I'm confused. Did you enjoy the story or the act of telling the story? It sounds like the later. My beef is with the former. I have absolutely no problem with stylized storytelling - but you must have a story regardless. The story there - sucked; and failed to deliver. Sadly, that's JJ's calling card - lots of hype, generally excellent concept, and failure to deliver.
could be an indication of there being some truth behind the "dumb american" stereotype...
Its one of those stereotypes which also happens to be true. Contrary to political correctness stupidity, just because its a stereotype doesn't mean its not true. The average American is pretty dumb. At one point in time, there was even an official, unofficial list of words which were to be used for TV and movies; otherwise Americans wouldn't understand it. Even worse, Americans would get angry as they felt like the writers were making them feel stupid.
To be clear, that's the average American, not all Americans. Sadly, the average American is dumber than a bag of hammers; and even worse, proud of it!
I'm quietly glad for example that District 9 and Cloverfield haven't been turned into giant cash cows.
Except Cloverfield is a classic example of shitty storytelling. And last I heard, there was a strong desire to do a sequel to District 9. The ending was specifically left open ended so as to allow for it; assuming it made some money.
I've literally been told by a nuclear engineer a nuclear explosion with that material is impossible, even with a meltdown. Likewise, its well established the densities of the fuel make it impossible - EXACTLY BY DESIGN. The fuel is specifically created so as to avoid super criticality should the worst ever happen. So you're going to have to prove how fuel which is physically impossible to create a nuclear explosion actually makes a nuclear explosion. A secondary explosion is in no way proof it was a nuclear explosion. In fact, if there were a nuclear explosion, it would be extremely likely there would have been a mushroom cloud as a result of the generated heat and resulting convection activity; especially given there wasn't containment of any kind at that point. I've never read or heard of any such account. Basically, the observed physics strongly suggests a nuclear explosion did not happen. That combined with the physics which say its impossible, create a massive burden of proof.
As for the study, unless they've actually modeled the explosion and are in fact, experts in dealing with explosions, the study is literally worthless. Explosions are very tricky things are frequently perform in ways thought to be impossible because of unexpected reactions with the world around them. Even something as simple as a cloud deck and barometric pressure can create huge differences in perceived yield, the measured shock wave, and the collateral damage. See the various studies into US terrorist attacks to better understand what I'm talking about; meaning the fall of the towers and the federal building in Oklahoma.
Bluntly, the burden of proof is exceptionally high and I seriously doubt there was a nuclear explosion.
Lastly, if there was any credibility to such reports, you can be absolutely sure the anti-nuke nut-jobs would be all over that. After all, it would completely undermine one of the most significant safety tenets of nuclear power.
the part I'm questioning is flooding the containment vessel, which is highly unusual.
At the time, the containment vessel was believed to already be compromised. Since no one knows what the compromise looked like, it was reported the salt water plus boron plus other additives would slow the reaction which they hoped would allow them to gain the upper hand. But again, at this point, they were already in uncharted waters.
Re:Dramatic effect and scientific precision
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
I don't know one way or the other but I've consistently heard it referred to as a natural antibiotic by doctors, vets, and archeologists. Perhaps you're making a distinction without a difference.
Re:Dramatic effect and scientific precision
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
That may be your opinion, but its completely wrong. Everything from accelerated tooth decay to cancers have universally shown a steady rise following the introduction of cane sugar into a society.
Yes, with them they brought other diseases, but that absolutely is not what is being discussed. What you seem to be in a hurry to forget, many of these places were trade routes long before sugar was introduced. As such, there is almost always a clear line of delineation between pathogenic diseases introduced by foreigners and those brought about by dietary changes as a result of established trade and agriculture.
Re:Dramatic effect and scientific precision
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
I think the part that you missed is that modern society has learned to serve potatoes with something else, or in may cases a whole lot of something else.
The point remains, the problem isn't with potatoes - but that's what is actively being ignorantly taught. The problem is frequently with cooking and as you point out, what people serve with them. Potatoes actually are an excellent food. And frankly, there is nothing wrong with a fully loaded potato, so long as its in moderation. Moderation is key.
