Yes, rubidium 87 is one of the largest by volume waste products, not to mention the most radioactive. I had a friend that drove too close to a milligram of Rb87 (too close = ~7800 miles) and it burned his face off. He's being fitted with a prosthetic nose even as I type this.
Of course not. I wouldn't want to eat any other heavy metal for breakfast either, they all tend to be quite toxic to biological life.
Ignoring its metal toxicity, the radiological damage plutonium would do to you after ingesting it is quite minimal, isn't it? Seems like you'd need a hefty chunk of it, and a bowel obstruction for it to be bad in the way the grandparent hinted at....
As far as that goes, is anything at all reabsorbed with oil/coal/gas burning? Even the carbon dioxide may take many, many thousands of years to reach a level that it was at before we started burning things.
Who the hell are you to be so sure that the OCSE has ulterior motives?
A citizen of the country they are monitoring, and presumably with more of a stake in the outcome than they.
And since you seem to know so much about it, what are those motives?
Knowing that there are motives is usually easier than knowing what they are. Still, it's not impossible that they want to steer things towards candidates they favor. Unable to do this on a single election basis, they could easily embarrass the US election process a few times, which would almost certainly lead to legislation of one sort or another. When that time comes, how much do you want to bet that they couldn't get drafts submitted via any number of independent "US based" think tanks?
Though, by no means take this as a suggestion that the "europeans are infiltrating our sacred government". They did that decades ago, and probably have even sneakier methods of undermining things.
It's stupid shit like this, that pisses me off the most. Congress is nearly deadlocked, the republican majority is so weak. If it were even remotely true, the democrats will protect us completely, right?
They're both evil fuckwits. Both Kerry and Bush, and more generally, both democrats and republicans. Please tell me just how the democrats are better than the republicans, someone... this oughtta be good.
I could save them alot of time and money then... they can trust it about as much as at any other time in american democracy these past 100 years... which is to say, not at all.
I'll take half of whatever would have cost them, if they'd done the whole watchdog thing.
Who was it that said they don't care who wins the election, as long as they get to choose the candidates?
And why, do you think that a congress made solely of democrats and republicans will make it any easier for a non-democrat, non-republican to have a fair chance at winning office?
Or do you think that we don't need some serious 3rd/4th/5th party representation to fix things?
We learn from our mistakes, don't we? You're basically arguing that the system is broken and can't be fixed.
Yes. I want to leave it at that, but people need to be force-fed this. Things get worse, things get better. But on the "worse" end of the spectrum, there exist several valleys. Most are shallow, and with extra work you can push things back up into saner territory. There are also a few cliffs. Once things roll off the edge of those, there is no "rolling it back". I'm certain we are in one or the other of thse, and I'm terrified because it just might be the latter.
This is either being pessimistic
Or possibly only non "idiotically optimistic". 1000 years from now, if anyone cares, I'm sure we'll be able to conclusively determine which.
you realize that your side profits from voter fraud and thus reject any monitoring that would seek to reduce it,
There are those toadies that have this mentality. Why would I choose to be a favored lapdog of some corrupt politician, when my freedom is at stake?
Fool: One who can't negotiate the finer distinctions of a statement like "there is little guarantee".
But go ahead, play into the whole party politics bullshit, where republicans are evil and democrats are enlightened saintly men, who serve only to make the world a better place.
Personally, I think we should revoke citizenship rights of anyone that has voted for either party, and elect a president via lottery.
The truth is that the 2000 elections were controversial; some monitoring can only help people regaining faith in the electoral process.
Actually, supposing there is another controversey (not sure how likely, but for the sake of argument) what makes you think this will help? Like in every other country, they'll report that the "election was rigged" and if anything, stir up even more shit than if they hadn't "monitored" it. Every year, I hear about something like this, in shitty 3rd world countries whose names I intentionally forget. They still have their dictatorships, even after the talking head on CNN mouths the words that the elections weren't legit.
Do you think that this time, Dubya will just say "well golly gee, you got me... kerry did win after all'?
Every presidential election in the 20th century was fraudulent to one extent or another. JFK clearly stole the election from Nixon, and I have little doubt Nixon didn't repay the insult by stealing it from whoever his opponent was.
Gore was just the first to challenge it. I hate Gore, Bush and Kerry equally... so it doesn't really matter who wins (won) I suppose. Even with Gore in office, there is little guarantee that we wouldn't be in some international mess of some kind. Anyone that thinks otherwise is probably a fool.
