The universe being created from nothing isn't an extraordinary claim? Whether God created the universe or the universe created itself from nothing, both seem rather extraordinary and difficult/impossible to prove.
The reason most people in countries such as Argentina blame the US for their dictatorships is because the US has the power to destroy those governments, as they have done in other areas (and is going on in Iraq). In the case of the Middle East in particular, it is obvious that many of the governments there depend (or have in the past depended) directly on the aid of the US to keep them in power (such as Saudi Arabia, ironically Iraq, etc). I'm not sure how much better off those governments would have been if the US hadn't "medled" given their histories, but they would certainly be different.
I'm not saying it's fair to blame the US for all of the world's corrupt governments, but that's just the way it is when one nation is so much more powerful than any other single nation.
It's a bit awkward to read but if there was a single "=" there the compiler would complain.
True, but if you always compile with -Wall (all warnings), you'll get a warning saying the if statement is always true, which is how I always catch this error (at least this is true for gcc and g++).
Re:Toxic and harmful to environment
on
4l-j4z333ra 0wn3d
·
· Score: 1
As far as I can tell, it is really too late for the American and British military to immediately pull back (see my journal for more info). I REALLY didn't want them to go in there in the first place at that time.
Also, just because al Jazeera shows things that the BBC or CNN wouldn't show doesn't make it objective. (BTW I have been visiting their site and doing 2 translations a day that I can for free using the ajeeb service). Where is the english version of the site that they keep saying will be up "soon"? I'd bet $1 that the English version won't be identical to the Arabic version (the excuse will be "it's al Jazeera with an 'English' slant rather than an 'Arab' slant," whatever that means...).
If you can't see it, then how do you know the US military is blocking it?? Given the HUGE number of hits it has seen recently don't you think there's a CHANCE that their server couldn't handle it (ie, the slashdot effect).
You're right that I haven't actually watched AJ myself as I don't have a satellite dish. However, I have done some translations of their web site and assumed that their TV coverage was similar. I have also heard similar accounts from people who have watched the channel before.
Very true. However, you're implying that media organizations have something to do with "the truth." The reason the quote is valid is because everyone quickly chooses sides once the war begins. Once this happens, you very rapidly become biased towards your cause and begin to blatently close your ears to anything other than to what you want to here. Just because media companies show undoctored videos doesn't mean that this is somehow "the truth." Everything depends upon context and on trying to get as broad and thorough coverage as possible.
A quick example:
The video of American POWs and downed helicopters would imply that there are additional POWs and other casualties. Although AJ has no hesitations about showing dead bodies on TV, how come they never show the rows and rows of destroyed tanks and scattered bodies of Iraqi soldiers? Is it perhaps so that they can encourage Iraqis to fight? And how much do you want to bet that they are taking tons of video of scenes like this, just so that they can show the videos after the battles are over (in case events turn sour for the Baath regime) to show how the coalition used "brutal and unecessary" force against Iraqis, in this case to raise civil unrest? By only showing the briefest glimpses of "the truth" with precise timing, it is very easy to distort events to meet your expectations.
Luckily no one was inside at the time the building went down in flames.
That was probably intentional. They usually try to bomb in the hours immediately before dawn to minimize casualties (just as when the bombed the Iraq news station). I'm not saying it's right or not to destroy TV stations, but at least they're only targeting property rather than people.
To some of the hawks, it is and always has been (to some degree) unpatriotic to be a dove. This is true in nearly every country when in a time of war. At least here people aren't executed for being unpatriotic (unlike Iraq, Afganistan in 2000, N. Korea, etc.). Other hawks may view you as being patriotic (and say as much if you open your ears) because you are stating your beliefs and defending them, which is what every American should do.
I am ashamed of an America where expressing a dissenting view is called unpatriotic...
Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. Just because someone claims that a dissenting view is unpatriotic (even people in power), it really is another example of people using their freedom of speech. Now if the President says something to that effect, that's a bit of a different story since he's the head of state and essentially represents America. (I haven't heard him say something clearly to that effect, but I haven't heard him praising pacifists for carrying out their rights as free Americans either).
Unless you can go there yourself or talk with the people themselves, you must rely on the reporting available to you. If all of your news sources are biased (which they are, even if they're actively trying not to be), then you'll probably never uncover the absolute truth (if there is such a thing). I agree that discreprencies are worth researching, but if everything one side says contradicts with everything another side says, this takes an enormous efort. Heck, it takes quite a bit of effort even when they're on the same side (such as today when the US and British media couldn't decide whether there was an uprising going on in Basra)
Basically, I would say don't set your standards for truth too high. As the saying goes "the winners right the history books" is still to this day rather accurate unfortunately. If you were to go to Iraq, you'd be surprised by how many people actually believe that they won both the Iraq-Iran war AND the Persian Gulf War. Ultimately, you're limited by your own biased preceptions as well as the news which is available to you, which is very finite.