Adding onto perfectly healthy foods with so many unhealthy additives has become deeply ingrained in our society.
And that's the real problem. Far too many people don't realize food preparation and cooking can significantly effect its nutrition and digestion. And that in of itself is one of the big problems with processed foods; which are almost always packed full of sugar and salt with most nutritional content having been removed.
As you rightly point out, small changes can make a huge difference in health. Don't drink soda. Don't eat artificial sweeteners.
IMOHO, one of the biggest problems Americans have is they are conditioned to destroy almost all forms of fiber. Cooking is intended to break fiber so as to allow the nutritional content to be digestible. Sadly, most Americans completely destroy the fiber and cook out all of the nutrition. Most dumb Americans truly believe a vegetable is a vegetable, regardless of how its prepared.
At least its an improvement in that their previous DCHP bug renewed its lease every couple of minutes - sometimes up to a half dozen times per minutes. That bug dates back to the 1.x code base. I wonder if this bug as a result of a fix for their previous DHCP bug.
Chernobyl did not have a "small nuclear explosion". Period. What carried the particles so far was the massive steam and hydrogen explosions followed by super hot fires. The hotter the fire, the higher the particles rise into the atmosphere; after initial launch. For nuclear bombs, its the massive heat from nuclear mushroom clouds which force so much radioactivity into the air - forcing it very, very high.
In fairness, the seawater injection didn't begin until the reactors were already well off anybody's operating manual. In fact, the seawater injection was reported as the best option available at the time by world international experts. Time will tell if that was PR or fact, but according to the available timeline it fits perfectly - as in, well into uncharted waters.
One of the big reasons why water is constantly re-applied to the reactors in Japan is because water does wonders to keep particulates out of the air. That why construction projects with lots of exposed dirt are frequently watered by truck. It keeps the particulates down - in two ways. One, it keeps them clumped together preventing them from flying. And two, it creates smaller, heavier particles which tend to fly shorter distances and worst case, not rise as high. Hell, even the twin towers site was watered to minimize airborne particulates.
Re:Dramatic effect and scientific precision
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
Explorers, traders, and conquerors have done an excellent job of documenting their travels. Everywhere cane sugar has been introduced, the top fifty to hundred diseases of modern times have exploded; without fail.
We know for a fact sugar is absolutely bad for you. I honestly never considered it "toxic", but I suppose its likely not far from the truth. Furthermore, modern nutritional research indicates high caloric diets, especially those with sugar at center stage, is far, far more likely to be accompanied with many diseases (include cancer), poorer health, and a shorter lifespan. Without any doubt, sugar absolutely is a killer. Literally, its a documented fact of history which spans many, many hundreds of years.
You also need to keep in mind, the processed cane sugar of today is nothing like the raw cane sugars of yesterday. The sugars today are highly refined and extremely easy to digest. Older, brown, raw sugars, frequently still had some fiber (minute), were not as highly processed, and were of course, not consumed anywhere near the levels commonly consumed today. Furthermore, like most engineered crops, today's cane produces far higher sugar levels than did cane of yesteryear. The same goes for corn - which tastes little like maize.
As for honey, it is not a simple sugar like modern, highly processed cane sugar is. Furthermore, honey is also a natural anti-biotic. So given the standards of living back then, honey likely attributed to longer lives for millions through the years. In fact, honey is such a good antibiotic, its still used for minor injuries on domesticated animals specifically because it is safe for consumption. Use on minor, external, horse injuries are not uncommon at all.
In recent times, potatoes have been demonized by pop/quackery diets. The simple fact is, potatoes are an excellent food when prepared properly. They are complex carbs which your body slowly breaks down into sugar - which is what your body runs on. The problem is, people completely screw these up and actually make an excellent fuel source into a turd. A baked potato which has not been overcooked, is an excellent source of energy. It is, in fact, why its one of the primary fuels for Olympic competitors. If you are boiling, frying, boiling and mashing, you are eating your potatoes horribly wrong because doing so destroys some or all of the elements which make them nutritionally sound and healthy. And the same goes for over cooking. Not to mention, the entire potato should be consumed, not just the inner flesh. That's extremely important. And at no point in time should anyone ever consume instant "potatoes" (which is actually instant sugar for your body).
