Ahh. I had assumed that you were using U-235. And that you were talking about the USA.
However, this implies that there is only 4,000,000 tons of natural uranium in the world. Seems to me that that number is a bit low, since uranium amounts to ~1 ppm of the Earth's crust....
In the first place, this isn't what happened. This was treated as if it were a legitimate grounds for impeachment. It was a fucking blowjob.
One, are you aware that if you were the CEO of a business, and got a blowjob from your secretary, that would be considered sexual harassment in this country? Check the laws and the Court rulings carefully, if you doubt me.
Two, have you ever read the Articles of Impeachment? Clinton was impeached on two charges, both arising from a single event - lying to a Grand Jury. Note, by the way, that if YOU were to lie to a Grand Jury, and be caught, you would be liable for perjury charges.
Specifically, Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. Both charges are fairly serious in US law, in case you didn't know.
And yes, while a blow-job is not usually an issue in a Grand Jury hearing, one must remember that the Grand Jury was considering a Sexual Harassment charge, and the Courts have ruled that patterns of conduct (like getting blow-jobs from your employees) is relevant to such an investigation.
I'm not sure just which media you think treated Clinton unfairly during the Impeachment Trial, though. As I recall, the media was, in general, behind Clinton all the way. Except when he bombed the Sudan to take attention off the Impeachment vote - a lot of people were making comparisons to "Wag the Dog", a recent movie.
Sorry, you haven't yet convinced me that the media treated Clinton shabbily. You have convinced me that your memories of the 90's have been severely editted, though. I invite you again to check the New York Times and Wahington Post (both widely conceded, even by me, to be among the best, most popular, newspapers in the USA).
hmm, you DO know that that requires two Constitutional Amendments, which means approval by 38 states, twice.
In recent decades, we've allowed seven years for a Constitutional Amendment to pass. A few have. Not many. Remember, the last Constitutional Amendment to pass was proposed in the 18th Century (back before time limits on Amendments were put in as a matter of course).
Likelihood of two fundamental ones such as you envision passing within seven years is, well, ZERO! Remember, that there are more than 12 blue states, so even if EVERY pro-Bush state wanted such an amendment (I would venture to guess that you could get either of those Amendments to pass on maybe two States, if you were very lucky), they wouldn't pass.
Why shouldn't companies be forced to offer benefits to partners of same sex marriages? Why do they offer benefits to partners of heterosexual marriages now?
If you don't know why companies offer benefits to spice now, I'll explain:
Way back in WW2, the government imposed rigid wage/price controls, to prevent chaos when the ecojnomy expanded faster than the number of skilled workers expanded.
Now, some companies figured out that they could offer "health insurance" to prospective employees, as a way of enticing them to leave their current job, and bring their highly skilled self to said company. Legally, it wasn't extra pay, so it didn't violate the wage/price controls.
Voila! A new method of providing incentives to workers appeared. It was used by most companies, as a way of getting around the wage/price controls eventually.
At the end of the War, the wage/price controls ceased to operate. But people had gotten used to health insurance as part of the package, and so employers really couldn't just stop giving it, or noone would hire on with them.
Now, one must remember that this was back in the day when noone had even conceived of "gay marriage", or "civil unions". And one must also remember that spousal benefits aren't mandatory now (I had to specifically select to include my wife/child on my medical insurance - and can't have the daughter on there after she stops being a student).
So, why should companies be forced to offer benefits to partners of same sex marriages?
They want the right to marry someone they love
I want to marry three women (yes, finding the other two women will be tricky, especially given that my wife won't be terribly thrilled with the idea;) ). Should I have that as a right? If so, why is polgamy forbidden? Is polygamy legal in the "enlightened" countries of Europe? If not, why not? And why aren't you pushing for the legalization of polygamy everywhere?
(I was an exchange student in the subburbs of Boston, so I had quite some time to meet *real* americans. Bush americans)
Umm, the suburbs of Boston, like Boston itself, are Kerry strongholds, really. It's unlikely you met any "Bush Americans" there. Try going to Mississippi or Tennessee for a better picture.
That's a popular myth, but not true. Hitler never got more than ~37% of the vote in any of his elections. He was appointed Chancellor by President Hindenberg, theoretically to form a coalition government.
Course, it didn't work out that way - sort of thing that happens when you can't form a coalition without working with your political enemies.
