aditives. In the end, you are eating exactly the same thing regardless.
I refused to vote at all last election. Obama is a horrible president, and so was bush.
Even if it is a thrown away vote, I at least have a batshit crazy MFer that is contrary to all major agendas to vote for this time, which is more than I had 4 years ago.
Obama is brown lunch with grey sauce, and Romney is grey lunch with brown sauce. (And no. That is not a euphamism for their races. It's an animaniacs reference.)
It doesn't matter which one wins. Regardless, a deleterious agenda will be spearheaded. It is a false dichotomy to say we must choose which of those agendas to bend over for.
Personally, I'd vote for "assasinate both and start over", but in civilized countries this isn't an option. I'll grudgingly settle for "insane and unpredictable" with a write in for Paul. (Insane and unpredictable at least frustrates all major agendas.)
I am curious to know as well, since uranus has complex rotation. (It rotates on 2 axies; one roughly parallel to the solar ecliptic, and one perpendicular to it.) The coriolis effects would favor the first axis, but would still be influenced by the second.
Other interesting things would be the impact of solar heating due to its unusual angle of primary rotation. I can imagine very strange liquid gas ocean currents on the surface. (If not liquid, at least supercritical) the actual rocky body core inside probably has some very unique features from the erosion of the highspeed, high pressure atmosphere.
It really is a shame that we would have to make probes of pure unobtanium to exlore anything other than the atmospheres of the gas giants. I would love to see the remnants of the impact crater from the impact that knocked uranus into such an obscure rotation, or to see how such a dense and high velocity atmosphere erodes and reshapes the rocky body beneath.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem here is that you are only counting food biomass, and extrapolating a definitive conclusion from it that ethanol in general cannot provide 100% fuel requirements.
Yearly, a single suburban home will produce several hundred pounds of lawn clippings, the primary components of which are cellulose and water. Other sources are ornamental tree trimmings, and waste paper pulp products.
Even if cellulosic ethanol cannot be efficiently industrialized, there re other processes to convert carbohydrates into combustible fuels, such as gassification. (Essentially, burning inefficiently in the pesence of water to create carbon monoxide and hydrogen gasses, the combination of which can be catalytically converted into methane, or burned directly as syngas as-is. Some of the stored energy is lost as heat in the reaction, but the same is true of yeast process ethanol, where energy is lost to the mtabolic requirements of the yeast organisms.)
Efficient collection of domestic lawn waste for fuel synthesis kills 2 birds with one stone, as lawn waste is a considerable component of average consumer refuse, which causes many problems for landfills and waste management efforts. Removing it from the waste stream for fuel use is a no brainer, but we simply don't do it.
Discounting this surce of biomass from inclusion in the ethanol calculation is disingenuous.
For me, it was (and still is) the deep hentai-tentacle relationship that IE has with the win32 userspace on modern windows.
You can choose not to use IE as your browser, but if you use windows, you can't choose not to use IE completely. (Because components of IE are used in the default shell, explorer.exe)
I want to see windows and IE be completely seperate, independent entities.
THEN I could see merit in your argument. Let me *UNINSTALL* IE 100% cleanly, and without borking up the system. Then we can talk.
The solution to this is in how you set up the complex, and how you fashion the cage.
Say for instance, you make your hardened datacenter on the ground floor. You make the room itself dome shaped, and use a descending stair inside the center of the roomto get in and out. This lets your cage be seamless. The connecting underground corridor connected to the stair has 3 90degree bends, and 3 doors, all directly below the caged area. This prevents the hallway from transfering any considerable volume of microwaves as if it were a waveguide. The doors need to be metal.
The cage itself is made of multiple laminated layers of drywall mud and metalic insect screening, 1 inch thick.
Climate control for the data center is subteranean, beneath the cage, like the access corridor.
Wouldn't pass fire code, but it would resist this missile attack with ease.
Easily defeated with a line filter, and a consumer grade UPS.
(Both inside the cage.)
When the filter cannot condition the line voltage signal, it cuts the power, which kicks the UPS on. The line filter protects the UPS from damage.