Ya, I've gone a little off track here, but I have a reason. People preach about the body's need for sugar. The simple fact is, sources such as potatoes, which are rich in fiber, sugar, and nutrition, are exactly the sources intended. They are basically nature's time release energy.
Holy shit, the stupidity on/. these days is completely beyond words. Gosh thanks for telling us what everyone already knows and yet somehow completely ignores the topic at hand.
The level of stupidity on/. these days is literally beyond words. The fact you consider saber rattling to be a threat to national security firmly establishes your stupidity to be beyond words. Period.
In the real world, that the place where most everyone lives, but most definitely you don't, the US ABSOLUTELY FUCKING DOES NOT WANT IRAN TO FALL! Period! Get that in your stupid fucking head. I know I'm asking for the impossible, but that's reality. Now then, the US does want the government to fall, but not the country. But if the US were to attack Iran, both the country, government, and military would all be crushed and that is exactly what the US absolutely does not want.
The number of sub-80 IQs running around on/. these days is just disgusting.
Here's a hint for the future. When you think you have something to offer, shut the fuck up and don't say a world because you just waste everyone's time when you open your idiotic mouth.
Sadly, a lot of absolute fucking morons such as yourself truly believe such statements. The truth is, they absolutely fucking do not. Only absolute fucking idiots would believe as you.
Peaceful nations representative by some type of democracy (any form of governance where the people are well represented) which provides for stability, both economically and sociologically, deserve nuclear weapons. And frankly, in this day and age, the need for nuclear weapons has all but dissolved. Furthermore, only you've established one actually qualifies for nuclear weapons, the need for nuclear weapons all but disappears.
So basically, at this point in time, only rogue countries actually want to get nuclear weapons at this point. If you're not a rogue country, you basically don't want nukes. The fact a country wants nukes is a really strong indicator they likely shouldn't be allowed to have nukes.
That may sound harsh, but nuclear proliferation is really bad. Continued nuclear proliferation means some country is likely to see mushrooms because of some dip shit country - such as Iran.
Seriously, using the Iranian country as an example, if the government were overthrown, its extremely unlikely the new government would want or need nuclear weapons. So basically, the best weapon to prevent nuclear proliferation is to overthrow dip shit governments such as Iran.
Think about it. Iran is a regional power and regional threat. No one is threatening Iran. Internally the people of Iran want the government out. The Iranian government may want nukes, but that's exactly my point. The point at which they seriously invest in nuclear weapons is the point at which the government should be completely destroyed.
Please provide any proof I'm wrong. Any. Since we both know you're a complete fucking idiot and a troll. Shut the fuck up and get off your sister. Holy shit you are stupid.
I see - I'm wrong because we have almost no capability to actually produce fusion power in any meaningful way and it has been so for the last several decades and absolutely looks like the case for at least the next several decades and EVERYONE involved says MAJOR milestones (exactly as I fucking said) would still be missing (including a complete lack of materials science) to actually have anything which would hope to deliver fusion.
So you're position is 100% I'm wrong because you don't want it to be so. You are a fucking idiot. Holy shit you are stupid.
My numbers were not meat to be prophetic but rather to illustrate the fusion bullshit which so many are ignorantly buying into. Being pragmatic is not the same thing as ignorance and naive acceptance; which you have bought into hook line and sinker. The sad thing is, I'm not alone. My statements are supported by physicists.
I'd really like to know which orifice you pulled your numbers from?
Pull your head from your ass and figure out what was actually said. The exact dates are of absolutely no value. The only purpose of those projections are to clearly denote, its extremely, extremely, extremely, unlikely you will see fusion in either of our lifetimes. Realistically, fusion within two hundreds is extremely unlikely unless scientific advances occur which literally border on that of the miracles. And that's no hyperbole either. This is all based on physicist who are actually involved in doing fusion research.
We literally are closer to some type of extra-solar exploration than we are fusion power. Period. Literally, in order for mankind to create a fusion power plant, there are between a half dozen and a dozen technological advances which in of themselves parallel the scientific achievement of sustained fusion and at this point, are decades to a century away from that.
