Yes, it's much more difficult to live on a restricted diet than an omnivorous one. You'll agree that's a fair cry from the original assertion that one would drop dead in days, though.
Believe it or not there are some fats and protein in vegetables. It's entirely possible (if a bit of a culture shock) to satisfy your dietary needs with a completely vegan diet.
I say that as someone who made some really kick-ass sliders at the weekend and thoroughly enjoyed them.
The "pickiness" you criticise is a side effect of the same sense of morality with regards to food that's useful if someone's going to decide to cut down on their meat consumption. I certainly wouldn't encourage people who currently eat meat to drop whatever restrictions they place on their meat choice for a purely aesthetic reason like "I don't want to seem picky".
I started carefully reconsidering my emotional response on insects as food when I really considered the use of the term "mud bugs" for delicious little crawfish. It's totally apt: those little things (and most of the shellfish I eat) aren't really all that un-bug-like. Now I'm quite looking forward to trying some if the opportunity arises.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, apart from a desperate backpedal from your original assertion that many scientists can be bought and "scientists" (your scare quotes) cannot be trusted.
It goes without saying that special scrutiny should be preserved for those with a conflict of interest.
You picked two examples where a minority of scientists were paid off argue against a massive, open concensus of other scientists, and claim that this minority is typical of "scientists". Then you talk about intellectual integrity!
The underlying issue is that you have a plurality of monopolies handling your TV services. If US TV companies had to compete with each other in the same region, it would generally encourage competitive action like this, but more specifically, it would offer one provider an incentive to offer its exclusive channels a la carte to subscribers of the other service (via streaming, for example) as a way of scooping up at least some revenue from those customers.
I came here to post exactly this. Conventional TV channels need to appreciate that technology has created a viable alternative and, like it or not, they have to compete with it. Most of our terrestrial channels know this and have launched catch-up and/or live TV apps on a decent range of platforms, that carry advertising to pay the bills. I'm quite pleased to see that even Sky, that bastion of awfulness, has come to terms with the fact that its business model may be ending and has launched a streaming (live and on demand) subscription package for its channels.
Tellingly, Fox doesn't let them stream The Simpsons. Talk about the left and right hand not knowing what they're doing.
Hanford's material was always going to have to be processed on-site. There's nothing there that, in its current state, could be shipped to a central facility, even if it existed.
The ones sent into space are designed to withstand an uncontrolled reentry from space. The ones used to power lighthouses (for example) are significantly less durable, and I dare say that one built into an aircraft would want the minimum acceptable shielding.
Also bear in mind that the waste we're getting to deal with today - the waste that sets the tone about nuclear safety - is the end product of a really dodgy design process done decades ago. We can make safer, cleaner nuclear reactors now, but that's not going to make the slightest bit of difference to our clean-up operations for quite some time.
It's not just waste fuel, it's waste, a heady mix of solids, liquids, gels and gases, variously impregnated with actual radio-isotopes at just enough of a level to make it all stupendously dangerous. It's going to be an incredibly hazardous ordeal to get it into containers, separation is completely off the table. There are some dumped fuel rods in there IIRC but they're probably not in any state to be reprocessed.
Whatever the actual motivations of the agents involved, Iraq's disarmament compliance was the argument for war, and the essential dispute between the UN and the Coalition. You'd have to have been asleep for the entire year leading up to the invasion to suppose that it wasn't absolutely fundimental.
They're commemorative medals, basically. They serve a similar function to the various adornments that the Queen wears. BTW that's the first Google result for "prince charles medals".
The Queen's speech outlined the various bills that Parliment intends to bring in, and the "snooper's charter" wasn't one of them; the absence of any given bill from the speech is widely (and uncontroversially) taken to mean that the bill is dead. The government's comments that it intends to find other ways to address computer crime would seem to back this interpretation.
Even supposing that the fake missiles are a double bluff against real missiles, as you seem to be arguing*, that leaves North Korea with an actual missile stockpile between several billion and hard zero.
*And not just a publicity exercise completely decoupled from their actual limping weapons program
It's proof that they got one launch to work, which is a significantly lower level of capability than this parade attempted to show off. I'm not saying North Korea's completely free of missiles, just that this demo is likely a vast exaggeration.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess not!
Yes, it's much more difficult to live on a restricted diet than an omnivorous one. You'll agree that's a fair cry from the original assertion that one would drop dead in days, though.
Who says you have to eat the entirety of a cricket, though?
Believe it or not there are some fats and protein in vegetables. It's entirely possible (if a bit of a culture shock) to satisfy your dietary needs with a completely vegan diet.
