The illegitimate government of the United States I suppose should dissolve itself and place itself under its rightful leadership of the Queen, until such as time she and the British Parliament deign to grant independence?
What can we say about gross abuse of office (theft of $35 billion?) and the use of security forces as assassins of Yanukovich's opponents? How could Yanukovich have been removed "legitimately" under such conditions?
...
As for "an existential fight in the west", it's doubtful that Putin wants to absorb all of Ukraine. Keep in mind that Ukraine is a synthetic state, based on the "Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic" set up by the USSR...which was created with a bunch of ethnic Russians exactly to keep Ukrainian nationalism in check. All in all, letting Crimea go back to Russia might be in everyone's best interest...but only if it's handled in a legitimate way. Right now, nothing happening over there has any legitimacy.
Ah, but the letter of the law does not count with Crimea, eh? Where is Russia's right of armed intervention enshrined in law? If Crimea wants to join Russia the let it hold a referendum under conditions of peace, and without Russian coercion. Where is the logic that disorder from Yanukovych's misrule should award Russia with Crimea?
One quarter of all the water used in California is used to grow Alfalfa. The total value of the annual alfalfa crop is about $750 million, compared to the state's entire agricultural industry of $45 billion (i.e. it is about 1.5% of the value produced), and the state's entire economy of $1800 billion (it contributes 0.04% of the state GDP) - cities run on water too.
The only reason that alfalfa growing is profitable is that taxpayers are paying for the growers water. The alfalfa plantations pay as little as 10% of the actual cost of delivery, and furthermore have guaranteed access to the water. This is under a 1902 law to encourage family farms and were limited to 160 acre farms - but over time lobbying drove that up to the un-small size of 960-acres, and today the subsidy is given to huge corporate farms that amalgamate holdings of scores of "farms" that exist only on paper, with no families to be seen.
As with mid-west farm subsidies, benefits once handed out long ago for reasons that became irrelevant generations ago just seem impossible to shut off.
The main question is: Where does the water California is watering its crops come from, and what will California do if the source is exhausted?
The water California is watering its crops with comes primarily from rivers. The rivers are watershed from rain which condensed out of water vapor in the atmosphere. Most of that water they use then evaporates and becomes water vapor in the atmosphere where it eventually condenses and falls as rain again and feeds the rivers.
It's the water cycle that you should have learned about in elementary school.
The only reason the rivers that are the source of the water would be exhausted is if it stops raining. If that happens, it won't be because we were raising too much alfalfa.
The Dunning-Kruger Effect on devastating display: those who are utterly clueless about a subject (water resource management) have no idea how ignorant they are and "lecture" in insufferable manner about utter irrelevancies.
No one is supposing that alfalfa growing is violating the conservation of mass or sending water into the fourth dimension never to be seen again. Of course any water lost to evaporation will eventually, somewhere, fall once again as rain.
The problem is that the amount that falls where California can use it is limited, and currently inadequate for the demands placed on it. If it evaporates that is lost to any other use, when it falls again somewhere in the world, it won't be in California.
They seem to have similar effects, but these things are notoriously hard to study objectively, so anecdotal evidence is not enough to establish that they have identical effects (and it would be really weird if they did. How should such different molecules get identical pharmacokinetics and pharmarkodynamics?).
Because the "such different molecules" actually have very similar shapes and active sites and thus very similar/identical mechanisms of action - just as with all the other drug classes (peptidoglycan synthesis inhibiting antibiotics, COX inhibiting anti-inflammatories, etc.).
So to reiterate: I'm not arguing whether Global Warning exists or not, but rather that it's stupid that people only began saying it exists because that movie came out.
...
I am tempted to say something is indeed stupid here, but it is not what you are claiming is stupid.
Three dates:
1992: Due to the growing scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic global warming the UN establishes the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which leads five years later to:
1997: the Kyoto Protocol on limiting greenhouse gas emissions being negotiated;
2006: An Inconvenient Truth, narrated by Al Gore comes out.
"People began saying it exists" well more than 15 years before "that movie came out", and it was a political hot topic in the U.S., frequently discussed, for a decade before the movie. Your notion that "that movie" somehow created this out of nothing is so profoundly ignorant that it leaves one gasping in awe.
My last experience buying something from Radio Shack on-line. I bought a model-specific cellphone battery, and after finally receiving it (shipping was slower than advertised), I discovered that they had sent me the wrong battery. I checked the order confirmation and I had ordered the correct one, they had simply shipped me the wrong one.