The 10 hottest years on record are still in the last 15 years.
Where did you hear that? From everything I've read, roughly a century ago was the hottest years on record and current years have come close but not exceeded. Furthermore, most research indicates that the signal in the temperature data is actually far lower than the noise of the available data; which means error always exceeds the deviation they hope to prove. Not to mention, the reliability of the available data has been brought into question given that the source (censors) of a lot of data has not been maintained. The data is of such poor quality, there is actually a rift between meteorologists (80+%) and climatologists (which is a specialization of study of specific data; meaning climatologists are meteorologists who look at past data much father back). And given that climatologists get their funding by predicting doom and gloom and meteorologists don't, that's pretty interesting. Not to mention, all climate simulations have been completely debunked at bullshit to date.
I happen to believe climate warming is real - as do most meteorologists. But contrary to the propaganda abound, there isn't much which really indicates what the hell is going on or what the actual source is - and anyone who says otherwise is either lying, ignorant, or more likely, lying and getting a grant.
I really wish people would stop saying that. Such statements means mankind is doomed to war over tiny stores of fuel.
Fusion researchers have done an excellent job in pushing their lies and PR so as to continue receiving funding but it would literally be a miracle to have fusion power plants running in less than a couple hundred years; with five to six hundred years being far more realistic. Granted, there are other possibilities which might be able to deliver fusion in a much small time span but none of that receives much funding. In fact, the projects which have been proven to be failures of decades receive almost all of the fusion funding. And that ignores that research thus far actually indicates sustained fusion at the scales currently being attempted are physically impossible.
And as incredible as fusion power would be, to actually create a usable power plant means another half dozen or more technological advancements of like significance. Literally, we are closer to exploring the universe than we are of creating fusion power plants.
To be clear, I absolutely believe in fusion research. But I absolutely do not believe in continued funding of what has proven to be failed approaches. As a world, we need to a take a hard look and finally starting funding projects which actually have a hope of creating a fusion plant because the status quo is nothing but corrupt, good 'ol boy funding.
Whoosh. So what you're saying is, the theory of evolution is so weak in your opinion it can not withstand debate from people who have no facts to support their position. If that's the case, then creationism has already won. Sad.
I don't "hide" Creationism.
Actually, you do. Period. Like it or not, legitimate or not, creationism is a semi-prevalent belief. Ignoring it is hiding and in doing so, you are directly empowering it. Pretending it doesn't exist, only implies you position is so weak and and invalid, you're attempting to hide the truth.
And bluntly, you're ignorance and anger doesn't change anything. Like it or not, creationism is a theory. Granted, the theory has more or less been completely disproved but a theory it remains. And like it or not, its a theory which children are extremely likely to encounter throughout their life. So if you actually care for the education of your children, you have exactly one choice - and hiding from it isn't one of them.
At the end of the day, it absolutely does not matter one bit if YOU believe in it or not. It matters that other people believe in it and that your children may be influenced by it BECAUSE of the fact you hide from reality. Do your child justice and provide a well rounded education - not half an education from within a Kleenex box.
You're not looking very hard. Even over the last several generations, we have directly observed new species evolving. Furthermore, we have proof wolves evolved into dogs. Various felines have evolved into cats. And this is the extremely, extremely short list. Literally, evolution is basically proven. Its fact.
Since moving into my new home, I've noticed a significant reduction in secret CIA messages being injected into my brainwaves. Goodbye ugly tinfoil hat!
The only way to get a false positive is if the game hasn't been purchased or this installation is corrupt (extremely unlikely). So basically, the chances of a false positive are almost zero. The number of credible reports of false positives are exactly zero. Thusly its safe to assume, people reporting false positives are dip shits and liars.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm confused. Did you enjoy the story or the act of telling the story? It sounds like the later. My beef is with the former. I have absolutely no problem with stylized storytelling - but you must have a story regardless. The story there - sucked; and failed to deliver. Sadly, that's JJ's calling card - lots of hype, generally excellent concept, and failure to deliver.
Eeek. There should be some kind of trivial punishment for ruining someone's day like that.
