You STARTED with this one - that's what my post was about!
Here some someone with a propeller beanie on his head
So dishing it out but want to be immune from your own words being questioned. You've done it a LOT and seem to lurk here to do little more than push a luddite anti-science barrow.
My propeller beanie comment was directed at people that rejected the notion out of hand without even considering the issue.
Is that where you want to shift the goalposts? Then apply at least a grade school level of English and make it clear that a blanket insult is not meant to be a blanket insult when you make it then. Poor little boy can dish it out but not take even a mild rebuke. How do we stop churning these entitled losers out?
who is often caught saying things like "from my cold dead hand"
Likely to be hot burning hands. An ex-army guy I know who got to play with military flamethrowers before training on them became limited noted that they are tempremental things that don't just roast the thing you are pointing them at unless you are out in the open on a perfectly calm day. Such weapons are "on the backburner" due to it being a real bitch if the bad guys have them, it looking really bad in the press to roast kiddies with them and difficulties in operating them without burning your own guys located anywhere near the operator.
I've got a couple of relatives missing a few fingers each from playing with relatively low powered things that go bang, and a friend who got really bad burns from a plastic bag and candle balloon. Meanwhile an uncle who stole cordite and picric acid from an army dump, who made his own gun cotton and made his own toy cannon got away with just causing a bit of property damage.
So it's OK for you to dish it out to the 'propellerheads", or climate scientists, or like you did to me earlier but it's not OK for it to be dished out in your direction when it's a criticism of your insults? Pathetic. Yet another reason we should find out what's wrong with your upbringing and make sure the next generation doesn't get subjected to the same mistakes.
The prosecutor did anyway because he wanted to stick The Bad Guys with something.
People who believe in the rule of law instead of Chinese or Soviet style "might make right" and like that - they see someone break a law and they don't want them to get away with it. That pardon sure showed them didn't it?
and leaked the name by mistake
I'm offended that you think I or any unfortunate readers who read your words are gullible enough to believe it.
Stanisaw Lem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanis%C5%82aw_Lem) He was so prolific that in 1974 Phillip K. Dick wrote a letter to the FBI containing the following:
For an Iron Curtain Party group - Lem is probably a composite committee rather than an individual, since he writes in several styles and sometimes reads foreign, to him, languages and sometimes does not - to gain monopoly positions of power from which they can control opinion through criticism and pedagogic essays is a threat to our whole field of science fiction and its free exchange of views and ideas.
Whatever Phillip K. Dick's state of mind at the time Lem certainly wrote a lot of stuff of high enough quality to get translated into English, so much so that whether an artifact of a large batch of many years work being translated at once or sheer output it looked more like the work of many instead of one.
Some of his satire reflects on any large badly run org (see such things as "The Highest Possible Level of Development civilization" and apply it to places like HP that thought they were so good that they never had to do anything new again). His serious stuff includes "Solaris" which is a good book but probably close to the most unfilmable book I've ever read (it has long lists of imaginary and fruitless academic effort) , yet it got turned into two films that contain a tiny fraction of the ideas of the book, and I'm not sure how well they convey his main theme that aliens are probably going to be so alien that they and we are going to have trouble initiating communication even with years of effort and Godlike technology.
Anyway, Lem was Polish and some of his satire seemed to be based on "iron curtain" government orgs where incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
"It could mean our theories of gravitation are wrong" versus "there's something exerting gravity that we can't see any other way yet with our current instruments". I know which head I'd put the fucking insulting "propeller beanie" on. Questioning is one thing, ridicule another. Looks like you don't just despise climate scientists but all of them. What broken corner of society is turning out people spreading the drivel like this idiot's posting history? We need to prop it up with more jobs, better education funding or something to avoid drowning under a wave of destructive idiots.
That's so matter of fact, and leaves no room for the possibility that the theory of dark matter is wrong
Yes. Gravitational effects show that something is there which we cannot see. That's the bit that's treated as a matter of fact. What that stuff actually may be is where we don't have anything that can be treated on the level of facts. So we are certain that something is there but not certain as to what it is, apart from ruling out a lot of things that should make sense but don't fit (dust, brown dwarfs etc), which is why this stuff is so mysterious.
I'd say it's the Reagan copying factor. They think Reagan won due to being a apocolypse cult wingnut instead of being able to put on a front of being nearly all things to nearly all people. By bringing out people that make Reagan at his worst look like a moderate they think they are hitting the target of emulating a popular President - not understanding by the time Reagan looked weird even the GOP was calling him a lame duck President and counting down the days. That's the only thing that makes sense as to why they are pushing so many people up from the extreme shallow end of the party.
Huh? You can just forward classified material to non-secure servers outside of a classified network? I think not!
