More combustible fuel than all the Middle East combined! Good thing we didn't elect Romney, or we'd be drafted to fight for the liberation of Titan from whatever God-forsaken lifeform that would allow such a resource to be so underultilized.
Where did you get your information? Many SMRs are designed to lessen the danger of materials being stolen or misplaced. Nuclear reactor fuel is low-enriched uranium, or has a concentration of less than 20% 235U. This low quantity, non-weapons-grade uranium makes the fuel less desirable for weapons production. Once the fuel has been irradiated, the fission products mixed with the fissile materials are highly radioactive and require special handling to remove safely, another non-proliferation feature. Reactors designed to run on alternative thorium fuel cycle offer increased proliferation resistance compared to conventional uranium cycle. The modular construction of SMRs is another useful feature. Because the reactor core is often constructed completely inside a central manufacturing facility, fewer people have access to the fuel before and after irradiation.
Kangaroos. That's why you bring your gun. Something tasty to snack on while you're waiting for rescue.
In America you bring a gun because we have more psychopaths that will murder your family for entertainment. America's most deadly predators are human.
But if I was going to drive through the Outback (I used to live in Alice Springs as a kid) then I'd bring a flare gun. Same reason I take flare guns when yachting from country to country. Police in most countries don't believe civilians need guns and traveling with a gun is a good way to get into big trouble. But most won't raise any fuss about a flare gun. They are a really great way to signal your distress to anyone passing by, even by air. But if someone really wants to mess with you, a flare to the torso at close range is about just as deadly as a 12 gauge slug.
I'd point out also that the OP said to bring weapons. Guns are only one type of weapon. A machete, hatchet, or survial knife can be of aid in any confrontation, whether with man or beast.
Since when did politicians in America care about public safety over corporate profits? In a rational society politicians and business leaders alike would realize the mutual benefits of a happy, healthy and productive population. Even if the health care expenses of a few citizens were higher than average, there could still be a net gain to the society if people could live and work without living in fear that a single illness will consume all of the financial resources of an entire household for years into the future. This was one of the original motivations for employers offering health insurance. But somehow since that time insurers have gotten away with covering less and less, charging more in premiums, unmanageable deductibles, and arbitrarily denying legitimate treatments after services were already performed, leaving the individual on the hook when he otherwise might have sought an alternative, more affordable treatment. At the same time compensation for executives at so-called "non-profit" hospitals have soared, earnings for medical practitioners continue to increase above the rate of inflation, and profits from for-profit hospitals, surgery centers, and pharmaceutical companies rank high up with Goldman Sachs and Exxon Mobile, except that profits from medince don't decrease during recessions or changes in commodity prices, nor does executive compensation or physician's pay.
I'd be happier if my neighbors had all the vaccines they needed to make it less likely that they would get sick and pass their illness to me. I also don't want my neighbors to be broke or destitute just because a family member came down with an uncovered illness. If they are foreclosed upon then my house value drops, and I don't want to live next to a vacant house that sits for months or years with a deteriorating landscape or building in disrepair, infested with rats or squatters. I don't want my neighbors to live in fear of sudden poverty that comes from high and unreasonable medical costs. If my neighbors teenage kid is mentally ill, I want the kid treated with the proper medications, given the proper counseling and therapy, and locked away at an expensive mental health facility if need be. I don't want the mentally ill shooting up the schools my kids attend or the movie theater I patronize.
But unlike the rest of the developed world I live in the USA where a cult of "personal responsibility" stands little chance of evolving into a rational society. Where the tax you pay for Social Security or Medicare is considered a "gift" to win votes, but tax breaks for the wealthy is just good policy.
Problem is that many employers will say "yes" to sick time away from work. But years down the road promotions and opportunities will go to the employees who didn't go home sick. The only allowable solution is to hold employers liable if they permit sick employees to come to work and infect their coworkers or customers. Ambitious employees could end up attracting negative attention under such an environment if or when they try to conceal an illness just to get more facetime in the office. Of course, if they are genuinely ambitious and won't to prove their worth even when sick, then the work-from-home option is available to them.