I literally had no trouble finding endless references to the fact, it is in fact, an antibiotic. The antibiotic properties, seemingly, are directly based on a protein called defensin-1, which originates from its host.
could be an indication of there being some truth behind the "dumb american" stereotype...
Its one of those stereotypes which also happens to be true. Contrary to political correctness stupidity, just because its a stereotype doesn't mean its not true. The average American is pretty dumb. At one point in time, there was even an official, unofficial list of words which were to be used for TV and movies; otherwise Americans wouldn't understand it. Even worse, Americans would get angry as they felt like the writers were making them feel stupid.
To be clear, that's the average American, not all Americans. Sadly, the average American is dumber than a bag of hammers; and even worse, proud of it!
I find that there are few franchises that really require sequels, and even fewer require prequels
Seems you're not alone.
I'm quietly glad for example that District 9 and Cloverfield haven't been turned into giant cash cows.
Except Cloverfield is a classic example of shitty storytelling. And last I heard, there was a strong desire to do a sequel to District 9. The ending was specifically left open ended so as to allow for it; assuming it made some money.
I've literally been told by a nuclear engineer a nuclear explosion with that material is impossible, even with a meltdown. Likewise, its well established the densities of the fuel make it impossible - EXACTLY BY DESIGN. The fuel is specifically created so as to avoid super criticality should the worst ever happen. So you're going to have to prove how fuel which is physically impossible to create a nuclear explosion actually makes a nuclear explosion. A secondary explosion is in no way proof it was a nuclear explosion. In fact, if there were a nuclear explosion, it would be extremely likely there would have been a mushroom cloud as a result of the generated heat and resulting convection activity; especially given there wasn't containment of any kind at that point. I've never read or heard of any such account. Basically, the observed physics strongly suggests a nuclear explosion did not happen. That combined with the physics which say its impossible, create a massive burden of proof.
As for the study, unless they've actually modeled the explosion and are in fact, experts in dealing with explosions, the study is literally worthless. Explosions are very tricky things are frequently perform in ways thought to be impossible because of unexpected reactions with the world around them. Even something as simple as a cloud deck and barometric pressure can create huge differences in perceived yield, the measured shock wave, and the collateral damage. See the various studies into US terrorist attacks to better understand what I'm talking about; meaning the fall of the towers and the federal building in Oklahoma.
Bluntly, the burden of proof is exceptionally high and I seriously doubt there was a nuclear explosion.
Lastly, if there was any credibility to such reports, you can be absolutely sure the anti-nuke nut-jobs would be all over that. After all, it would completely undermine one of the most significant safety tenets of nuclear power.
the part I'm questioning is flooding the containment vessel, which is highly unusual.
At the time, the containment vessel was believed to already be compromised. Since no one knows what the compromise looked like, it was reported the salt water plus boron plus other additives would slow the reaction which they hoped would allow them to gain the upper hand. But again, at this point, they were already in uncharted waters.
I don't know one way or the other but I've consistently heard it referred to as a natural antibiotic by doctors, vets, and archeologists. Perhaps you're making a distinction without a difference.
That may be your opinion, but its completely wrong. Everything from accelerated tooth decay to cancers have universally shown a steady rise following the introduction of cane sugar into a society.
Yes, with them they brought other diseases, but that absolutely is not what is being discussed. What you seem to be in a hurry to forget, many of these places were trade routes long before sugar was introduced. As such, there is almost always a clear line of delineation between pathogenic diseases introduced by foreigners and those brought about by dietary changes as a result of established trade and agriculture.
I think the part that you missed is that modern society has learned to serve potatoes with something else, or in may cases a whole lot of something else.
The point remains, the problem isn't with potatoes - but that's what is actively being ignorantly taught. The problem is frequently with cooking and as you point out, what people serve with them. Potatoes actually are an excellent food. And frankly, there is nothing wrong with a fully loaded potato, so long as its in moderation. Moderation is key.
Adding onto perfectly healthy foods with so many unhealthy additives has become deeply ingrained in our society.
And that's the real problem. Far too many people don't realize food preparation and cooking can significantly effect its nutrition and digestion. And that in of itself is one of the big problems with processed foods; which are almost always packed full of sugar and salt with most nutritional content having been removed.