How to get this fixed? If I wanted to get the battery I really ordered, I would have to buy another one. And the useless one I had? I had to wait to get an RMA label mailed to me before I could return it for a credit card refund. Guess what? I never got the RMA label!
Service experiences like that teach customers to be former customers.
... but the constitution is the supreme law of the land, short enough to read completely on your lunch break, and mostly written in clear and concise language...
Didn't you get the memo? The Federalist Society's view (which virtually everyone on the U.S. right now takes to be Gospel) is that you cannot understand the Constitution this way. Instead you must consult the most obscure writings (published or not) by men who were alive at the time to infer what they, or their colleagues, or friends of their colleagues, may have been thinking when they were writing it. Of course, various conflicting views can be found in this way, but the policy preferences of the Federalist Society's founders (like Edwin Meese) provide a sure-fire guide to picking the true interpretation.
Because contract competition in the early 1960s would have circumvented the fundamental limits of engineering and materials and produced something that cannot be made in 2014?
Note that there have been dozens of small "flying man" devices from the late 1950s to the present day, none of them practical for any important application. The limits of fuels and propulsion systems constrain everyone and even modern computers and composite materials aren't making flying belts practical today.
Jetpacks are better for civilian rather than military use, e.g. search & rescue;
http://www.martinjetpack.com/
That's not a jetpack, it's a lightweight vehicle.
A Jet PACK is something you can pick up with one hand and carry around on your back. This shit isn't it, so stop whoring for page hits asshole.
So the rocket belt was NOT a "jet PACK" by your criteria since at 57 kg you could NOT pick it up with one hand (unless you were perhaps a professional body builder).
Sigh. Calling shit like this a "jetpack" is highly misleading at best. It's not a pack, it's a light-weight vehicle with an open cock-pit that you strap yourself to.
He should have cited the Bell Jet Flying Belt - a flight pack that incorporated a turbofan engine, not a rocket. It could fly up to 25 minutes, with the far more efficient use of fuel (air was essentially the propulsion fluid).
The entire point of calling something a "jetpack" is that it's a PACK which you can strap to your back, pickup with one hand, and hike around with until such a time as you need to use it.
Or not. Did you check out the rocketpack weight? It was 57 kilograms. No one is going to do much hiking "around with until such a time as you need to use it" with that much deadweight - the guy is grossly-overloaded without carrying anything else. The U.S. Army's recommended combat load limit for a soldier is only 33 kilograms and the Army normally wants the soldier to carry less.
Space elevators proponents always miss one very important detail. If you have the material to make the elevator, you can use that material to make traditional rockets too. And it may well make rockets cheaper than a elevator.
I always thought the most expensive component of a rocket was the fuel, but who knows
This has the matter completely upside down. For rockets the fuel is essentially free (compared to the rocket itself). Honest!
Consider the Delta 7000, an inexpensive launcher that cost $70 million to launch in 2006 dollars. The whole launch system weighed at least 180,000 kg and it burned (except for the boosters) LH2/LOX. Assume as a limiting case that the entire launch weight is fuel - in that case the fuel is 20,000 kg of hydrogen and 160,000 kg of oxygen. How much does LH2 and LOX cost? For LH2 it is about $3/kg, and for LOX $0.25/kg, so the total cost is $60,000 + $40,000 = $100,000. The fuel cost is thus 0.15% of the total launch cost, barely round-off error.
You know that they're anything but "silent", right?
"Silent" is a relative term, depending on how close you are and how sensitive your pick-up. A drone can be made as quiet as anything with powered flight can be made, and with sufficient altitude you won't be able to hear it.
There is abundant evidence that with suitable operation many U.S. reconnaissance drones routinely operate without audible detection.
...Why this impact apparently emitted so much light?
I get that the asteroid probably had a LOT of kinetic energy, but isn't it only in "Hollywood physics" that when two inert things collide you get a fiery explosion?.... and I'm even more surprised as it took place in a vacuum where my limetd understanding of conventional physics says fire cant happen...
Explosions are not, in general, anything like "fire" (fuel burning in air by slowly mixing with it). Explosions are the sudden conversion of energy in a compact mass into heat, and the sudden expansion of that same, now very hot, mass. All of the energy in a chemical explosion is already present in the explosive - be it a mixture like gun powder, or high energy chemical molecules (TNT), or a high velocity object. Otherwise guns wouldn't work (cartridges are essentially sealed), torpedoes wouldn't work (explosions under the sea?), etc,. etc.