There are plenty of childless straight couples out there, and they are surely more of the reason for falling birth rates (if this is the case) than there being more same sex couples
It is my suspicion that the same people/organizations that have manipulated society to promote homosexuality (bear in mind I'm not a holyroller, I don't think that they created it), also promote the idea of straight couples remaining childless, and barring that, that they promote divorce to further destabilize things.
Well, it's a crappy system, but I'd rather have the lesser of two evils than the greater of two evils.
Figures. Funny, I had you pegged as someone that might recognize that they now choose "equally evil" candidates for us to vote on...
Sorry, but I'm supposed to trust some toothless european agency with ulterior motives any more?
Sure, the election has been rigged... and it was done two years ago. I can't help but feel derision for anyone who either A) doesn't point that out or B) treat it as so obvious that it doesn't require mentioning.
When they steal our choice from us, please note that it's not in some dangling chads on ballots that should be awarded to Kerry, it was when they only allowed us the choice between Kerry and Bush. Neither are acceptable.
Would be hilarious though if Rutan has been holding back, and flies SS3 instead... they could make a surpise trip to the ISS and do the whole unwelcome guest thing. Eat all the cheetos, steal the remote ontrol to the TV...
First off, government has never defined love. But, if that mistaken belief is what drives you to want gay marriage, then who am I to interrupt by saying something sensible?
Let them love all they want. Let them call themselves "married" to their friends and neighbors. They do have freedom of speech, you know.
As for me, I do claim the right of judgement. Anyone that thinks you shouldn't judge, is a fool. When I walk, I judge where I should place my foot. When I vote, I judge who should run the affairs of government. When I see a NAMBLA freak on Donahue (or whatever the equivalent is today), I judge him to be a sick freak.
Maybe you're confused on the difference between judgement and condemnation. Or maybe you're just scared that your judgement is so poor, it can't be relied upon. I might agree with that last one. Even so, judge me now (though it makes you cringe to do so... you've got that pussy attitude but enough sense to know your hypocrisy), becausing judging me wrongly is ever so better than not judging at all. When hippy asshats like you decide "it's wrong to judge someone", they're opening the door to anything... and gay marriage is unfortunately one of the most mild of the problems to be invited.
I agree with the sentiment that we shouldn't be bullies... Dubya is misusing our military.
I disagree with the lack of wisdom that says we shouldn't be the biggest kid on the block. Anyone that thinks there is safety in being weak needs to think more carefully.
Wow, an extra $50 billion a year for the Dept. of Education. Wonder how many Assistant Deputy Principles and bureaucrats they could hire with that money? There might be a little left over for a few dozen teachers even!
Atheist here. Comparing one sexual deviance to another. Pretty much don't care about homosexuals, as long as they aren't out on their front lawn buttfucking each other. Willing to support laws against housing or work discrimination as pertains gays.
Unwilling to support laws that would permit gay marriage. Unwilling to go as far as a constitutional ammendment (which it shouldn't require, and would only cause more damage).
Sounds like you're the bigot here. But since you're on the politically correct side of the bigotry, that's not only allowed, but something to be proud of, isn't it?
PS Even me, the atheist, thought that the "who wants to marry a [BLANK]" shows were beyond tasteless, and deep in the territory of "sick/shouldn't be tolerated".
Obviously, the T1000 is a colony of high energy nanobots, most likely carbon-based. This is why it can use temporal displacement... if it were non-organic (metal) it couldn't go back.
While I don't exactly think N'Syncs concerts should be preserved for posterity, there are concerts from 75 years ago that I wish we had a copy of... how will people 75 years from now feel about this?
More to the point, if the purpose of a concert is to earn money from people actually there listening... how can it be stealing to record this? They never intended to earn money from the recordings anyway.
Not that I expect anything even remotely resembling fair copyright policy from my own country.
I can't claim that I don't hate... I do. However, my targets are carefully chosen.
My distaste for homosexual marriage has nothing to do with hate. Two men want to spend their life sodomizing each other? Fine. If they don't make me watch, or suggest that I participate... what business of it is mine? I'll go further. If I see them with car trouble at the side of the road... I'll try to help. If I see someone beating on them with a baseball bat, I'm calling the police, and depending on how risky it is to play hero, trying to put a stop to it myself.
But I don't understand the need for homosexual marriage. Even as potentially objectionable as a homosexual couple adopting children is... marriage isn't necessary for that. As has been proven. What will this accomplish? If homosexuals want to piss off the fundamentalists, hey, I'm for that in principle... but this goes a little too far.