As you rightly point out, small changes can make a huge difference in health. Don't drink soda. Don't eat artificial sweeteners.
IMOHO, one of the biggest problems Americans have is they are conditioned to destroy almost all forms of fiber. Cooking is intended to break fiber so as to allow the nutritional content to be digestible. Sadly, most Americans completely destroy the fiber and cook out all of the nutrition. Most dumb Americans truly believe a vegetable is a vegetable, regardless of how its prepared.
At least its an improvement in that their previous DCHP bug renewed its lease every couple of minutes - sometimes up to a half dozen times per minutes. That bug dates back to the 1.x code base. I wonder if this bug as a result of a fix for their previous DHCP bug.
Chernobyl did not have a "small nuclear explosion". Period. What carried the particles so far was the massive steam and hydrogen explosions followed by super hot fires. The hotter the fire, the higher the particles rise into the atmosphere; after initial launch. For nuclear bombs, its the massive heat from nuclear mushroom clouds which force so much radioactivity into the air - forcing it very, very high.
In fairness, the seawater injection didn't begin until the reactors were already well off anybody's operating manual. In fact, the seawater injection was reported as the best option available at the time by world international experts. Time will tell if that was PR or fact, but according to the available timeline it fits perfectly - as in, well into uncharted waters.
One of the big reasons why water is constantly re-applied to the reactors in Japan is because water does wonders to keep particulates out of the air. That why construction projects with lots of exposed dirt are frequently watered by truck. It keeps the particulates down - in two ways. One, it keeps them clumped together preventing them from flying. And two, it creates smaller, heavier particles which tend to fly shorter distances and worst case, not rise as high. Hell, even the twin towers site was watered to minimize airborne particulates.
Explorers, traders, and conquerors have done an excellent job of documenting their travels. Everywhere cane sugar has been introduced, the top fifty to hundred diseases of modern times have exploded; without fail.
We know for a fact sugar is absolutely bad for you. I honestly never considered it "toxic", but I suppose its likely not far from the truth. Furthermore, modern nutritional research indicates high caloric diets, especially those with sugar at center stage, is far, far more likely to be accompanied with many diseases (include cancer), poorer health, and a shorter lifespan. Without any doubt, sugar absolutely is a killer. Literally, its a documented fact of history which spans many, many hundreds of years.
You also need to keep in mind, the processed cane sugar of today is nothing like the raw cane sugars of yesterday. The sugars today are highly refined and extremely easy to digest. Older, brown, raw sugars, frequently still had some fiber (minute), were not as highly processed, and were of course, not consumed anywhere near the levels commonly consumed today. Furthermore, like most engineered crops, today's cane produces far higher sugar levels than did cane of yesteryear. The same goes for corn - which tastes little like maize.
As for honey, it is not a simple sugar like modern, highly processed cane sugar is. Furthermore, honey is also a natural anti-biotic. So given the standards of living back then, honey likely attributed to longer lives for millions through the years. In fact, honey is such a good antibiotic, its still used for minor injuries on domesticated animals specifically because it is safe for consumption. Use on minor, external, horse injuries are not uncommon at all.
In recent times, potatoes have been demonized by pop/quackery diets. The simple fact is, potatoes are an excellent food when prepared properly. They are complex carbs which your body slowly breaks down into sugar - which is what your body runs on. The problem is, people completely screw these up and actually make an excellent fuel source into a turd. A baked potato which has not been overcooked, is an excellent source of energy. It is, in fact, why its one of the primary fuels for Olympic competitors. If you are boiling, frying, boiling and mashing, you are eating your potatoes horribly wrong because doing so destroys some or all of the elements which make them nutritionally sound and healthy. And the same goes for over cooking. Not to mention, the entire potato should be consumed, not just the inner flesh. That's extremely important. And at no point in time should anyone ever consume instant "potatoes" (which is actually instant sugar for your body).
Ya, I've gone a little off track here, but I have a reason. People preach about the body's need for sugar. The simple fact is, sources such as potatoes, which are rich in fiber, sugar, and nutrition, are exactly the sources intended. They are basically nature's time release energy.