Alright, check the NY Times and Washington Post, and tell me how many stories there were in 2004 favourable to Bush, and how many unfavourable. Check the same period (that would be 1996, for those who don't remember their history) for Clinton.
I think if you actually lived through the 90's, and were awake then, you'll not be believing the media did "rabid attacks on Clinton".
Even when he was being impeached (a perfect time to attack him, you must admit), the media spent its time saying rude things abut the impeachers, not about Clinton.
Or do you really believe that your beliefs about Bush were formed entirely from your own morla uprightness and superior reasoning, and had nothing to do with the inputs from any of the media?
So, Slate's Exit Polls, which they said were preliminary, and subject to change, cannot, in fact, change, without there being a conspiracy to steal an election?
And the media which has been lambasting Bush for years is just sitting quietly and saying nothing at all about the conspiracy which places a guy they hate back in the White House?
It might interest you to know that Martin Luther stated in his writing that marriage was a secular thing, not a religious thing. Marriages could be consecrated in Church, but they were a matter of law, and the consecration in Church was irrelevant to the validity or lack of same of a marriage.
I think if anyone who wanted to could vote on major issues, it would do away with a great deal of "pork" and corruption
Or would cause a great deal more "pork" and corruption. Depends on the people, really. Face it, if the people didn't want the pork, they'd stop electing people who promised them more largesses from the public treasury.
it's amazing how no one in the media wants to talk about how the exit polls, which are normally quite accurate, showed Kerry strong in places where he eventually lost.
Let's see. Went to CNN's Exit Polling site. Checked Ohio and Florida, just for grins.
Exit polls in Ohio were 51% Bush, 47% Kerry. Actual vote in Ohio: 51% Bush, 48% Kerry. Check sat.
Exit Polls in Florida 51+% Bush, 48-% Kerry. Actual Vote 52% Bush, 47% Kerry. Check sat.
So, which were the States where Kerry was winning in the Exit Polls, and lost in the election?
Wow! An eight person sample! That's the most statistically significant one I've ever seen.
I can offer similar samples that show that Kerry voters were uneducated, if I wish - of four people I know for SURE voted for Kerry, only one was a college graduate, and two weren't even high school graduates, but of the five I know for SURE voted for Bush, all were college graduates.
See how meaningless this is?
For what it's worth, I voted Bush, and know what the Clear Skies Act is, and why North Korea is an issue.
There will be bitching and moaning enough, without the prospect of another election decided in the Courts. It's good for the country that the election didn't get into the hands of either the Democrat or Republican lawyers.
Have to give it to Kerry - he was honourable enough not to try to drag this out. As I hope Bush would have been if it had gone the other way.
The "or money laundering activities" leaves an open invitation to abuse.
Wasn't the money-laundering part Kerry's contribution to the PATRIOT act? Not sure, but I recall some of his campaign ads claiming credit for that bit.
Kerry has been a big supporter of laws zeroing in on money laundering for a long time. Probably because he was a prosecuter once upon a time.
If I hadn't seen so many news stories about it, I'd be unable to tell anything has changed at all. Course, I live in "flyover country", so maybe it's different for you people in big cities.
The best comparison for space ship one might be to the early Gemini capsules
Except that SS1 can carry three people to the Gemini's two, and Gemini could reach orbit, and Gemini could stay up for extended periods (two weeks on Gemini VII), and....
the US sent men to the moon in the late 60's and the entire spacecraft had less computer power then a 486 computer
That's a bit of an exaggeration, to compare Apollo's computers to a 486. If you were to compare Apollo's computers to an 8080, you'd still be incredibly generous to the Apollo.
Most digital watches have more computing power than Apollo did.
The real cause of the Depression was the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs. Or the Hawley-Smoot Tariffs, depending on your perspective.
The New Deal did not fix the Depression, but it did prevent people from starving, and probably staved off a military coup (yes, there was one being considered during the Depression).
Here is an exemple used in many countries. Everyone votes for his favourite candidate. If none of the candidates gets more than 50% everybody votes for his favourite candidate of the two that were the most popular ones.
That's what we do in Louisiana, for everything but President. "Vote for the Crook, it's important!" came out of one such runoff election.
Simple and fair.
You must keep in mind that to most of/., "fair" means "my candidate wins". There probably aren't more than twelve of us who would think it was "fair" if "that other guy" wins, no matter the popular or electoral vote total.
That said, I predict that if Kerry wins, the people whinging about the Electoral College will suddenly shut up. Especially if he loses the popular vote.