An asteroid or meteoroid hitting the Moon would be travelling at least at 11,000 m/sec (could be as high as 70,000 m/sec), which gives it a kinetic energy equal to at least 60 million J per kg, or 15 times (could be 500 times) the energy of an equal mass of TNT. The result is a much hotter and brighter explosion when it hits something than an equally energetic mass of high explosive.
The noise problem seems largely fixable in new construction (at least at a certain level).... floorplans that separate noisy areas (so bedrooms aren't placed along the same wall as your neighbor's living room/kitchen).
Or bedrooms aren't placed along the same wall as your neighbor's bedroom?
Which would mean, that for it to fit into those New World stories it would have to have been made a century BEFORE it was filled out, AND then someone gave the empty book to the natives to fill it out with drawings and text.
...
Umm.. did you know that the production of blank books was a common practice, and in fact still is? They were, and are, used for diaries, ledgers, log books, sketch books, etc., etc. At the beginning of the 1500s, when a book about the New World could be produced, a blank book made 80 or so years earlier was hardly unimaginable.
"The FCC should stop trying to ban prioritization outright and focus only on actual abuses of market power."
That hits the nail on the head. The frequently stated fear that cable providers will lock out Netflix to push revenue to their own on-demand services can be handled with antitrust law. In fact it may already be illegal.
To people who are pay attention to the current state of law, where the entire edifice of antitrust law has become a dead letter, the phrase "actual abuses of market power" jumps out. This is a reference to the impossibly high standard of evidence for antitrust action the SCOTUS has erected in recent years - one that cannot be met in practice (unless the CEO, his entire staff, and the entire executive suite are totally brain-dead).
You see, for this standard to be met - the action has to be shown to be entirely with the intent of abusing monopoly position! Any act that has some other 'legitimate business purpose' is automatically exempt, it does not matter if it also happens to further monopoly power as a 'side-effect'. Short of having a CEO email saying "let's crush this guy", there is no hope of proving intent, and even then the situation can be saved by appealing to those other business purposes (and what legal team cannot concoct these until the cows come home?).
The very existence of Comcast today is a violation of the traditional antitrust regime that served the nation well for nearly a century. Comcast has a monopoly control over broadband and cable to 25% of U.S. subscribers, twice its nearest competitor, and is also a vertical monopoly owning TV and movie studios. It already should be broken up - but instead it is planning on acquiring that no. 2 competitor, pushing its control to near 40%, which make it seven times larger than its largest competitor. That a deal that would lock in a horizontal and vertical monopoly over the entire electronic broadcast network is seriously being proposed shows how dead anti-trust law is in the U.S. today.
Wish I had mod points to boost this up. Szoka is Exhibit A for the Corporate Plutocrat policy megaphone that saturates the ears of national legislators of both parties, the corporate-owned MSM, and their vast fields of astroturf sufficient to carpet Ireland.
EBR-II was a 60 MW sodium cooled fast breeder reactor with on-site reprocessing that successfully operated from 1965 until 1994 when the program was cancelled by Bill Clinton.
Its breeder and reprocessing years only lasted until 1969, less than 5 years of operation. After that it was strictly a burner reactor with no fuel processing.
LynnwoodRooster seems to have been betting that by stating a lie while providing a couple of links (that refute the lie) most people will assume that that the links actually support it.
If you follow the GINI link you will find that the both the pre-tax and after-tax GINI DID NOT INCREASE AT ALL during the Clinton years! The rise under Reagan went flat, then resumed its rise again under Bush.
Also actually look at that median HOUSEHOLD (not individual) curve LR links to. By the end of the Reagan-Bush era it was down to $48K (from 45.5K at the start), a far less impressive 5.5% over 12 years, and the whole reason for the rise was due to the second adult in the household going to work - since actual wages were flat.
Slashdot Mirror
You are oversimplifying to a dangerous degree.
There is at the moment no legitimate Ukrainian government. Putin is a vile authoritarian asshole, but he is right about one thing: Yanukovych's de facto removal from office was a coup.
The illegitimate government of the United States I suppose should dissolve itself and place itself under its rightful leadership of the Queen, until such as time she and the British Parliament deign to grant independence?