Wow! Your stupidity is literally brilliant.
I can only hope you die a horrible death before you can pass on your genetics. Holy shit are you fucking dumb.
Holy shit, the stupidity on /. these days is completely beyond words. Gosh thanks for telling us what everyone already knows and yet somehow completely ignores the topic at hand.
Fucking idiot.
The level of stupidity on /. these days is literally beyond words. The fact you consider saber rattling to be a threat to national security firmly establishes your stupidity to be beyond words. Period.
In the real world, that the place where most everyone lives, but most definitely you don't, the US ABSOLUTELY FUCKING DOES NOT WANT IRAN TO FALL! Period! Get that in your stupid fucking head. I know I'm asking for the impossible, but that's reality. Now then, the US does want the government to fall, but not the country. But if the US were to attack Iran, both the country, government, and military would all be crushed and that is exactly what the US absolutely does not want.
The number of sub-80 IQs running around on /. these days is just disgusting.
Here's a hint for the future. When you think you have something to offer, shut the fuck up and don't say a world because you just waste everyone's time when you open your idiotic mouth.
Sadly, a lot of absolute fucking morons such as yourself truly believe such statements. The truth is, they absolutely fucking do not. Only absolute fucking idiots would believe as you.
Peaceful nations representative by some type of democracy (any form of governance where the people are well represented) which provides for stability, both economically and sociologically, deserve nuclear weapons. And frankly, in this day and age, the need for nuclear weapons has all but dissolved. Furthermore, only you've established one actually qualifies for nuclear weapons, the need for nuclear weapons all but disappears.
So basically, at this point in time, only rogue countries actually want to get nuclear weapons at this point. If you're not a rogue country, you basically don't want nukes. The fact a country wants nukes is a really strong indicator they likely shouldn't be allowed to have nukes.
That may sound harsh, but nuclear proliferation is really bad. Continued nuclear proliferation means some country is likely to see mushrooms because of some dip shit country - such as Iran.
Seriously, using the Iranian country as an example, if the government were overthrown, its extremely unlikely the new government would want or need nuclear weapons. So basically, the best weapon to prevent nuclear proliferation is to overthrow dip shit governments such as Iran.
Think about it. Iran is a regional power and regional threat. No one is threatening Iran. Internally the people of Iran want the government out. The Iranian government may want nukes, but that's exactly my point. The point at which they seriously invest in nuclear weapons is the point at which the government should be completely destroyed.
Holy shit you are stupid. Period.
Please provide any proof I'm wrong. Any. Since we both know you're a complete fucking idiot and a troll. Shut the fuck up and get off your sister. Holy shit you are stupid.
I see - I'm wrong because we have almost no capability to actually produce fusion power in any meaningful way and it has been so for the last several decades and absolutely looks like the case for at least the next several decades and EVERYONE involved says MAJOR milestones (exactly as I fucking said) would still be missing (including a complete lack of materials science) to actually have anything which would hope to deliver fusion.
So you're position is 100% I'm wrong because you don't want it to be so. You are a fucking idiot. Holy shit you are stupid.
Are you completely daft? Are you completely ignorant of the evidence in favor of evolution?
Wow, your post completely proves you're a complete fucking idiot. Go read the fucking thread. You'll quick see your post is complete stupidity.
Seriously, pull your head from your ass and realize the world is larger than you and a mirror. Get over yourself.
Wow, a prophet right here on /.!
My numbers were not meat to be prophetic but rather to illustrate the fusion bullshit which so many are ignorantly buying into. Being pragmatic is not the same thing as ignorance and naive acceptance; which you have bought into hook line and sinker. The sad thing is, I'm not alone. My statements are supported by physicists.
I'd really like to know which orifice you pulled your numbers from?
Pull your head from your ass and figure out what was actually said. The exact dates are of absolutely no value. The only purpose of those projections are to clearly denote, its extremely, extremely, extremely, unlikely you will see fusion in either of our lifetimes. Realistically, fusion within two hundreds is extremely unlikely unless scientific advances occur which literally border on that of the miracles. And that's no hyperbole either. This is all based on physicist who are actually involved in doing fusion research.