Umm, no. The Polytheists of Ancient Egypt were delighted to persecute the montheists of Ancient Egypt, and I'm not talking Jews - Akhnaten and Tutankhaten (forced to change his name to Tutankhamon, since Aten was not an acceptable deity to worship).
Persecution of "those guys over there" is as old as humanity. Has nothing to do with monotheism or polytheism or atheism. Has to do with "strangeness" - they're NOT LIKE US!! Which makes them less than human, NOT PEOPLE, KOTTER!
What we need to do (all of us) is be willing to cast our label "People" as widely as possible. The more of us that are "People", the fewer chances of unpleasantness f that sort.
Slashdot Mirror
However, this implies that there is only 4,000,000 tons of natural uranium in the world. Seems to me that that number is a bit low, since uranium amounts to ~1 ppm of the Earth's crust....
Rather a high usage rate, isn't it? Our current electrical generation capacity from all sources would only require about 2% of that.
Ignoring breeder reactors, of course.
One, are you aware that if you were the CEO of a business, and got a blowjob from your secretary, that would be considered sexual harassment in this country? Check the laws and the Court rulings carefully, if you doubt me.
Two, have you ever read the Articles of Impeachment? Clinton was impeached on two charges, both arising from a single event - lying to a Grand Jury. Note, by the way, that if YOU were to lie to a Grand Jury, and be caught, you would be liable for perjury charges.
Specifically, Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. Both charges are fairly serious in US law, in case you didn't know.
And yes, while a blow-job is not usually an issue in a Grand Jury hearing, one must remember that the Grand Jury was considering a Sexual Harassment charge, and the Courts have ruled that patterns of conduct (like getting blow-jobs from your employees) is relevant to such an investigation.
I'm not sure just which media you think treated Clinton unfairly during the Impeachment Trial, though. As I recall, the media was, in general, behind Clinton all the way. Except when he bombed the Sudan to take attention off the Impeachment vote - a lot of people were making comparisons to "Wag the Dog", a recent movie.
Sorry, you haven't yet convinced me that the media treated Clinton shabbily. You have convinced me that your memories of the 90's have been severely editted, though. I invite you again to check the New York Times and Wahington Post (both widely conceded, even by me, to be among the best, most popular, newspapers in the USA).
In recent decades, we've allowed seven years for a Constitutional Amendment to pass. A few have. Not many. Remember, the last Constitutional Amendment to pass was proposed in the 18th Century (back before time limits on Amendments were put in as a matter of course).
Likelihood of two fundamental ones such as you envision passing within seven years is, well, ZERO! Remember, that there are more than 12 blue states, so even if EVERY pro-Bush state wanted such an amendment (I would venture to guess that you could get either of those Amendments to pass on maybe two States, if you were very lucky), they wouldn't pass.
If you don't know why companies offer benefits to spice now, I'll explain:
Way back in WW2, the government imposed rigid wage/price controls, to prevent chaos when the ecojnomy expanded faster than the number of skilled workers expanded.
Now, some companies figured out that they could offer "health insurance" to prospective employees, as a way of enticing them to leave their current job, and bring their highly skilled self to said company. Legally, it wasn't extra pay, so it didn't violate the wage/price controls.
Voila! A new method of providing incentives to workers appeared. It was used by most companies, as a way of getting around the wage/price controls eventually.
At the end of the War, the wage/price controls ceased to operate. But people had gotten used to health insurance as part of the package, and so employers really couldn't just stop giving it, or noone would hire on with them.
Now, one must remember that this was back in the day when noone had even conceived of "gay marriage", or "civil unions". And one must also remember that spousal benefits aren't mandatory now (I had to specifically select to include my wife/child on my medical insurance - and can't have the daughter on there after she stops being a student).
So, why should companies be forced to offer benefits to partners of same sex marriages?
They want the right to marry someone they love
I want to marry three women (yes, finding the other two women will be tricky, especially given that my wife won't be terribly thrilled with the idea ;) ). Should I have that as a right? If so, why is polgamy forbidden? Is polygamy legal in the "enlightened" countries of Europe? If not, why not? And why aren't you pushing for the legalization of polygamy everywhere?
Umm, the suburbs of Boston, like Boston itself, are Kerry strongholds, really. It's unlikely you met any "Bush Americans" there. Try going to Mississippi or Tennessee for a better picture.