What can we say about gross abuse of office (theft of $35 billion?) and the use of security forces as assassins of Yanukovich's opponents? How could Yanukovich have been removed "legitimately" under such conditions?
As for "an existential fight in the west", it's doubtful that Putin wants to absorb all of Ukraine. Keep in mind that Ukraine is a synthetic state, based on the "Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic" set up by the USSR...which was created with a bunch of ethnic Russians exactly to keep Ukrainian nationalism in check. All in all, letting Crimea go back to Russia might be in everyone's best interest...but only if it's handled in a legitimate way. Right now, nothing happening over there has any legitimacy.
Ah, but the letter of the law does not count with Crimea, eh? Where is Russia's right of armed intervention enshrined in law? If Crimea wants to join Russia the let it hold a referendum under conditions of peace, and without Russian coercion. Where is the logic that disorder from Yanukovych's misrule should award Russia with Crimea?
One quarter of all the water used in California is used to grow Alfalfa. The total value of the annual alfalfa crop is about $750 million, compared to the state's entire agricultural industry of $45 billion (i.e. it is about 1.5% of the value produced), and the state's entire economy of $1800 billion (it contributes 0.04% of the state GDP) - cities run on water too.
The only reason that alfalfa growing is profitable is that taxpayers are paying for the growers water. The alfalfa plantations pay as little as 10% of the actual cost of delivery, and furthermore have guaranteed access to the water. This is under a 1902 law to encourage family farms and were limited to 160 acre farms - but over time lobbying drove that up to the un-small size of 960-acres, and today the subsidy is given to huge corporate farms that amalgamate holdings of scores of "farms" that exist only on paper, with no families to be seen.
As with mid-west farm subsidies, benefits once handed out long ago for reasons that became irrelevant generations ago just seem impossible to shut off.
The main question is: Where does the water California is watering its crops come from, and what will California do if the source is exhausted?
The water California is watering its crops with comes primarily from rivers. The rivers are watershed from rain which condensed out of water vapor in the atmosphere. Most of that water they use then evaporates and becomes water vapor in the atmosphere where it eventually condenses and falls as rain again and feeds the rivers.
It's the water cycle that you should have learned about in elementary school.
The only reason the rivers that are the source of the water would be exhausted is if it stops raining. If that happens, it won't be because we were raising too much alfalfa.
The Dunning-Kruger Effect on devastating display: those who are utterly clueless about a subject (water resource management) have no idea how ignorant they are and "lecture" in insufferable manner about utter irrelevancies.
No one is supposing that alfalfa growing is violating the conservation of mass or sending water into the fourth dimension never to be seen again. Of course any water lost to evaporation will eventually, somewhere, fall once again as rain.
The problem is that the amount that falls where California can use it is limited, and currently inadequate for the demands placed on it. If it evaporates that is lost to any other use, when it falls again somewhere in the world, it won't be in California.
They seem to have similar effects, but these things are notoriously hard to study objectively, so anecdotal evidence is not enough to establish that they have identical effects (and it would be really weird if they did. How should such different molecules get identical pharmacokinetics and pharmarkodynamics?).
Because the "such different molecules" actually have very similar shapes and active sites and thus very similar/identical mechanisms of action - just as with all the other drug classes (peptidoglycan synthesis inhibiting antibiotics, COX inhibiting anti-inflammatories, etc.).
In other words: high power density = propensity to explode.
...
So to reiterate: I'm not arguing whether Global Warning exists or not, but rather that it's stupid that people only began saying it exists because that movie came out.
...
I am tempted to say something is indeed stupid here, but it is not what you are claiming is stupid.
Three dates:
"People began saying it exists" well more than 15 years before "that movie came out", and it was a political hot topic in the U.S., frequently discussed, for a decade before the movie. Your notion that "that movie" somehow created this out of nothing is so profoundly ignorant that it leaves one gasping in awe.
My last experience buying something from Radio Shack on-line. I bought a model-specific cellphone battery, and after finally receiving it (shipping was slower than advertised), I discovered that they had sent me the wrong battery. I checked the order confirmation and I had ordered the correct one, they had simply shipped me the wrong one.
How to get this fixed? If I wanted to get the battery I really ordered, I would have to buy another one. And the useless one I had? I had to wait to get an RMA label mailed to me before I could return it for a credit card refund. Guess what? I never got the RMA label!