We literally are closer to some type of extra-solar exploration than we are fusion power. Period. Literally, in order for mankind to create a fusion power plant, there are between a half dozen and a dozen technological advances which in of themselves parallel the scientific achievement of sustained fusion and at this point, are decades to a century away from that.
So please, keep your ignorance to yourself.
The 10 hottest years on record are still in the last 15 years.
Where did you hear that? From everything I've read, roughly a century ago was the hottest years on record and current years have come close but not exceeded. Furthermore, most research indicates that the signal in the temperature data is actually far lower than the noise of the available data; which means error always exceeds the deviation they hope to prove. Not to mention, the reliability of the available data has been brought into question given that the source (censors) of a lot of data has not been maintained. The data is of such poor quality, there is actually a rift between meteorologists (80+%) and climatologists (which is a specialization of study of specific data; meaning climatologists are meteorologists who look at past data much father back). And given that climatologists get their funding by predicting doom and gloom and meteorologists don't, that's pretty interesting. Not to mention, all climate simulations have been completely debunked at bullshit to date.
I happen to believe climate warming is real - as do most meteorologists. But contrary to the propaganda abound, there isn't much which really indicates what the hell is going on or what the actual source is - and anyone who says otherwise is either lying, ignorant, or more likely, lying and getting a grant.
I agree that fusion is our best hope,
I really wish people would stop saying that. Such statements means mankind is doomed to war over tiny stores of fuel.
Fusion researchers have done an excellent job in pushing their lies and PR so as to continue receiving funding but it would literally be a miracle to have fusion power plants running in less than a couple hundred years; with five to six hundred years being far more realistic. Granted, there are other possibilities which might be able to deliver fusion in a much small time span but none of that receives much funding. In fact, the projects which have been proven to be failures of decades receive almost all of the fusion funding. And that ignores that research thus far actually indicates sustained fusion at the scales currently being attempted are physically impossible.
And as incredible as fusion power would be, to actually create a usable power plant means another half dozen or more technological advancements of like significance. Literally, we are closer to exploring the universe than we are of creating fusion power plants.
To be clear, I absolutely believe in fusion research. But I absolutely do not believe in continued funding of what has proven to be failed approaches. As a world, we need to a take a hard look and finally starting funding projects which actually have a hope of creating a fusion plant because the status quo is nothing but corrupt, good 'ol boy funding.
Whoosh. So what you're saying is, the theory of evolution is so weak in your opinion it can not withstand debate from people who have no facts to support their position. If that's the case, then creationism has already won. Sad.
I don't "hide" Creationism.
Actually, you do. Period. Like it or not, legitimate or not, creationism is a semi-prevalent belief. Ignoring it is hiding and in doing so, you are directly empowering it. Pretending it doesn't exist, only implies you position is so weak and and invalid, you're attempting to hide the truth.
And bluntly, you're ignorance and anger doesn't change anything. Like it or not, creationism is a theory. Granted, the theory has more or less been completely disproved but a theory it remains. And like it or not, its a theory which children are extremely likely to encounter throughout their life. So if you actually care for the education of your children, you have exactly one choice - and hiding from it isn't one of them.
At the end of the day, it absolutely does not matter one bit if YOU believe in it or not. It matters that other people believe in it and that your children may be influenced by it BECAUSE of the fact you hide from reality. Do your child justice and provide a well rounded education - not half an education from within a Kleenex box.
You're not looking very hard. Even over the last several generations, we have directly observed new species evolving. Furthermore, we have proof wolves evolved into dogs. Various felines have evolved into cats. And this is the extremely, extremely short list. Literally, evolution is basically proven. Its fact.
Since moving into my new home, I've noticed a significant reduction in secret CIA messages being injected into my brainwaves. Goodbye ugly tinfoil hat!
Sometimes there are reasons to be paranoid. And just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they are not out to get you.
Sleep well.
The only way to get a false positive is if the game hasn't been purchased or this installation is corrupt (extremely unlikely). So basically, the chances of a false positive are almost zero. The number of credible reports of false positives are exactly zero. Thusly its safe to assume, people reporting false positives are dip shits and liars.