Of course you CAN because there's little or nothing to stop it happening, and the law doesn't apply to the big end of town. Hence the oil company in Nigeria which the Manning leaks tell us wanted to share as little information with US government agencies as possible because they were convinced that merely classifying it would not stop it leaking via someone like Clinton, Libby or whoever. The same set of leaks had Hillary giving orders to obtain the credit card details of foreign diplomats (mostly NATO allies) for the purpose of framing and blackmail if necessary to force UN votes - once again, something she could do but shouldn't.
Like Libby, North, Poindexter, Petraeus and all the rest she's not going to face any legal consequences for revealing classified material. Meanwhile Manning rots in jail and Snowden is in exile, because they are the "little people".
The loophole is the "building" is catagorised as an upgrade despite being a new reactor, which is probably fair enough since new boilers in coal fired power plants are described in the same way.
As does the non-desert air in other places with cooling towers FFS. What is your game? I state the equivalent of "water is wet" and you go off with something like "as a rabid fanboy of water sports I strongly object, water is more like a very tasty chocolate milkshake only crunchy". It's not even a criticism yet I get an ignorant fanboy kneejerk response with made up "facts". Evaporative cooling to remove a lot of heat requires access to a lot of water that's a "real" fact as distinct from silly deliberate misinformation. In reality it just means putting your reactors close enough to a whole lot of salty water that nobody is drinking if that's all you've got. No contraversy. Not a criticism of nukes at all. Why make up shit to deny it?
Instead of taking the word of a fanboy being ridiculous because someone suggested nuclear is not perfect in some way that nobody gives a shit about I suggest taking a look for yourself: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi... That's from the article about the station he's writing about which is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... Note the line "20 billion US gallons (76,000,000 m) of treated water are evaporated each year.
So yes, the Jordan plant is going to need a LOT of water but nobody said it has to be drinkable or even fresh water. It just means it has to be sited near the sea, a river or a lake (even a very salty lake) or have some other access to a lot of water. It's not a disadvantage, just a constraint, and it's pathetic that somebody is enough of clueless fanboy to see it as an attack instead of just a statement about a choice of site.
The above poster is literally talking shit (as well as doubling the size of the plant - what's with that?)
The Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant is located in the Arizona desert, and is the only large nuclear power plant in the world that is not located near a large body of water. The power plant evaporates the water from the treated sewage from several nearby cities and towns to provide the cooling of the steam that it produces.
Sorry kids - no magic to see here. Just a LOT of water from wherever you can get it, even sewage. You can reuse the water but you do need a LOT of water to start with.
Who said I was making excuses? I'm describing the problem. There's some articles on the metadata bill at http://crikey.com.au/ that describe it far better.
Slashdot Mirror
You STARTED with this one - that's what my post was about!
So dishing it out but want to be immune from your own words being questioned. You've done it a LOT and seem to lurk here to do little more than push a luddite anti-science barrow.
Is that where you want to shift the goalposts? Then apply at least a grade school level of English and make it clear that a blanket insult is not meant to be a blanket insult when you make it then.
Poor little boy can dish it out but not take even a mild rebuke. How do we stop churning these entitled losers out?
Definitely. See how dangerous the ladder is from 3:18 :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Likely to be hot burning hands. An ex-army guy I know who got to play with military flamethrowers before training on them became limited noted that they are tempremental things that don't just roast the thing you are pointing them at unless you are out in the open on a perfectly calm day. Such weapons are "on the backburner" due to it being a real bitch if the bad guys have them, it looking really bad in the press to roast kiddies with them and difficulties in operating them without burning your own guys located anywhere near the operator.
I've got a couple of relatives missing a few fingers each from playing with relatively low powered things that go bang, and a friend who got really bad burns from a plastic bag and candle balloon. Meanwhile an uncle who stole cordite and picric acid from an army dump, who made his own gun cotton and made his own toy cannon got away with just causing a bit of property damage.
As soon? When did the last shuttle fly again?
Yes they have leverage now but we handed the lever to them long ago.
Ah yes, I forgot about weasel words.
I should just shut up due to being part of the "reality based community" then should I?
So it's OK for you to dish it out to the 'propellerheads", or climate scientists, or like you did to me earlier but it's not OK for it to be dished out in your direction when it's a criticism of your insults?
Pathetic.
Yet another reason we should find out what's wrong with your upbringing and make sure the next generation doesn't get subjected to the same mistakes.
People who believe in the rule of law instead of Chinese or Soviet style "might make right" and like that - they see someone break a law and they don't want them to get away with it. That pardon sure showed them didn't it?
I'm offended that you think I or any unfortunate readers who read your words are gullible enough to believe it.
I'd say I have a few more decades of watching US politics than you which more than makes up for it.