It's in the government's interest to consume Helium as fast as possible, to keep it out of the hands of the Germans who could use it in their long-range strategic weapons, AKA "Zeppelins". Or it may just be one of the disadvantages of having laws, regulations, and policies that aren't scheduled for mandatory review every X years or so. Don't even get me started on why we still occupy military bases in Germany and UK over 20 years after the fall of the Iron Curtain, or why states regulate marriage but no longer restrict pre-marital relationships or cohabitation, or why we support democracy in Libya and help suppress it in Bahrain.
Shipping by ship, truck, train, or plane makes more sense than transporting freight by helicopter. Yet there are helicopters performing all sorts of freight moving operations. The key word is "niche application". I would imagine that an airship could fill in the void where an imaginary supersized but affordable and fuel efficient helicopter would be desired. A good example might be the logging industry. Logs could be selectively cut by crews lowered to the ground and lifted out of place much faster and without the environmental havoc of building logging roads through virgin forests.
The Hindenburg was just the last and most famous of dozens of fiery hydrogen airship disasters. It was famous because it was one of the first disasters to be reported live over radio broadcast, not to mention the remarkable film and the fact that it was at a time when records were first being made of live broadcasts. The other disasters were just not as publicized, but the Hindenburg captured the attention of the entire world.
Republican Counterpoint: But if the lives were really worth saving then someone would pony up the cash to pay for the helium extraction. If nobody is paying for it, then the lives aren't worth as much as people claim.
Yesterday in Slashdot we discussed that police departments are urging legislators to REQUIRE that mobile service providers keep a log of text messages for all users. While many would agree that using such information to prosecute true criminals of heinous crimes, the same logs could be abused just as easily by a tyrannical regime. Active monitoring devices in our own homes could have a chilling effect on dissent of any form. Congress inquiries with questions like "are you or have you ever been a member of the [fill in your political affiliation] Party?" McCarthyism unfolded on a public stage and revealed itself to the American people for what it was. Today we just have to mention the word "McCarthyism" and it has a similar connotation as invoking the words "Hitler" "facist" or "communist". But if a tyrannical regime could suppress dissent before it ever leaves the home from which the most fundamental discussions begin, then there would be litte hope of dissent ever forming a critical mass following that could effect change. The references to 1984 are quite appropriate.
But even without the threat from a potential tyrant, imagine the damage that could be done if scammers or British newspapers hack into the system?
And why does Switzerland care so much? Are they a target of terror? No drug lord, dictator, or terrorist would gain from attacking the nation-host of his own numbered (ergo anonymous) bank account. Not to mention that the Swiss make the world's best firearms.
Now, if Switzerland had a history of colonizing Africa or the America's, if they routinely invaded (oil-rich) sovereign nations, if they backed warlords to overthrow democratically elected leaders, if they rounded up civilians and locked them up in concentration camps, if they possessed enough WMDs to wipe out the earth's population 10 times over, if they were obliged by military alliances and treaties to defend one-third of the world's nations from any attack, then maybe I could understand if terrorist groups were motivated to target them.
Of course if they are not a threat, maybe they are a potentially easy target for conquest. But given that Alpine fortresses can house the entire population for months, every family is (or used to be) required to keep fully automatic assault rifles in their homes, every male 18-34 is obliged to serve in their military, and given the nation's longstanding traditon of fiece indepence and neutrality, I don't think there's an argument for weakness.
Slashdot Mirror
Hold on now! BP isn't getting out of this one that quickly mister! I'm sure they or one of their contractors were involved somehow.
I went on a Blackwater rafting trip once. All I remember was the other rafters all had guns and hydrocarbons were involved.
But who needs to drill when there are seas of the stuff flowing right on the surface!
That's not what my Bible says. Where are you getting your information?
Welcome to Slashdot. You must be new here.
Or maybe it's a road system, and what we pick up as hydrocarbons is just the exhaust emissions from their congested traffic.
I couldn't even tell you how high the temperature is right now, as my thermometer is laying on its side. I can only give you its length.