In closing, here's an example of what could happen and how hopeless it would be for someone like you or myself to unequivocally come to the truth:
Let's say the coallition forces claim to have found some biological weapons, take some photos and quaratine the evidence. The US media will immediately go with the story and probably exagerate the finds. However, Hussein will immediately claim that the "evidence" was planted there which is exactly what AJ will report. No matter how credible the evidence is to a western person, the AJ group will still claim that it was planted. How could you or I ever get to the truth? Unless you were there when the Iraq soldiers placed the ordanance there (or when the "spies" planted the evidence), there simply wouldn't be a way know, esp. if you didn't trust either news source.
Well, I did a little bit of sluthing. First, let me state that I know next to nothing about Arabic, other than it is a difficult language to master, mainly because it is so ancient and has now vowels so the meaning greatly depends on context. However, I used the translation site ajeeb to do some english to arabic and arabic to english. "coalition forces" translates to (---) wheras "occupation forces" translates to (---). Very similar, but not identical. I then did a search on each term with google (site:aljazeera.net) but didn't find any matches. I then did a search on the translation of occupation (---) with the translation of Rumsfield (---) and found some matches (apparently you can only do 2 arabic->english translations a day for free, so I couldn't translate the entire page to english). This is hardly diffinitive proof, but if you take some time you can certainly determine whether you or the person you are replying to is correct (esp. if you know Arabic:-).
PS: I tried pasting the Arabic in, but it got converted to ascii by slashdot. Oh well, it's a free site, try doing the translations yourself...
If you mean does AJ show armed Iraqis in built-up areas, well yes they do.
More specifically, did you see the woman who was waving at British troops and then later found hung on AJ? This is somewhat unfair in that I haven't seen it myself (I read about it) but I'd bet anything there hasn't been so much as a peep on AJ about the incident. And don't tell me that they would never report on unsubstantiated accounts as they do it ALL the time, just like any other news station.
You don't accept at face value the message the military is giving out?
What a double standard!! Please, have you read AJ's site before or seen their broadcasts (and listened to the dialog)?? They take everything Saddam or his subordinates say as the gospel truth without even discusions on how accurate (or dubious) their statements are!!
Actually, they did!
I would love to see exactly how they reported on the oil well fires, seeing as how Hussein promised on a recent American interview that he wouldn't blow up the "wealth of Iraq" on a direct question on whether he would destroy the oil wells.
Ecological disaster?! LOL
The smoke coming from that oil is rather toxic and harmful to the environment. Whether it is truly a disaster is debateable. I wouldn't call it a disaster, but it certainly isn't something to laugh about.
By your logic, it would have been just as valid to say in WW2 "Hey, how come we only get the Allies broadcast? I want to here what the broadcasts from Hitler have to say for a sanity check." Propaganda + propaganda != truth!! If you heard one the Allies side "We just wiped out Hitler" the day after Normandy, it would have been worthless and too far away from the truth to help anyone. On the other hand, if you simultaneously heard from the Axis "We just defeated the Normandy invasion and are proceeding with our invasion of England" it also would have been completely worthless. My point is that once you get far enough away from the truth (ie, extremely biased and/or dishonest), it doesn't matter who you listen to because you'll never get to the bottom of it.
Personally, from what I've translated from AJ's site (using a pretty decent Arabic-English online translator), they are HIGHLY biased towards Iraq's Baath party's side with absolutely zero coverage of anything along the lines of showing anything which Saddam wouldn't want shown (such as Iraqi people waving at troups or damaging his portraits). Even CNN will show some things which the Bush administration would rather them not (such as the damage in the bombed market or discussions on whether the administration has been forthwright on certain issues).
Anyone can tell that both CNN and AJ are biased. However, AJ shows only one side and absolutely nothing else (they don't even show everything on the one side).
The easy way around this is to donate to the Democratic party itself (as a sibbling post mentions). Corporations do this ALL the time.