I say that as someone who made some really kick-ass sliders at the weekend and thoroughly enjoyed them.
The "pickiness" you criticise is a side effect of the same sense of morality with regards to food that's useful if someone's going to decide to cut down on their meat consumption. I certainly wouldn't encourage people who currently eat meat to drop whatever restrictions they place on their meat choice for a purely aesthetic reason like "I don't want to seem picky".
It's just nice to have other options in the moral acceptability/environmental impact/deliciousness phase space.
I started carefully reconsidering my emotional response on insects as food when I really considered the use of the term "mud bugs" for delicious little crawfish. It's totally apt: those little things (and most of the shellfish I eat) aren't really all that un-bug-like. Now I'm quite looking forward to trying some if the opportunity arises.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, apart from a desperate backpedal from your original assertion that many scientists can be bought and "scientists" (your scare quotes) cannot be trusted.
It goes without saying that special scrutiny should be preserved for those with a conflict of interest.
You picked two examples where a minority of scientists were paid off argue against a massive, open concensus of other scientists, and claim that this minority is typical of "scientists". Then you talk about intellectual integrity!
The underlying issue is that you have a plurality of monopolies handling your TV services. If US TV companies had to compete with each other in the same region, it would generally encourage competitive action like this, but more specifically, it would offer one provider an incentive to offer its exclusive channels a la carte to subscribers of the other service (via streaming, for example) as a way of scooping up at least some revenue from those customers.
I came here to post exactly this. Conventional TV channels need to appreciate that technology has created a viable alternative and, like it or not, they have to compete with it. Most of our terrestrial channels know this and have launched catch-up and/or live TV apps on a decent range of platforms, that carry advertising to pay the bills. I'm quite pleased to see that even Sky, that bastion of awfulness, has come to terms with the fact that its business model may be ending and has launched a streaming (live and on demand) subscription package for its channels.
Tellingly, Fox doesn't let them stream The Simpsons. Talk about the left and right hand not knowing what they're doing.
Hanford's material was always going to have to be processed on-site. There's nothing there that, in its current state, could be shipped to a central facility, even if it existed.
Actually the majority of Hanford's reactors and processing facilities were built during the Cold War. B, D, and F were shut down in the '60s.
The ones sent into space are designed to withstand an uncontrolled reentry from space. The ones used to power lighthouses (for example) are significantly less durable, and I dare say that one built into an aircraft would want the minimum acceptable shielding.
Eat what up, exactly? Hanford's not exactly full of buried left-over fuel rods waiting to be processed.
Unfortunately the Hanford stuff is a really heterogeneous pot pourri of chemical and radiological hazards. You need a very chemically tolerant process.
Also bear in mind that the waste we're getting to deal with today - the waste that sets the tone about nuclear safety - is the end product of a really dodgy design process done decades ago. We can make safer, cleaner nuclear reactors now, but that's not going to make the slightest bit of difference to our clean-up operations for quite some time.
Nuclear power really screwed itself.
Yes, a thorium molten salt reactor, that's just what the nuclear weapons program needed. A reactor that can't be used to produce plutonium.
It's not just waste fuel, it's waste, a heady mix of solids, liquids, gels and gases, variously impregnated with actual radio-isotopes at just enough of a level to make it all stupendously dangerous. It's going to be an incredibly hazardous ordeal to get it into containers, separation is completely off the table. There are some dumped fuel rods in there IIRC but they're probably not in any state to be reprocessed.
Whatever the actual motivations of the agents involved, Iraq's disarmament compliance was the argument for war, and the essential dispute between the UN and the Coalition. You'd have to have been asleep for the entire year leading up to the invasion to suppose that it wasn't absolutely fundimental.
They're commemorative medals, basically. They serve a similar function to the various adornments that the Queen wears. BTW that's the first Google result for "prince charles medals".
The Queen's speech outlined the various bills that Parliment intends to bring in, and the "snooper's charter" wasn't one of them; the absence of any given bill from the speech is widely (and uncontroversially) taken to mean that the bill is dead. The government's comments that it intends to find other ways to address computer crime would seem to back this interpretation.
Even supposing that the fake missiles are a double bluff against real missiles, as you seem to be arguing*, that leaves North Korea with an actual missile stockpile between several billion and hard zero.
*And not just a publicity exercise completely decoupled from their actual limping weapons program
It's proof that they got one launch to work, which is a significantly lower level of capability than this parade attempted to show off. I'm not saying North Korea's completely free of missiles, just that this demo is likely a vast exaggeration.
Oh, that last paragraph was my way of making it clear I agreed with you.