Service experiences like that teach customers to be former customers.
... but the constitution is the supreme law of the land, short enough to read completely on your lunch break, and mostly written in clear and concise language...
Didn't you get the memo? The Federalist Society's view (which virtually everyone on the U.S. right now takes to be Gospel) is that you cannot understand the Constitution this way. Instead you must consult the most obscure writings (published or not) by men who were alive at the time to infer what they, or their colleagues, or friends of their colleagues, may have been thinking when they were writing it. Of course, various conflicting views can be found in this way, but the policy preferences of the Federalist Society's founders (like Edwin Meese) provide a sure-fire guide to picking the true interpretation.
Because contract competition in the early 1960s would have circumvented the fundamental limits of engineering and materials and produced something that cannot be made in 2014?
Note that there have been dozens of small "flying man" devices from the late 1950s to the present day, none of them practical for any important application. The limits of fuels and propulsion systems constrain everyone and even modern computers and composite materials aren't making flying belts practical today.
Jetpacks are better for civilian rather than military use, e.g. search & rescue;
http://www.martinjetpack.com/
That's not a jetpack, it's a lightweight vehicle. A Jet PACK is something you can pick up with one hand and carry around on your back. This shit isn't it, so stop whoring for page hits asshole.
So the rocket belt was NOT a "jet PACK" by your criteria since at 57 kg you could NOT pick it up with one hand (unless you were perhaps a professional body builder).
http://www.martinjetpack.com/
Sigh. Calling shit like this a "jetpack" is highly misleading at best. It's not a pack, it's a light-weight vehicle with an open cock-pit that you strap yourself to.
He should have cited the Bell Jet Flying Belt - a flight pack that incorporated a turbofan engine, not a rocket. It could fly up to 25 minutes, with the far more efficient use of fuel (air was essentially the propulsion fluid).
The entire point of calling something a "jetpack" is that it's a PACK which you can strap to your back, pickup with one hand, and hike around with until such a time as you need to use it.
Or not. Did you check out the rocketpack weight? It was 57 kilograms. No one is going to do much hiking "around with until such a time as you need to use it" with that much deadweight - the guy is grossly-overloaded without carrying anything else. The U.S. Army's recommended combat load limit for a soldier is only 33 kilograms and the Army normally wants the soldier to carry less.
Space elevators proponents always miss one very important detail. If you have the material to make the elevator, you can use that material to make traditional rockets too. And it may well make rockets cheaper than a elevator.
I always thought the most expensive component of a rocket was the fuel, but who knows
This has the matter completely upside down. For rockets the fuel is essentially free (compared to the rocket itself). Honest!
Consider the Delta 7000, an inexpensive launcher that cost $70 million to launch in 2006 dollars. The whole launch system weighed at least 180,000 kg and it burned (except for the boosters) LH2/LOX. Assume as a limiting case that the entire launch weight is fuel - in that case the fuel is 20,000 kg of hydrogen and 160,000 kg of oxygen. How much does LH2 and LOX cost? For LH2 it is about $3/kg, and for LOX $0.25/kg, so the total cost is $60,000 + $40,000 = $100,000. The fuel cost is thus 0.15% of the total launch cost, barely round-off error.
And you need to bring up your man-catapults before attack.
For the military, I'd go with jump-jets. The "launch" is taken care of by a catepult....
Where I have seen this before? Oh, right. "Run away, run aw-a-a-y...".
miniature silent version
Ah.
That would be called a drone.
You know that they're anything but "silent", right?
"Silent" is a relative term, depending on how close you are and how sensitive your pick-up. A drone can be made as quiet as anything with powered flight can be made, and with sufficient altitude you won't be able to hear it.
There is abundant evidence that with suitable operation many U.S. reconnaissance drones routinely operate without audible detection.
...Why this impact apparently emitted so much light?
I get that the asteroid probably had a LOT of kinetic energy, but isn't it only in "Hollywood physics" that when two inert things collide you get a fiery explosion? .... and I'm even more surprised as it took place in a vacuum where my limetd understanding of conventional physics says fire cant happen...
Explosions are not, in general, anything like "fire" (fuel burning in air by slowly mixing with it). Explosions are the sudden conversion of energy in a compact mass into heat, and the sudden expansion of that same, now very hot, mass. All of the energy in a chemical explosion is already present in the explosive - be it a mixture like gun powder, or high energy chemical molecules (TNT), or a high velocity object. Otherwise guns wouldn't work (cartridges are essentially sealed), torpedoes wouldn't work (explosions under the sea?), etc,. etc.