This was a big reason why the founders of the USA we're weary of formal political parties. Can't say I blame them, but it'd probably be even worse if it was like France where there are tons of viable parties where some wacko can more easily (and directly) come to power (not Chirac, but that guy that got defeated in the second round). In theory, the electoral system would solve this (smart guys in the electoral colledge would use their own knowledge as well as the wishes of their populace to decide their vote), but since many states have, in effect, defeated the electoral colledge by directly giving their votes by popular vote (basically...), even this wouldn't work. I guess since only the top candidate in nearly all states gets all of their votes, it still isn't as bad as it could be. To wrap this ramble up, all of this has a lot to do with why the US is a Republic and not a direct democracy.
RTFP!! You totally misread the guy's post. All he asked was whether you could spam someone you don't like by sticking up false advertisements with their cell's number on them. Considering that the police manually approve adding numbers to the spam list, they probably would call the number first to verify that it a) exists and b) verifies that the number is related to the advertisement.
I work with an imigrant from Yugoslavia and from what he tells me everything you said is absolutely accurate. From his accounts, it sounds like economic sanctions are about the worst responses to dictators as it essentially ruins the common people's lives while boosting the position of the dictator. However, he moved to Canada (and then to America) way before the sanctions took hold (about 15 yrs ago). Apparently, it's been going downhill over there for quite some time thanks to the totalitarian government as well as other factors. In fact, his family's bank was seized by the government leaving them with little recourse.
It sounds like it is turning into the worst kind of gangster government over there now and I really hope that somebody will come to your aid to get rid of all of that organized crime over there.
Actually, there are very few (if any) skeletons in the Great Wall of China and almost certainly none "crunched in" inside of the pyramids (I'm assuming you mean Egyptian, there are pyramids all over Earth after all).
There also used to be a rumor that skeletons were left inside of the Hoover Dam, but as this would have, if nothing else, greatly weakened the structure as the body decayed, no bodies were left behind (this is also why skeletons wouldn't have been left inside of the Great Wall).
I can think of a few circumstances where this would be useful to non-lazy people. If you live about 20 miles from your job and have good roads with bike lanes along the route, you may be interested in getting a power assist. This is especially true if you live in a hilly area where you may not always feel like climbing steep inclines at the end of the day.
It would be faster than public transportation and be less polluting and much less expensive than driving.
With the level of gear reduction on most bikes, you can ride up any hill you can walk up... These must be for people who can't even walk uphill.
I'm not sure if you noticed, but this guy is from Denver. There are some really big hills near there (and of course mountains) which are quite arduous to climb, either by foot or by bike. I live only about 15 miles from my job (near Denver), but have to climb roughly 1000 ft. to get home, not an easy feat at the end of a long day if you're travelling by bicycle.
I know for sure that read-only forms of MiniDiscs exist, although they're almost all in Japan (MiniDiscs are very popular over there). I also have a MiniDisc player/recorder and also really enjoy it (I wish it would take on here, but I guess it never will at this point).
Once, when I was really bored I went to Sony's website and read some white papers on the MiniDisc format and vaguely recall that they had 3 formats: 1) read-write for consumers to put their music on; 2) read-only for mass produced copies of an album; 3) read-only + read-write so that you could buy a stamped MiniDisc with some songs you like already on it and room to put on additional songs.
Heat shields are incredibly simple devices as well, yet NASA managed to construct a space shuttle around them that had so many different modes of disintegrating on re-entry that we still don't know which one to pick.
That's like comparing the failure of an entire airplane to the failure of the black box inside the airplane. Also, there are different kinds of heat shields, reusable ones (like the tiles on the shuttles) and ones that desintegrate in the process (like the ones used on the reentry capsules on the Apollo missions). When you have a solid object surrounded by enough material to withstand re-entry two times over, I would say that is sufficient to prevent the vaporization of the core material in the atmosphere under any circumstances. BTW, there's not a single soul at NASA that believes an RTG could even possibly lead to a single fatality (unless you're the unlucky guy that gets hit in the head by it). Consider how indestructable black boxes in airplanes are and then multiply by 100 and you'll get an idea of how sturdy these things are. Also, this is all going off the premise that either a) the rocket blows up on launch (which absolutely wouldn't have enough energy to harm the RTG) or b) the RTG burns up in the atmosphere on a botched gravity assist maneuver using the earth. The Pluto mission might not even reorbit earth and just head straight out to Jupiter (that's my bet as they are really cutting it close and probably don't have the time to try an earth gravity assist to reach Jupiter before getting to Pluto).