I'm not some eugenicist freak, mind you. But, I'm almost certainly going to be painted as one for what I'm about to say... human society does have an interest in perpetuating itself. And if growing people in test tubes does become an option, I'm not sure that method is such a good thing. The US has seen a drop in population growth, that excluding immigration, could have grave consequences in a not so distant future. (And I'm not blaming homosexuality for this, either). So, it's at least plausible that we all have an interest in promoting heterosexual marriage beyond "alternative lifestyles".
I can't help but feel this situation is being manipulated on some grand scale, and that the "anti-homosexual marriage christian/republican right wing" is merely a puppet. Having children is a rather sacred thing (and this is coming from an atheist/agnostic), I think. It serves someone's agenda to screw with that, and grow replacement workers in synthetic wombs when needed. It serves them that the extended family is all but gone in middle-class america. It serves them that Dave grows up and falls in love(if he does at all) with Mike, rather than Michelle. Even Orwell saw this. The only thing I'm undecided on, is could they do it if they wanted to, and is there a "they" powerful enough to accomplish it.
For the record, I'm not religious. I hate Kerry and Bush equally, and I think anyone that votes for the lesser of two evils is sure to get evil anyway, even ignoring the fact that they always try to give us two nearly equally evil asshats as candidates. And, the closest I come to agreeing with you on anything, it would seem, is the opinion that a constitutional ammendment on this issue is 110% Bad Idea(TM).
As far as I know, faggots aren't prohibited from marrying.
But hey, if you want to co-opt the civil rights movement, why not? It's been devalued for decades now, sometimes even by blacks willing to sacrifice it for their own petty purposes.
Tell me though, at what point do you stop? The Nambloids have been oozing their propaganda for close to 20 years, in some ways even more obnoxious than pro-homosexuality ever did in the 1970s.
Also, I find it interesting that you'd think I'd ever vote for Bush. Or that like him, I might somehow favor a constitutional ammendment barring asspirate marriage.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, rubidium 87 is one of the largest by volume waste products, not to mention the most radioactive. I had a friend that drove too close to a milligram of Rb87 (too close = ~7800 miles) and it burned his face off. He's being fitted with a prosthetic nose even as I type this.
Someone, please protect us from Rb87!
Of course not. I wouldn't want to eat any other heavy metal for breakfast either, they all tend to be quite toxic to biological life.
Ignoring its metal toxicity, the radiological damage plutonium would do to you after ingesting it is quite minimal, isn't it? Seems like you'd need a hefty chunk of it, and a bowel obstruction for it to be bad in the way the grandparent hinted at....
The uranium in coal is reabsorbed?
The sulfur in coal is reabsorbed?
As far as that goes, is anything at all reabsorbed with oil/coal/gas burning? Even the carbon dioxide may take many, many thousands of years to reach a level that it was at before we started burning things.
Really? How many congressional campaigns end up *owing* money? Where do you think that money came from?
Who do you think owns banks in this country, or any other, for that matter?
Who the hell are you to be so sure that the OCSE has ulterior motives?
A citizen of the country they are monitoring, and presumably with more of a stake in the outcome than they.
And since you seem to know so much about it, what are those motives?
Knowing that there are motives is usually easier than knowing what they are. Still, it's not impossible that they want to steer things towards candidates they favor. Unable to do this on a single election basis, they could easily embarrass the US election process a few times, which would almost certainly lead to legislation of one sort or another. When that time comes, how much do you want to bet that they couldn't get drafts submitted via any number of independent "US based" think tanks?
Though, by no means take this as a suggestion that the "europeans are infiltrating our sacred government". They did that decades ago, and probably have even sneakier methods of undermining things.
It's stupid shit like this, that pisses me off the most. Congress is nearly deadlocked, the republican majority is so weak. If it were even remotely true, the democrats will protect us completely, right?
They're both evil fuckwits. Both Kerry and Bush, and more generally, both democrats and republicans. Please tell me just how the democrats are better than the republicans, someone... this oughtta be good.
Oh.
I could save them alot of time and money then... they can trust it about as much as at any other time in american democracy these past 100 years... which is to say, not at all.
I'll take half of whatever would have cost them, if they'd done the whole watchdog thing.
I know that it's yet more sideshow to distract us while they do their "now you see it, now you don't". Isn't that enough?
Who was it that said they don't care who wins the election, as long as they get to choose the candidates?