An asteroid or meteoroid hitting the Moon would be travelling at least at 11,000 m/sec (could be as high as 70,000 m/sec), which gives it a kinetic energy equal to at least 60 million J per kg, or 15 times (could be 500 times) the energy of an equal mass of TNT. The result is a much hotter and brighter explosion when it hits something than an equally energetic mass of high explosive.
The noise problem seems largely fixable in new construction (at least at a certain level). ... floorplans that separate noisy areas (so bedrooms aren't placed along the same wall as your neighbor's living room/kitchen).
Or bedrooms aren't placed along the same wall as your neighbor's bedroom?
...
Then why is the state buying ammo at an unprecented rate?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/
...
You mean buying ammunition at a highly precedented and declining rate?
Even Fox News more or less debunked this bit of conspiracy baiting.
...
Which would mean, that for it to fit into those New World stories it would have to have been made a century BEFORE it was filled out, AND then someone gave the empty book to the natives to fill it out with drawings and text.
...
Umm.. did you know that the production of blank books was a common practice, and in fact still is? They were, and are, used for diaries, ledgers, log books, sketch books, etc., etc. At the beginning of the 1500s, when a book about the New World could be produced, a blank book made 80 or so years earlier was hardly unimaginable.
To assume that a populous, rapidly developing, third world country does not have first class hackers.
All it takes is brain power, time, and an Internet connection.
"The FCC should stop trying to ban prioritization outright and focus only on actual abuses of market power."
That hits the nail on the head. The frequently stated fear that cable providers will lock out Netflix to push revenue to their own on-demand services can be handled with antitrust law. In fact it may already be illegal.
To people who are pay attention to the current state of law, where the entire edifice of antitrust law has become a dead letter, the phrase "actual abuses of market power" jumps out. This is a reference to the impossibly high standard of evidence for antitrust action the SCOTUS has erected in recent years - one that cannot be met in practice (unless the CEO, his entire staff, and the entire executive suite are totally brain-dead).
You see, for this standard to be met - the action has to be shown to be entirely with the intent of abusing monopoly position! Any act that has some other 'legitimate business purpose' is automatically exempt, it does not matter if it also happens to further monopoly power as a 'side-effect'. Short of having a CEO email saying "let's crush this guy", there is no hope of proving intent, and even then the situation can be saved by appealing to those other business purposes (and what legal team cannot concoct these until the cows come home?).
The very existence of Comcast today is a violation of the traditional antitrust regime that served the nation well for nearly a century. Comcast has a monopoly control over broadband and cable to 25% of U.S. subscribers, twice its nearest competitor, and is also a vertical monopoly owning TV and movie studios. It already should be broken up - but instead it is planning on acquiring that no. 2 competitor, pushing its control to near 40%, which make it seven times larger than its largest competitor. That a deal that would lock in a horizontal and vertical monopoly over the entire electronic broadcast network is seriously being proposed shows how dead anti-trust law is in the U.S. today.
Wish I had mod points to boost this up. Szoka is Exhibit A for the Corporate Plutocrat policy megaphone that saturates the ears of national legislators of both parties, the corporate-owned MSM, and their vast fields of astroturf sufficient to carpet Ireland.
We are rushing to a future where there is one corporation to rule US all.
FTFY.
EBR-II was a 60 MW sodium cooled fast breeder reactor with on-site reprocessing that successfully operated from 1965 until 1994 when the program was cancelled by Bill Clinton.
Its breeder and reprocessing years only lasted until 1969, less than 5 years of operation. After that it was strictly a burner reactor with no fuel processing.
Informative? Seriously?
LynnwoodRooster seems to have been betting that by stating a lie while providing a couple of links (that refute the lie) most people will assume that that the links actually support it.
If you follow the GINI link you will find that the both the pre-tax and after-tax GINI DID NOT INCREASE AT ALL during the Clinton years! The rise under Reagan went flat, then resumed its rise again under Bush.
Also actually look at that median HOUSEHOLD (not individual) curve LR links to. By the end of the Reagan-Bush era it was down to $48K (from 45.5K at the start), a far less impressive 5.5% over 12 years, and the whole reason for the rise was due to the second adult in the household going to work - since actual wages were flat.