it's perfectly fine to kill thousands or tens of thousands of people as long as nobody knows that you did--otu of sight out of mind
In which scientific report did you read that stated several kilograms of plutonium in an RTG could kill thousands of people??? Before replying (if you reply) check out this site. Here's a direct quote on its safety design:
The DOE has demonstrated that RTGs will minimize the possibility of fuel release during the generators' lifetime, particularly in the event of an accident. The very low probability of a plutonium release results from the protective-layering design of a spacecraft's RTGs. The radioisotope energy source for the GPHS-RTG is a stacked column of 18 individual GPHS modules. Each module consists of a graphite aeroshell, two-carbon-bonded carbon fiber (CBCF) insulator sleeves, two graphite impact shells (GISs), and four fueled clads. The graphite (carbon-carbon composite) aeroshell serves as the module's primary heat shield to protect the internal components from direct exposure to a reentry's thermal and aerodynamic environment. The two GISs contained in each GPHS module provide the primary resistance to impact or mechanical loads. Each GIS assembly is thermally insulated from the aeroshell by a low thermal-conducting CBCF insulator sleeve. Each fueled clad, separated by a graphite floating membrane, consists of one fuel pellet of ceramic (or solid) plutonium dioxide encased in an iridium shell. The iridium shell protects and immobilizes the fuel. The iridium alloy is compatible with the plutonium dioxide fuel material, resists oxidation to air and has a high melting temperature. Each clad also contains a vent designed to release the helium generated by the alpha particle decay of the fuel. The protective layers are specifically designed to safeguard the plutonium from fires, explosions, fragment impacts and the heat of atmospheric re-entry.
I think you might be missing something. RTGs are increadibly simple devices. You can find an outline of the design of them on the internet. The reason they can be designed to be virtually indestructable is because there are no moving parts (not counting attached radiators), only solid plutonium encased in a very hard shield. It's like designing a very, very strong rock. Also, there are very strict guidelines for RTGs which, due to all of the paper work, greatly increase their unit cost (which is why they are employed only when absolutely necessary, such as when there is no externally available power source for an extended period of time).
Also, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, plutonium is not overly dangerous (as someone pointed out, about 26 people consumed a "lethal" dose of plutonium during the Manhattan Project and yet virtually all of them lived to see old age (above the statistical average in fact)).
I didn't mean that an RTG could vaporize over a city. It's simply (as far as I know) the most destructive thing you could do with one which, as I pointed out, still wouldn't be too horrible. To my knowledge, there really aren't any circumstances under which an RTG will vaporize in the earth's atmosphere. They could, at worst, break into large chunks but that's essentially it.
Slashdot Mirror
The universe being created from nothing isn't an extraordinary claim? Whether God created the universe or the universe created itself from nothing, both seem rather extraordinary and difficult/impossible to prove.
I'm not saying it's fair to blame the US for all of the world's corrupt governments, but that's just the way it is when one nation is so much more powerful than any other single nation.
tmp.c:3: warning: implicit declaration of function `printf'
tmp.c:4: warning: implicit declaration of function `exit'
True, but if you always compile with -Wall (all warnings), you'll get a warning saying the if statement is always true, which is how I always catch this error (at least this is true for gcc and g++).
Also, just because al Jazeera shows things that the BBC or CNN wouldn't show doesn't make it objective. (BTW I have been visiting their site and doing 2 translations a day that I can for free using the ajeeb service). Where is the english version of the site that they keep saying will be up "soon"? I'd bet $1 that the English version won't be identical to the Arabic version (the excuse will be "it's al Jazeera with an 'English' slant rather than an 'Arab' slant," whatever that means...).
You're right that I haven't actually watched AJ myself as I don't have a satellite dish. However, I have done some translations of their web site and assumed that their TV coverage was similar. I have also heard similar accounts from people who have watched the channel before.
Very true. However, you're implying that media organizations have something to do with "the truth." The reason the quote is valid is because everyone quickly chooses sides once the war begins. Once this happens, you very rapidly become biased towards your cause and begin to blatently close your ears to anything other than to what you want to here. Just because media companies show undoctored videos doesn't mean that this is somehow "the truth." Everything depends upon context and on trying to get as broad and thorough coverage as possible.
A quick example:
The video of American POWs and downed helicopters would imply that there are additional POWs and other casualties. Although AJ has no hesitations about showing dead bodies on TV, how come they never show the rows and rows of destroyed tanks and scattered bodies of Iraqi soldiers? Is it perhaps so that they can encourage Iraqis to fight? And how much do you want to bet that they are taking tons of video of scenes like this, just so that they can show the videos after the battles are over (in case events turn sour for the Baath regime) to show how the coalition used "brutal and unecessary" force against Iraqis, in this case to raise civil unrest? By only showing the briefest glimpses of "the truth" with precise timing, it is very easy to distort events to meet your expectations.