The issue then is in having the faraday cage protected systems interact outside the cage in a meaningful way while the attack is in progress. A wired ethernet connection outside the cage would serve as a nifty pigtail antenna, funneling the microwave frequency signal straight into the network hardware in the building. I am sure that wouldn't be a very good thing.
Having the devices inside the cage use a wireless connection is silly. The cage won't let the signal out.
Fiber optic interlinks, protected behind the faraday cage, with a fully caged wired local network topology might work. (All elements outside the cage are non conductive glass fiber.)
This would require dedicated effort to set up though, and would be prohibitively expensive.
That's not what I said.
I said that it is up to the participants in the session to handle data correction over UDP, and that usually that data type is used by protocols that expect transmission errors and continue anyway without correction. (Because getting a resend comes at too great a performance penalty.)
I didn't say that UDP doesn't do data correction.
I believe wireless layer 1 qualifies as "cruddy", even if the adjective isn't quite strong enough. (Especially since it is the equivalent of using wired cabling for multiple non-network uses simultaneously with data with no sharing scheme implemented. Eg, sharing physical layer with a microwave oven.)
802.11a/b/g/n does the best it can, but don't implement multipacket reconstruction to avoid resends. Instead, the radio has to repeatedly shout over the noise floor, and hope the recipient got the datagram, and that a reciept response makes it back. As the popularity of the medium grows (and with it deployments), the noisier the floor gets.
I agree that layer 3 is not the best place, but due to the peculiarities and unreliability of lower levels, i'd rather see it there than up at the presentation layer, or some other rediculous place.
By definition, UDP sessions don't have delivery garantees like TCP does. That's what TCP does! It provides a mechanism for clients to ensure integrity and ordering of received packets. Netbios is an encapsulated protocol over IP, which uses TCP to ensure delivery. ICMP... really? Are you really asking for delivery correction on multi packet ICMP? For real? You do realize that fragmented ICMP is a nono, right, and that ICMP should be wholly contained in single packet messages?
While true that I wouldn't work for UDP, the clearing of traffic normally consumed by TCP requests and responses would improve performance of UDP by making the medium more available even if the coded TCP method has no direct implication with UDP. (It is up to the UDP session members to negotiate and handle lost datagrams. Not the network stack. UDP is intended for custom user protocols that can't easily live inside a TCP/IP packet, like large video or streaming audio feeds. Normally these protocols can deal with loss, and the burden of ensuring 100% delivery comes at prohibitive performance costs, so UDP with acceptible loss is ideal.)
People also trend toward not taking the opinions of arrogant pedants seriously.
Obama has 4 years to implement the policy.
He needs closer to 20 to do it safely. Short version: either he cauterizes the economy's aorta, and watches the country die, or he's blowing smoke to get re-elected.
Really? It sure sounded like "lunch" when I heard it as a kid. Then again, it was Plucky Duck saying it... it could well have been "lumps".
I will accept the correction.
(And yes. I will take the carrots please.)
There also exists a chemical abortion drug other than plan B, but can't recall the name. I think it starts with M. (I am not an OBGYN afterall. )
It works up through 2 months gestation, but due to placental infiltration, is too dangerous to use after that time. That's well within first trimester.
Second trimester is unfortunate, but I can see how women would fail to be sure up until then. (You can't just rush to the OBGYN and get a test any time of the day, afterall, and home pregnancy tests require the test taker to have been pregnant for awhile to be conclusive.) I would expect women who chose abortion at this stage to d so for well considered reasons, as getting one can have lasting psychological effects on the woman. For those that do, and are perfectly sure, there are many relatively uninvasive approaches.
Third trimester, outside of extremely morbid circumstances, should be avoided. They place the woman in considerable risk of being permanently harmed, which should only be done for very specific reasons. "I don't want to be pregnant!" Is not one of them. A ceasarian will make you not pregnant anymore too, and has better post operative care.
I specifically listed the stereotypes for a reason. If you have your head so far up your ass that you could not possibly comprehend why, you should be the one to be quiet.
