“I’m Catholic; we do not contracept,” Ms. Smith said. “It is a grave sin.” By including those pages in the curriculum, she added, “you have violated my religious rights.”
Of course it was meant to be anonymous. Why in Sam Hill would people be using Bitcoins to pay for hit men, drugs, and sex trafficking if it wasn't thought to be anonymous?
While some supporters of a U.S. reprocessing program believe it would help solve the nuclear waste problem, reprocessing would not reduce the need for storage and disposal of radioactive waste. Worse, reprocessing would make it easier for terrorists to acquire nuclear weapons materials, and for nations to develop nuclear weapons programs.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 dictated that the federal government would identify a permanent geological repository—a long-term storage site—and begin transferring waste from nuclear power plants to that repository by 1998. A decade and a half after that deadline, the search for a repository site has stalled, with no resolution likely in the near future.
“I’m Catholic; we do not contracept,” Ms. Smith said. “It is a grave sin.” By including those pages in the curriculum, she added, “you have violated my religious rights.”
Her agenda is to make everyone Catholic.
Not sure what the point is.
The point is that Bitcoin was supposed to be anonymous but it isn't.
Then someone says, "But wait ... it wasn't meant to be anonymous, it was meant to launder money."
Guess what's needed for laundering money that Bitcoin doesn't have?
While some cryptocurrencies under recent development have aimed to provide for more possibility of transaction anonymity for various reasons, the degree to which they succeed—and, in consequence, the degree to which they offer benefits for money laundering efforts—is controversial.
Bold is mine.
Go ahead and make your jokes, butt ..
Of course it was meant to be anonymous. Why in Sam Hill would people be using Bitcoins to pay for hit men, drugs, and sex trafficking if it wasn't thought to be anonymous?
I certainly did not waste my time asking questions of a known liar.
There is a not-so-little thing called science.
While some supporters of a U.S. reprocessing program believe it would help solve the nuclear waste problem, reprocessing would not reduce the need for storage and disposal of radioactive waste. Worse, reprocessing would make it easier for terrorists to acquire nuclear weapons materials, and for nations to develop nuclear weapons programs.
I worked in a law firm in a legal capacity.
I applaud your decision to refrain from working in a law firm in an illegal capacity and it's fortunate that you also avoided document generation.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 dictated that the federal government would identify a permanent geological repository—a long-term storage site—and begin transferring waste from nuclear power plants to that repository by 1998. A decade and a half after that deadline, the search for a repository site has stalled, with no resolution likely in the near future.
These people would love to hear from you.
Seriously?
You left out the thickness of the walls and stuff, and by "stuff," I mean monitors, controllers, and stuff.
What's mostly captured?
You said I was a janitor and then you ask for my legal background and you call me a liar, anyway, so exactly what is your point?
"... problem still." being operative here.
And you are a misogynistic, gender-confused, rude troll.
Go stand in the corner and don't come back until you've read the Yucca mountain story.
WHEN do we learn this recycling stuff, and who in Sam Hill do you think is going to be the operators?
"Would ..."
So you're position is that this is a non-problem?
Let's not pretend the technical issues aren't there.
Then why aren't we doing that?
I'm glad there's no problem and stuff.
Citation, please.
And two typical master bedrooms is so easy to find, right?
That's pure crap.
Nuclear power is not done until it's ALL done. Ignoring nuclear waste doesn't make it disappear.
This.
For the curious, Google, "discoverable in litigation."