And why, do you think that a congress made solely of democrats and republicans will make it any easier for a non-democrat, non-republican to have a fair chance at winning office?
Or do you think that we don't need some serious 3rd/4th/5th party representation to fix things?
We learn from our mistakes, don't we? You're basically arguing that the system is broken and can't be fixed.
Yes. I want to leave it at that, but people need to be force-fed this. Things get worse, things get better. But on the "worse" end of the spectrum, there exist several valleys. Most are shallow, and with extra work you can push things back up into saner territory. There are also a few cliffs. Once things roll off the edge of those, there is no "rolling it back". I'm certain we are in one or the other of thse, and I'm terrified because it just might be the latter.
This is either being pessimistic
Or possibly only non "idiotically optimistic". 1000 years from now, if anyone cares, I'm sure we'll be able to conclusively determine which.
you realize that your side profits from voter fraud and thus reject any monitoring that would seek to reduce it,
There are those toadies that have this mentality. Why would I choose to be a favored lapdog of some corrupt politician, when my freedom is at stake?
Fool: One who can't negotiate the finer distinctions of a statement like "there is little guarantee".
But go ahead, play into the whole party politics bullshit, where republicans are evil and democrats are enlightened saintly men, who serve only to make the world a better place.
Personally, I think we should revoke citizenship rights of anyone that has voted for either party, and elect a president via lottery.
We need mandatory voting here, too. Especially after they get rid of write-in votes and third party candidates.
The truth is that the 2000 elections were controversial; some monitoring can only help people regaining faith in the electoral process.
Actually, supposing there is another controversey (not sure how likely, but for the sake of argument) what makes you think this will help? Like in every other country, they'll report that the "election was rigged" and if anything, stir up even more shit than if they hadn't "monitored" it. Every year, I hear about something like this, in shitty 3rd world countries whose names I intentionally forget. They still have their dictatorships, even after the talking head on CNN mouths the words that the elections weren't legit.
Do you think that this time, Dubya will just say "well golly gee, you got me... kerry did win after all'?
Every presidential election in the 20th century was fraudulent to one extent or another. JFK clearly stole the election from Nixon, and I have little doubt Nixon didn't repay the insult by stealing it from whoever his opponent was.
Gore was just the first to challenge it. I hate Gore, Bush and Kerry equally... so it doesn't really matter who wins (won) I suppose. Even with Gore in office, there is little guarantee that we wouldn't be in some international mess of some kind. Anyone that thinks otherwise is probably a fool.
There are plenty of childless straight couples out there, and they are surely more of the reason for falling birth rates (if this is the case) than there being more same sex couples
It is my suspicion that the same people/organizations that have manipulated society to promote homosexuality (bear in mind I'm not a holyroller, I don't think that they created it), also promote the idea of straight couples remaining childless, and barring that, that they promote divorce to further destabilize things.
Well, it's a crappy system, but I'd rather have the lesser of two evils than the greater of two evils.
Figures. Funny, I had you pegged as someone that might recognize that they now choose "equally evil" candidates for us to vote on...
Sorry, but I'm supposed to trust some toothless european agency with ulterior motives any more?
Sure, the election has been rigged... and it was done two years ago. I can't help but feel derision for anyone who either A) doesn't point that out or B) treat it as so obvious that it doesn't require mentioning.
When they steal our choice from us, please note that it's not in some dangling chads on ballots that should be awarded to Kerry, it was when they only allowed us the choice between Kerry and Bush. Neither are acceptable.
Would be hilarious though if Rutan has been holding back, and flies SS3 instead... they could make a surpise trip to the ISS and do the whole unwelcome guest thing. Eat all the cheetos, steal the remote ontrol to the TV...
First off, government has never defined love. But, if that mistaken belief is what drives you to want gay marriage, then who am I to interrupt by saying something sensible?
Let them love all they want. Let them call themselves "married" to their friends and neighbors. They do have freedom of speech, you know.
As for me, I do claim the right of judgement. Anyone that thinks you shouldn't judge, is a fool. When I walk, I judge where I should place my foot. When I vote, I judge who should run the affairs of government. When I see a NAMBLA freak on Donahue (or whatever the equivalent is today), I judge him to be a sick freak.
Maybe you're confused on the difference between judgement and condemnation. Or maybe you're just scared that your judgement is so poor, it can't be relied upon. I might agree with that last one. Even so, judge me now (though it makes you cringe to do so... you've got that pussy attitude but enough sense to know your hypocrisy), becausing judging me wrongly is ever so better than not judging at all. When hippy asshats like you decide "it's wrong to judge someone", they're opening the door to anything... and gay marriage is unfortunately one of the most mild of the problems to be invited.