That was probably intentional. They usually try to bomb in the hours immediately before dawn to minimize casualties (just as when the bombed the Iraq news station). I'm not saying it's right or not to destroy TV stations, but at least they're only targeting property rather than people.
I am ashamed of an America where expressing a dissenting view is called unpatriotic...
Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. Just because someone claims that a dissenting view is unpatriotic (even people in power), it really is another example of people using their freedom of speech. Now if the President says something to that effect, that's a bit of a different story since he's the head of state and essentially represents America. (I haven't heard him say something clearly to that effect, but I haven't heard him praising pacifists for carrying out their rights as free Americans either).
Basically, I would say don't set your standards for truth too high. As the saying goes "the winners right the history books" is still to this day rather accurate unfortunately. If you were to go to Iraq, you'd be surprised by how many people actually believe that they won both the Iraq-Iran war AND the Persian Gulf War. Ultimately, you're limited by your own biased preceptions as well as the news which is available to you, which is very finite.
In closing, here's an example of what could happen and how hopeless it would be for someone like you or myself to unequivocally come to the truth:
Let's say the coallition forces claim to have found some biological weapons, take some photos and quaratine the evidence. The US media will immediately go with the story and probably exagerate the finds. However, Hussein will immediately claim that the "evidence" was planted there which is exactly what AJ will report. No matter how credible the evidence is to a western person, the AJ group will still claim that it was planted. How could you or I ever get to the truth? Unless you were there when the Iraq soldiers placed the ordanance there (or when the "spies" planted the evidence), there simply wouldn't be a way know, esp. if you didn't trust either news source.
PS: I tried pasting the Arabic in, but it got converted to ascii by slashdot. Oh well, it's a free site, try doing the translations yourself...
More specifically, did you see the woman who was waving at British troops and then later found hung on AJ? This is somewhat unfair in that I haven't seen it myself (I read about it) but I'd bet anything there hasn't been so much as a peep on AJ about the incident. And don't tell me that they would never report on unsubstantiated accounts as they do it ALL the time, just like any other news station.
You don't accept at face value the message the military is giving out?
What a double standard!! Please, have you read AJ's site before or seen their broadcasts (and listened to the dialog)?? They take everything Saddam or his subordinates say as the gospel truth without even discusions on how accurate (or dubious) their statements are!!
Actually, they did!
I would love to see exactly how they reported on the oil well fires, seeing as how Hussein promised on a recent American interview that he wouldn't blow up the "wealth of Iraq" on a direct question on whether he would destroy the oil wells.
Ecological disaster?! LOL
The smoke coming from that oil is rather toxic and harmful to the environment. Whether it is truly a disaster is debateable. I wouldn't call it a disaster, but it certainly isn't something to laugh about.
Personally, from what I've translated from AJ's site (using a pretty decent Arabic-English online translator), they are HIGHLY biased towards Iraq's Baath party's side with absolutely zero coverage of anything along the lines of showing anything which Saddam wouldn't want shown (such as Iraqi people waving at troups or damaging his portraits). Even CNN will show some things which the Bush administration would rather them not (such as the damage in the bombed market or discussions on whether the administration has been forthwright on certain issues).
Anyone can tell that both CNN and AJ are biased. However, AJ shows only one side and absolutely nothing else (they don't even show everything on the one side).
This was a big reason why the founders of the USA we're weary of formal political parties. Can't say I blame them, but it'd probably be even worse if it was like France where there are tons of viable parties where some wacko can more easily (and directly) come to power (not Chirac, but that guy that got defeated in the second round). In theory, the electoral system would solve this (smart guys in the electoral colledge would use their own knowledge as well as the wishes of their populace to decide their vote), but since many states have, in effect, defeated the electoral colledge by directly giving their votes by popular vote (basically...), even this wouldn't work. I guess since only the top candidate in nearly all states gets all of their votes, it still isn't as bad as it could be. To wrap this ramble up, all of this has a lot to do with why the US is a Republic and not a direct democracy.
Great post!
Given the number of people they're spamming, the police could potentially set up 1000 lines or more to call from.
RTFP!! You totally misread the guy's post. All he asked was whether you could spam someone you don't like by sticking up false advertisements with their cell's number on them. Considering that the police manually approve adding numbers to the spam list, they probably would call the number first to verify that it a) exists and b) verifies that the number is related to the advertisement.