As I said, this is what I SEE. As in, what is heavily portrayed by both major parties. (Rather, what each group says about the other.)
Of course it isn't completely true.
A shocking number of people are pro-Romney for purely religious reasons, and are completey oblivious to the horrors that his pro-corporation policy would cause.
A shocking number of people support obama for his very recent decision to spontaneously support gay marriage. About the only thing Obama seems to care deeply about was his healthcare system, which would be better replaced simply by increasing the number of doctors.
The assertion that obama wants to cut military budgets is laughable. Do you have any idea what percentage of the american public is employed, either directly or indirectly, by miliary industrial contractors, like Ratheon, Boeing, Learjet, Lockheed-Martin and pals? Here's a hint. More than half. (You have to factor supply lines in too. People who make boxes for the components to ship in. People who make adhesives and sealants. People who screws and airguns. All are sustained by a market created by military expenditure. Removing that would cause unspeakable financia ruin. I don't believe obama is that stupid. Instead, I say his claims to willfully slash federal budgets for military expenditure are just hot air for election time.)
It would appear so. This happens to centrists from both partisan camps: they rent extreme enough for either side.
When we criticize, we are denounced in the same way the "evil other side!" Are. In this case, I was immediately accused of being anti-abortion, which is false. Accused of wanting increased military spending, which is false, accused of hating women, which is false, and accused of wanting to see old people tossed out on the street, which is false.
He then said I should support obama, because of my positions, despite my open stating why I won't do so.
Apparently my lack of zealous fervor is what he finds disgusting. This happens frequently with centrists actually. We are universally reviled by the partisan crowd.
Should have read "Kill", not "likk". I have serious problems with this rediculous froyo device.
Again, as I pointed out, killing government military spending will result in a major unemployment spiral, because many state economies, especially in traditionally republican states, are hoplessly dependent upon major military contractors landing big contracts to keep people employed.
Analogy: voting to kill FoxConn in the foxconn factory city.
This is why it is a white elephant, and they try so hard to ignore it, while simultaneously awarding bigger and bigger contracts, and why obama's promise to cut the spending is laughably farsical.
A 3rd trimester abortion cannot be made easy. The fetus is the size of a football. (American.)
For the same degree of invasiveness, the woman could choose a ceasarian section, with a very good chance the fetus will live. (It is functionally no different from a premature birth.)
3rd trimester abortions require curretage. Look it up. Its basically having the inside of her womb, which is by then swollen with bloodvessels to supply the placenta the fetus is attached to with oxygen and nutrients, scraped with a knife that resembles a spatula with a hole cut in the center, with sharp edges, so she gets scraped like a potato with a potato peeler. That is what currettage is. By comparison, a ceasarian section is a vertical surgical insision, followed by removal of the fetus and more controlled removal of the placental mass.
In terms of postoperative complications, both are nearly equal. Many women require histerectomies after botched 3rd trimester abortions. They rent something you get on a whim. Ever.
Thank you.
Obama has an established track record of saying one set of things, then actually doing whatever the right wing wants in regard to military expenses.
He is the president. His power is VETO. He should have used it. He did not. Instead he endorsed legislation that increased military expenditures, and got the US involved in libya; and increased the amount of assfucking the government is legally allowed to do to private citizens. If that's left, I don't wanna see what the right has to offer.
Your argument relies on the dumbfounding proposition that what Obama says he is going to do, is what he will actually do.
I am basing my pessimistic view around his previous track record instead.
(Shakes head)
The "difference" between the candidates and their policies boils down to how long it is before the US government is completely bankrupt. That is all.
Obama just offers social services, while Romney wants to cut them. (The truth is that they should likk the white elephant in the room that military expenditure represents with great justice in their hearts, and slash government intelligence projects focused on spying on US citizens along with it.)
Neither will do so, for a very simple reason. A HUGE portion of the economy is vitally dependent upon military contracts, without which, the current economic downturn would look like a blip.
I don't envy politicians. The choice they would be forced to make here is unpleasant from every angle, and they will be demonized regardless, but it is important to know that it is a problem of their own creation.