He was so prolific that in 1974 Phillip K. Dick wrote a letter to the FBI containing the following:
Whatever Phillip K. Dick's state of mind at the time Lem certainly wrote a lot of stuff of high enough quality to get translated into English, so much so that whether an artifact of a large batch of many years work being translated at once or sheer output it looked more like the work of many instead of one.
Some of his satire reflects on any large badly run org (see such things as "The Highest Possible Level of Development civilization" and apply it to places like HP that thought they were so good that they never had to do anything new again). His serious stuff includes "Solaris" which is a good book but probably close to the most unfilmable book I've ever read (it has long lists of imaginary and fruitless academic effort) , yet it got turned into two films that contain a tiny fraction of the ideas of the book, and I'm not sure how well they convey his main theme that aliens are probably going to be so alien that they and we are going to have trouble initiating communication even with years of effort and Godlike technology.
Anyway, Lem was Polish and some of his satire seemed to be based on "iron curtain" government orgs where incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
"It could mean our theories of gravitation are wrong" versus "there's something exerting gravity that we can't see any other way yet with our current instruments".
I know which head I'd put the fucking insulting "propeller beanie" on. Questioning is one thing, ridicule another.
Looks like you don't just despise climate scientists but all of them. What broken corner of society is turning out people spreading the drivel like this idiot's posting history? We need to prop it up with more jobs, better education funding or something to avoid drowning under a wave of destructive idiots.
Yes.
Gravitational effects show that something is there which we cannot see.
That's the bit that's treated as a matter of fact. What that stuff actually may be is where we don't have anything that can be treated on the level of facts.
So we are certain that something is there but not certain as to what it is, apart from ruling out a lot of things that should make sense but don't fit (dust, brown dwarfs etc), which is why this stuff is so mysterious.
I'd say it's the Reagan copying factor.
They think Reagan won due to being a apocolypse cult wingnut instead of being able to put on a front of being nearly all things to nearly all people. By bringing out people that make Reagan at his worst look like a moderate they think they are hitting the target of emulating a popular President - not understanding by the time Reagan looked weird even the GOP was calling him a lame duck President and counting down the days.
That's the only thing that makes sense as to why they are pushing so many people up from the extreme shallow end of the party.
Due to the nationality of his parents it does not matter.
You mean he isn't? Shutting down a government during a time of war requires a misplaced focus on political games instead of reality.
Of course you CAN because there's little or nothing to stop it happening, and the law doesn't apply to the big end of town. Hence the oil company in Nigeria which the Manning leaks tell us wanted to share as little information with US government agencies as possible because they were convinced that merely classifying it would not stop it leaking via someone like Clinton, Libby or whoever. The same set of leaks had Hillary giving orders to obtain the credit card details of foreign diplomats (mostly NATO allies) for the purpose of framing and blackmail if necessary to force UN votes - once again, something she could do but shouldn't.
Like Libby, North, Poindexter, Petraeus and all the rest she's not going to face any legal consequences for revealing classified material. Meanwhile Manning rots in jail and Snowden is in exile, because they are the "little people".
Or a frequent Lem plot based on a thinly disguised cold war Eastern Europe.
The game like this was inspired by a bank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
The loophole is the "building" is catagorised as an upgrade despite being a new reactor, which is probably fair enough since new boilers in coal fired power plants are described in the same way.
As does the non-desert air in other places with cooling towers FFS.
What is your game? I state the equivalent of "water is wet" and you go off with something like "as a rabid fanboy of water sports I strongly object, water is more like a very tasty chocolate milkshake only crunchy". It's not even a criticism yet I get an ignorant fanboy kneejerk response with made up "facts".
Evaporative cooling to remove a lot of heat requires access to a lot of water that's a "real" fact as distinct from silly deliberate misinformation.
In reality it just means putting your reactors close enough to a whole lot of salty water that nobody is drinking if that's all you've got. No contraversy. Not a criticism of nukes at all. Why make up shit to deny it?
Instead of taking the word of a fanboy being ridiculous because someone suggested nuclear is not perfect in some way that nobody gives a shit about I suggest taking a look for yourself:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...
That's from the article about the station he's writing about which is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Note the line "20 billion US gallons (76,000,000 m) of treated water are evaporated each year.
So yes, the Jordan plant is going to need a LOT of water but nobody said it has to be drinkable or even fresh water. It just means it has to be sited near the sea, a river or a lake (even a very salty lake) or have some other access to a lot of water.
It's not a disadvantage, just a constraint, and it's pathetic that somebody is enough of clueless fanboy to see it as an attack instead of just a statement about a choice of site.
Sorry kids - no magic to see here. Just a LOT of water from wherever you can get it, even sewage. You can reuse the water but you do need a LOT of water to start with.
Who said I was making excuses? I'm describing the problem.
There's some articles on the metadata bill at http://crikey.com.au/ that describe it far better.
If she has a clue about the topic represented by the booth then by definition she is not a "booth babe".