It sounds like it is turning into the worst kind of gangster government over there now and I really hope that somebody will come to your aid to get rid of all of that organized crime over there.
There also used to be a rumor that skeletons were left inside of the Hoover Dam, but as this would have, if nothing else, greatly weakened the structure as the body decayed, no bodies were left behind (this is also why skeletons wouldn't have been left inside of the Great Wall).
It would be faster than public transportation and be less polluting and much less expensive than driving.
With the level of gear reduction on most bikes, you can ride up any hill you can walk up... These must be for people who can't even walk uphill.
I'm not sure if you noticed, but this guy is from Denver. There are some really big hills near there (and of course mountains) which are quite arduous to climb, either by foot or by bike. I live only about 15 miles from my job (near Denver), but have to climb roughly 1000 ft. to get home, not an easy feat at the end of a long day if you're travelling by bicycle.
Once, when I was really bored I went to Sony's website and read some white papers on the MiniDisc format and vaguely recall that they had 3 formats: 1) read-write for consumers to put their music on; 2) read-only for mass produced copies of an album; 3) read-only + read-write so that you could buy a stamped MiniDisc with some songs you like already on it and room to put on additional songs.
I'm nearly positive that Sony MiniDiscs support a format where part of the disk could be read-only while the rest is read/write.
That's like comparing the failure of an entire airplane to the failure of the black box inside the airplane. Also, there are different kinds of heat shields, reusable ones (like the tiles on the shuttles) and ones that desintegrate in the process (like the ones used on the reentry capsules on the Apollo missions). When you have a solid object surrounded by enough material to withstand re-entry two times over, I would say that is sufficient to prevent the vaporization of the core material in the atmosphere under any circumstances. BTW, there's not a single soul at NASA that believes an RTG could even possibly lead to a single fatality (unless you're the unlucky guy that gets hit in the head by it). Consider how indestructable black boxes in airplanes are and then multiply by 100 and you'll get an idea of how sturdy these things are. Also, this is all going off the premise that either a) the rocket blows up on launch (which absolutely wouldn't have enough energy to harm the RTG) or b) the RTG burns up in the atmosphere on a botched gravity assist maneuver using the earth. The Pluto mission might not even reorbit earth and just head straight out to Jupiter (that's my bet as they are really cutting it close and probably don't have the time to try an earth gravity assist to reach Jupiter before getting to Pluto).
it's perfectly fine to kill thousands or tens of thousands of people as long as nobody knows that you did--otu of sight out of mind
In which scientific report did you read that stated several kilograms of plutonium in an RTG could kill thousands of people??? Before replying (if you reply) check out this site. Here's a direct quote on its safety design:
The DOE has demonstrated that RTGs will minimize the possibility of fuel release during the generators' lifetime, particularly in the event of an accident. The very low probability of a plutonium release results from the protective-layering design of a spacecraft's RTGs. The radioisotope energy source for the GPHS-RTG is a stacked column of 18 individual GPHS modules. Each module consists of a graphite aeroshell, two-carbon-bonded carbon fiber (CBCF) insulator sleeves, two graphite impact shells (GISs), and four fueled clads. The graphite (carbon-carbon composite) aeroshell serves as the module's primary heat shield to protect the internal components from direct exposure to a reentry's thermal and aerodynamic environment. The two GISs contained in each GPHS module provide the primary resistance to impact or mechanical loads. Each GIS assembly is thermally insulated from the aeroshell by a low thermal-conducting CBCF insulator sleeve. Each fueled clad, separated by a graphite floating membrane, consists of one fuel pellet of ceramic (or solid) plutonium dioxide encased in an iridium shell. The iridium shell protects and immobilizes the fuel. The iridium alloy is compatible with the plutonium dioxide fuel material, resists oxidation to air and has a high melting temperature. Each clad also contains a vent designed to release the helium generated by the alpha particle decay of the fuel. The protective layers are specifically designed to safeguard the plutonium from fires, explosions, fragment impacts and the heat of atmospheric re-entry.
Also, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, plutonium is not overly dangerous (as someone pointed out, about 26 people consumed a "lethal" dose of plutonium during the Manhattan Project and yet virtually all of them lived to see old age (above the statistical average in fact)).
I didn't mean that an RTG could vaporize over a city. It's simply (as far as I know) the most destructive thing you could do with one which, as I pointed out, still wouldn't be too horrible. To my knowledge, there really aren't any circumstances under which an RTG will vaporize in the earth's atmosphere. They could, at worst, break into large chunks but that's essentially it.