But since you asked for clarification on the war issue: I think the US should stop involving itself in every little dispute the world pukes up. We need to cut military expenditure, not increase it. Clearly, we didn't learn anything from the fall of the soviet union about unsustainable military presences.
And now, the major thing you cannot seem to fathom:
I DON'T SUPPORT EITHER CANDIDATE AT ALL.
*AT ALL*
Yes. I voted in the primaries. I did NOT vote for Romney. (Nor did I vote for the other Right wing troll the GOP vomitted up. I actually voted for Paul on the primary, hoping he would win the nomination by popular vote, which he did in many areas, but was rejected wholesale by the GOP anyway.)
I do not favor Obama, despite many liberal leanings, due to his abysmal performance the past 4 years, and before that, I didn't support him because his promises he made while campaigning were completely impossible to meet by a president.
My prediction: Obama is lying and will do exactly the same things he's done the past 4 years-- which is to sign practically everything put in front of him while going on vacation and blame it all on the bush era, and Romney is a war mongering douche, and is shamelessy open about how he's going to shove hard corporate cock down every man woman and child in the country.
Election outcome prediction: Obama wins due to Paul split of vote on the right, followed by radical increase in govt spending.
No, False dichotomy is false.
A choice between Obama and Romney is a choice between Kang and Kodos.
I clearly see that both are corrupt, and do not have my, nor our nation's interests in mind. Regardless of how small the chance of victory is for the 3rd party, the ethical choice is to choose him.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!" Is what has systematically killed this country for 50 years.
Hello Left. I am Centrist. Right is over there.
Just so you know what my personal policies are regarding the issues you just lobbed at me blithely, again, despite two previous postings pointng out that "criticism of Obama != support of Romney" for you, As the saying goes, "third time's the charm."
I support people getting abortions, within reason. For instance, I am in favor of things like "plan B" which induces a chemical abortion during the first trimester. I think it should be OTC, with a free pharmicist consult to prevent dangerous off-label use. (It can cause life threatening bleeding if used on a later stage pregnancy, for instance.) I am against 3rd trimester abortion of any kind. (Seriously, the woman didn't know she was pregnant for 6 months before then? For real?) Religion isn't the issue. I am agnostic. In terms of risk of complications, a ceasarian and a D&E with currettage (literally, having the womb scraped with a kife) are about on par, except that one kills the fetus, and the other does not. Barring extreme medical interventions, 3rd trimester abortion has no medical benefit whatsoever, and cannot be supported rationally.
Medical care is a serious problem as well, but the problem with the "all eggs in one basket" approach by government causes a situation rife with abuse, which happens right now, routinely. Rather than a shortlist of medical suppliers authorized to work through medicare, I would rather see patients receive a fixed credit from medicare, and search for the best provider for their specific needs. That way hospitals have to compete for medicare funding. I would like to see US pharmecutical companies be prohibited from selling pharmecuticals at rediculous premiums domestically, and for peanuts abroad as well. This alone would almost completely fix medicaid. Additionally, I would like to se a mandate to the AMA that they train a radically increased percentage of physicians each year, to drive down the costs of care by increasing supply.
As for my sexual preference, you have it wrong. I am asexual, and don't give a shit what people do with their equipment. I cannot condone anyone being treated disrespectfully over something as rediculous as who they or don't find attractive.
Now. Care to shoe-horn me into the Romney camp some more, or are you satisfied?
... here is what I see.
Religious right: "we love Romney! He's a good christian(tm) like us, and 'hayts teh gayz!' And thinks abortion is evil like us! We don't like Obama, because he sided with Teh Gayz and the baby killers, and wants to give those evil sinners our tax money!" (Nevermind that almost none of us are actually true adherents of the beliefs we claim to aspire to, or we wouldn't 'hayte teh gayz' like we do, and wouldn't try to force our reigious beliefs down the rest of the nation as a whole, because we wouldn't want to be hypocrites, something GOD (as in, red letters) says he simply cannot tolerate. Also, Obama's black. We won't say that publicly, because it's racist, and we have a dirty trac record, but yeah. Its an issue. Also, Obama's totally a socialist, out to take all the hard earned money from god-fearing americans, and give them to shiftless, lazy people who are too lazy to go out and get jobs! Nevermind that there aren't any jobs for them to take even if they did, because of our immigrant labor policies! It's so much easier to abuse foriegn laborers than poor domestic ones!"