That's a popular myth, but not true. Hitler never got more than ~37% of the vote in any of his elections. He was appointed Chancellor by President Hindenberg, theoretically to form a coalition government.
Course, it didn't work out that way - sort of thing that happens when you can't form a coalition without working with your political enemies.
Yah, we might elect fewer gun-control proponents (see #5 & #7 above)
I think if you actually lived through the 90's, and were awake then, you'll not be believing the media did "rabid attacks on Clinton".
Even when he was being impeached (a perfect time to attack him, you must admit), the media spent its time saying rude things abut the impeachers, not about Clinton.
Or do you really believe that your beliefs about Bush were formed entirely from your own morla uprightness and superior reasoning, and had nothing to do with the inputs from any of the media?
So, Slate's Exit Polls, which they said were preliminary, and subject to change, cannot, in fact, change, without there being a conspiracy to steal an election?
And the media which has been lambasting Bush for years is just sitting quietly and saying nothing at all about the conspiracy which places a guy they hate back in the White House?
Did your mother drop you on your head a lot?
Eight years, but why quibble?
Hint: you can start with Bosnia and Kosovo.
It might interest you to know that Martin Luther stated in his writing that marriage was a secular thing, not a religious thing. Marriages could be consecrated in Church, but they were a matter of law, and the consecration in Church was irrelevant to the validity or lack of same of a marriage.
Or would cause a great deal more "pork" and corruption. Depends on the people, really. Face it, if the people didn't want the pork, they'd stop electing people who promised them more largesses from the public treasury.
Let's see. Went to CNN's Exit Polling site. Checked Ohio and Florida, just for grins.
Exit polls in Ohio were 51% Bush, 47% Kerry. Actual vote in Ohio: 51% Bush, 48% Kerry. Check sat.
Exit Polls in Florida 51+% Bush, 48-% Kerry. Actual Vote 52% Bush, 47% Kerry. Check sat.
So, which were the States where Kerry was winning in the Exit Polls, and lost in the election?
I can offer similar samples that show that Kerry voters were uneducated, if I wish - of four people I know for SURE voted for Kerry, only one was a college graduate, and two weren't even high school graduates, but of the five I know for SURE voted for Bush, all were college graduates.
See how meaningless this is?
For what it's worth, I voted Bush, and know what the Clear Skies Act is, and why North Korea is an issue.
Have to give it to Kerry - he was honourable enough not to try to drag this out. As I hope Bush would have been if it had gone the other way.
Wasn't the money-laundering part Kerry's contribution to the PATRIOT act? Not sure, but I recall some of his campaign ads claiming credit for that bit.
Kerry has been a big supporter of laws zeroing in on money laundering for a long time. Probably because he was a prosecuter once upon a time.
If I hadn't seen so many news stories about it, I'd be unable to tell anything has changed at all. Course, I live in "flyover country", so maybe it's different for you people in big cities.
Except that SS1 can carry three people to the Gemini's two, and Gemini could reach orbit, and Gemini could stay up for extended periods (two weeks on Gemini VII), and....
You perhaps meant early Mercury?
That's a bit of an exaggeration, to compare Apollo's computers to a 486. If you were to compare Apollo's computers to an 8080, you'd still be incredibly generous to the Apollo.
Most digital watches have more computing power than Apollo did.
The New Deal did not fix the Depression, but it did prevent people from starving, and probably staved off a military coup (yes, there was one being considered during the Depression).
That's what we do in Louisiana, for everything but President. "Vote for the Crook, it's important!" came out of one such runoff election.
Simple and fair.
You must keep in mind that to most of /., "fair" means "my candidate wins". There probably aren't more than twelve of us who would think it was "fair" if "that other guy" wins, no matter the popular or electoral vote total.
That said, I predict that if Kerry wins, the people whinging about the Electoral College will suddenly shut up. Especially if he loses the popular vote.
And which nations would those be? And just how large are their militaries?
I think if you went to the trouble of checking, you'd be rather surprised at how little spare military capacity exists in the world today.
Persecution of "those guys over there" is as old as humanity. Has nothing to do with monotheism or polytheism or atheism. Has to do with "strangeness" - they're NOT LIKE US!! Which makes them less than human, NOT PEOPLE, KOTTER!
What we need to do (all of us) is be willing to cast our label "People" as widely as possible. The more of us that are "People", the fewer chances of unpleasantness f that sort.