>Suppose I just dump a bunch of Algae in a pond, >then scoop off the top flotsam once a week, dry it in the sun, >and then burn it? Would this be more or less than 40% efficient?
that would be more or less how slashdot's moderation system operates
LOL... you are the one who apparently doesn't understand the concept of a "mountain". (Hint: they are three dimensional!)
and yea, i've taken that train ride five or six times.
http://www.fbrealty.com/montana/map-mt.jpg
Close to half the fucking state is mountains, tard. Let's kick some math here. The western... umm... 150 miles or so of the whole state is mountains. On Amtrak, which travels around 45-50 MPH over winding uneven terrain, you spent about 2.5 - 3 HOURS in the Rocky Mountains. And you didn't see them. You're either legally blind or patently retarded.
what do you think the continental divide is, one big two dimensional line?
Christ, it is called a mountain range. The next time you feel the need to voice your little ignorant fucking opinion on things you are completely disassociated with, go to wikipedia.
Original Argument: "The only way we will be safe from gun homicides is if we are all armed"
My argument: "England has less gun homicides. Being armed there is illegal, therefor that isn't the only way to be safe"
Your argument: "Everyone in Kennesaw has a gun, and it is safe"
For one thing your counter example has nothing to do with my point. For another, Kennesaw has what, 35k people? Too small a sample size to draw any kind of inductive conclusions.
Yea, correlation doesn't equal causation, but you can't tell me you think 30 times the gun deaths per capita is completely unrelated to having more guns per capita.
I'm very much in favor of the 2nd amendment, but the argument that if everyone were armed to the teeth (presumably with concealed weapons) these things wouldn't happen is just ridiculous.
If the USA and England had the same population size, the USA would have 34 times the number of shooting homicides that the UK has.
Gun control is tightly controlled in England. Government security cameras are everywhere. So explain to me again how the bill of rights saves people's lives?
I'm all for personal liberty but your argument is trash.
2001 saw the highest US death toll due to terrorist activity, which was by most estimates was around 3,000 Americans.
The same year, about 1.1 MILLION people died from cancer and heart disease-- nearly 400 times the death toll from terrorism. Sudden infant death syndrome causes more deaths in this country EVERY year than terrorism did in the worst terrorist year in US history.
We even killed ourselves 25 times more than terrorists did in 2001 (70,000 vs 3,000).
"Fighting Terrorism" costs money, convenience, and civil liberties. Any of which I'd be far more likely to part with if we were fighting one of the real killers in America.
2001 saw the highest US death toll due to terrorist activity, which was by most estimates around 3,000 Americans.
The same year, about one million one hundred thousand people died from cancer and heart disease. 300 times the death toll from terrorism.
How much money is spent on terrorism, if include the average salary of the millions of people made to wait in line for hours and take their shoes off in airports due to increased security measures?
How about a war on cancer or a war against ignorance?
Slashdot Mirror
>I've heard some really frightening tales from Eskimo whaling captains.
Actually that was your uncle Chuck.
>Suppose I just dump a bunch of Algae in a pond,
>then scoop off the top flotsam once a week, dry it in the sun,
>and then burn it? Would this be more or less than 40% efficient?
that would be more or less how slashdot's moderation system operates
sounds like Cox gave you the shaft :(
my toyunda pious gets 4,000 miles per jiggawat.... THAAAANKS!
http://www.allabout-sp.net/?p=season10/1002
and when the Red Coats shouted "STOP...." what did he say?
hahaha, that's awesome... i'm glad i browse with 'flamebait' set to +5
LOL... you are the one who apparently doesn't understand the concept of a "mountain". (Hint: they are three dimensional!)
and yea, i've taken that train ride five or six times.
http://www.fbrealty.com/montana/map-mt.jpg
Close to half the fucking state is mountains, tard. Let's kick some math here. The western... umm... 150 miles or so of the whole state is mountains. On Amtrak, which travels around 45-50 MPH over winding uneven terrain, you spent about 2.5 - 3 HOURS in the Rocky Mountains. And you didn't see them. You're either legally blind or patently retarded.
what do you think the continental divide is, one big two dimensional line?
Christ, it is called a mountain range. The next time you feel the need to voice your little ignorant fucking opinion on things you are completely disassociated with, go to wikipedia.
Yea there is nothing on the horizon other than the dead trees and , you know, the CONTINENTAL DIVIDE.
Obviously you didn't see the sesame street where Cookie Monster called Big Bird a "nappy headed ho"
Original Argument: "The only way we will be safe from gun homicides is if we are all armed"
My argument: "England has less gun homicides. Being armed there is illegal, therefor that isn't the only way to be safe"
Your argument: "Everyone in Kennesaw has a gun, and it is safe"
For one thing your counter example has nothing to do with my point. For another, Kennesaw has what, 35k people? Too small a sample size to draw any kind of inductive conclusions.
I'm from the US, genius.
Yea, correlation doesn't equal causation, but you can't tell me you think 30 times the gun deaths per capita is completely unrelated to having more guns per capita.
I'm very much in favor of the 2nd amendment, but the argument that if everyone were armed to the teeth (presumably with concealed weapons) these things wouldn't happen is just ridiculous.
If the USA and England had the same population size, the USA would have 34 times the number of shooting homicides that the UK has.
Gun control is tightly controlled in England. Government security cameras are everywhere. So explain to me again how the bill of rights saves people's lives?
I'm all for personal liberty but your argument is trash.
maybe, but if they did you sure wouldn't want them walking all over you
in soviet russia, played out jokes make you
RIAA on Rails?
i'm sure they are getting used to the first and second word blocking the sun
because you are a loser.
what about dr. dre? are you trying to say he's not a real doctor?
2001 saw the highest US death toll due to terrorist activity, which was by most estimates was around 3,000 Americans.
The same year, about 1.1 MILLION people died from cancer and heart disease-- nearly 400 times the death toll from terrorism. Sudden infant death syndrome causes more deaths in this country EVERY year than terrorism did in the worst terrorist year in US history.
We even killed ourselves 25 times more than terrorists did in 2001 (70,000 vs 3,000).
"Fighting Terrorism" costs money, convenience, and civil liberties. Any of which I'd be far more likely to part with if we were fighting one of the real killers in America.
From Wired (http://wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/sixwords.htm l):
... nobody there ...
Machine. Unexpectedly, I'd invented a time
- Alan Moore
TIME MACHINE REACHES FUTURE!!!
- Harry Harrison
Osama's time machine: President Gore concerned.
- Charles Stross
UML?
2001 saw the highest US death toll due to terrorist activity, which was by most estimates around 3,000 Americans.
The same year, about one million one hundred thousand people died from cancer and heart disease. 300 times the death toll from terrorism.
How much money is spent on terrorism, if include the average salary of the millions of people made to wait in line for hours and take their shoes off in airports due to increased security measures?
How about a war on cancer or a war against ignorance?
"the MOTIVATIONS for terrorism - which really need attacking if terrorism is to be stopped."
Very true. I'll get right on that.
Are we sure he didn't mean myspace?