I agree with the sentiment that we shouldn't be bullies... Dubya is misusing our military.
I disagree with the lack of wisdom that says we shouldn't be the biggest kid on the block. Anyone that thinks there is safety in being weak needs to think more carefully.
Wow, an extra $50 billion a year for the Dept. of Education. Wonder how many Assistant Deputy Principles and bureaucrats they could hire with that money? There might be a little left over for a few dozen teachers even!
Atheist here. Comparing one sexual deviance to another. Pretty much don't care about homosexuals, as long as they aren't out on their front lawn buttfucking each other. Willing to support laws against housing or work discrimination as pertains gays.
Unwilling to support laws that would permit gay marriage. Unwilling to go as far as a constitutional ammendment (which it shouldn't require, and would only cause more damage).
Sounds like you're the bigot here. But since you're on the politically correct side of the bigotry, that's not only allowed, but something to be proud of, isn't it?
PS Even me, the atheist, thought that the "who wants to marry a [BLANK]" shows were beyond tasteless, and deep in the territory of "sick/shouldn't be tolerated".
Obviously, the T1000 is a colony of high energy nanobots, most likely carbon-based. This is why it can use temporal displacement... if it were non-organic (metal) it couldn't go back.
Duh.
While I don't exactly think N'Syncs concerts should be preserved for posterity, there are concerts from 75 years ago that I wish we had a copy of... how will people 75 years from now feel about this?
More to the point, if the purpose of a concert is to earn money from people actually there listening... how can it be stealing to record this? They never intended to earn money from the recordings anyway.
Not that I expect anything even remotely resembling fair copyright policy from my own country.
I can't claim that I don't hate... I do. However, my targets are carefully chosen.
My distaste for homosexual marriage has nothing to do with hate. Two men want to spend their life sodomizing each other? Fine. If they don't make me watch, or suggest that I participate... what business of it is mine? I'll go further. If I see them with car trouble at the side of the road... I'll try to help. If I see someone beating on them with a baseball bat, I'm calling the police, and depending on how risky it is to play hero, trying to put a stop to it myself.
But I don't understand the need for homosexual marriage. Even as potentially objectionable as a homosexual couple adopting children is... marriage isn't necessary for that. As has been proven. What will this accomplish? If homosexuals want to piss off the fundamentalists, hey, I'm for that in principle... but this goes a little too far.
I'm not some eugenicist freak, mind you. But, I'm almost certainly going to be painted as one for what I'm about to say... human society does have an interest in perpetuating itself. And if growing people in test tubes does become an option, I'm not sure that method is such a good thing. The US has seen a drop in population growth, that excluding immigration, could have grave consequences in a not so distant future. (And I'm not blaming homosexuality for this, either). So, it's at least plausible that we all have an interest in promoting heterosexual marriage beyond "alternative lifestyles".
I can't help but feel this situation is being manipulated on some grand scale, and that the "anti-homosexual marriage christian/republican right wing" is merely a puppet. Having children is a rather sacred thing (and this is coming from an atheist/agnostic), I think. It serves someone's agenda to screw with that, and grow replacement workers in synthetic wombs when needed. It serves them that the extended family is all but gone in middle-class america. It serves them that Dave grows up and falls in love(if he does at all) with Mike, rather than Michelle. Even Orwell saw this. The only thing I'm undecided on, is could they do it if they wanted to, and is there a "they" powerful enough to accomplish it.
For the record, I'm not religious. I hate Kerry and Bush equally, and I think anyone that votes for the lesser of two evils is sure to get evil anyway, even ignoring the fact that they always try to give us two nearly equally evil asshats as candidates. And, the closest I come to agreeing with you on anything, it would seem, is the opinion that a constitutional ammendment on this issue is 110% Bad Idea(TM).
As far as I know, faggots aren't prohibited from marrying.
But hey, if you want to co-opt the civil rights movement, why not? It's been devalued for decades now, sometimes even by blacks willing to sacrifice it for their own petty purposes.
Tell me though, at what point do you stop? The Nambloids have been oozing their propaganda for close to 20 years, in some ways even more obnoxious than pro-homosexuality ever did in the 1970s.
Also, I find it interesting that you'd think I'd ever vote for Bush. Or that like him, I might somehow favor a constitutional ammendment barring asspirate marriage.