Liberal Left: "we love Obama, because he said he is for gay marriage, and supports a woman's right to choose not to be pregnant. He strongy supports intellectual properties and wants to help creative industries remain profitable while giving government funds to help the poor escape poverty. (Nevermind that he only JUST came out in support of those social issues as a result of Romney choosing to not support them, and that his fiscal policies for the past term have been absolutely disasterous, and that historical precident for large scale welfare programs shows a dreadful prognosis long term. He's our candidate. Also, He's black, so he's a minority, and that's edgy. We like that. We won't say that publicly though, because that's racist. Also, voting for him pisses the religious people off, and we like that, because we think they are dumb.)
Libertarians, Moderate centrists, independents: "Seriously, you expect us to choose between somebody that has endorsed legislation that has expanded government powers to defeat due process and harm our citizens, repeatedly and consistently for 4 years, while authorizing expanded military budgets while claiming emphatically that his doing so is all Bush's fault despite his being out of office for 4 years and having the power to veto and recind previous executive orders this whole time, failing to deliver on pretty much all of his promises, and who's financial policies are the thing of nightmares-- and somebody who is pretty much the poster child for graft, corruption, and hypocrisy, who has openly stated that he is fully in favor of corporations being considered equal to living breathing people in terms of rights, despite the lack of culpability for civic offenses, and requirements for public services, and is clearly not going to act in the interests of the american public at large? You honestly expect us to choose between a stupid narcisist with a bright smile, and a raging sociopath? REALLY !? ARE YOU FUCKING CRAZY!?"
Take a wild stab which group I belong in.
Sure, one little typo, and people act like they can't use google!
(I kid! I kid!)
Euphemism
It's bsically a cute expression for a not very cute subject. Due to the appearance of the statement I made, I felt it prudent to point out that I was not employing the statement as a cute-ified slur about Obama's race and behavior, as some readers would falsely believe. That is all. It was more intended that they are both exactly the same "lunch", but with different combinations of food aditives. In the end, you are eating exactly the same thing regardless.
False dichotomy is again false.
I refused to vote at all last election. Obama is a horrible president, and so was bush.
Even if it is a thrown away vote, I at least have a batshit crazy MFer that is contrary to all major agendas to vote for this time, which is more than I had 4 years ago.
It doesn't matter which wins.
Obama is brown lunch with grey sauce, and Romney is grey lunch with brown sauce. (And no. That is not a euphamism for their races. It's an animaniacs reference.)
It doesn't matter which one wins. Regardless, a deleterious agenda will be spearheaded. It is a false dichotomy to say we must choose which of those agendas to bend over for.
Personally, I'd vote for "assasinate both and start over", but in civilized countries this isn't an option. I'll grudgingly settle for "insane and unpredictable" with a write in for Paul. (Insane and unpredictable at least frustrates all major agendas.)
I am curious to know as well, since uranus has complex rotation. (It rotates on 2 axies; one roughly parallel to the solar ecliptic, and one perpendicular to it.) The coriolis effects would favor the first axis, but would still be influenced by the second.
Other interesting things would be the impact of solar heating due to its unusual angle of primary rotation. I can imagine very strange liquid gas ocean currents on the surface. (If not liquid, at least supercritical) the actual rocky body core inside probably has some very unique features from the erosion of the highspeed, high pressure atmosphere.
It really is a shame that we would have to make probes of pure unobtanium to exlore anything other than the atmospheres of the gas giants. I would love to see the remnants of the impact crater from the impact that knocked uranus into such an obscure rotation, or to see how such a dense and high velocity atmosphere erodes and reshapes the rocky body beneath.