Yes. An error made by the contractor, who used His Majesty's standard, while NASA specs all of their requirements in metric.
More combustible fuel than all the Middle East combined! Good thing we didn't elect Romney, or we'd be drafted to fight for the liberation of Titan from whatever God-forsaken lifeform that would allow such a resource to be so underultilized.
Where did you get hold of this classified Soviet technology?
Where did you get your information? Many SMRs are designed to lessen the danger of materials being stolen or misplaced. Nuclear reactor fuel is low-enriched uranium, or has a concentration of less than 20% 235U. This low quantity, non-weapons-grade uranium makes the fuel less desirable for weapons production. Once the fuel has been irradiated, the fission products mixed with the fissile materials are highly radioactive and require special handling to remove safely, another non-proliferation feature.
Reactors designed to run on alternative thorium fuel cycle offer increased proliferation resistance compared to conventional uranium cycle. The modular construction of SMRs is another useful feature. Because the reactor core is often constructed completely inside a central manufacturing facility, fewer people have access to the fuel before and after irradiation.
Kangaroos. That's why you bring your gun. Something tasty to snack on while you're waiting for rescue.
In America you bring a gun because we have more psychopaths that will murder your family for entertainment. America's most deadly predators are human.
But if I was going to drive through the Outback (I used to live in Alice Springs as a kid) then I'd bring a flare gun. Same reason I take flare guns when yachting from country to country. Police in most countries don't believe civilians need guns and traveling with a gun is a good way to get into big trouble. But most won't raise any fuss about a flare gun. They are a really great way to signal your distress to anyone passing by, even by air. But if someone really wants to mess with you, a flare to the torso at close range is about just as deadly as a 12 gauge slug.
I'd point out also that the OP said to bring weapons. Guns are only one type of weapon. A machete, hatchet, or survial knife can be of aid in any confrontation, whether with man or beast.
Reminds me of an episode of The Office when Michael drives his car down a boat ramp straight into a lake because the GPS map told him to go that way.
Thanks for pointing this out for AC above. Reverse of multiplication is division.
Check the pharmacy with http://www.cipa.com./
www.planetdrugsdirect.com and www.jandrugs.com are both reputable.
Yes, otherwise there are too many scammers mixed in the pool when you search Google.
OK, but in this case both apply.
Since when did politicians in America care about public safety over corporate profits? In a rational society politicians and business leaders alike would realize the mutual benefits of a happy, healthy and productive population. Even if the health care expenses of a few citizens were higher than average, there could still be a net gain to the society if people could live and work without living in fear that a single illness will consume all of the financial resources of an entire household for years into the future. This was one of the original motivations for employers offering health insurance. But somehow since that time insurers have gotten away with covering less and less, charging more in premiums, unmanageable deductibles, and arbitrarily denying legitimate treatments after services were already performed, leaving the individual on the hook when he otherwise might have sought an alternative, more affordable treatment. At the same time compensation for executives at so-called "non-profit" hospitals have soared, earnings for medical practitioners continue to increase above the rate of inflation, and profits from for-profit hospitals, surgery centers, and pharmaceutical companies rank high up with Goldman Sachs and Exxon Mobile, except that profits from medince don't decrease during recessions or changes in commodity prices, nor does executive compensation or physician's pay.
I'd be happier if my neighbors had all the vaccines they needed to make it less likely that they would get sick and pass their illness to me. I also don't want my neighbors to be broke or destitute just because a family member came down with an uncovered illness. If they are foreclosed upon then my house value drops, and I don't want to live next to a vacant house that sits for months or years with a deteriorating landscape or building in disrepair, infested with rats or squatters. I don't want my neighbors to live in fear of sudden poverty that comes from high and unreasonable medical costs. If my neighbors teenage kid is mentally ill, I want the kid treated with the proper medications, given the proper counseling and therapy, and locked away at an expensive mental health facility if need be. I don't want the mentally ill shooting up the schools my kids attend or the movie theater I patronize.
But unlike the rest of the developed world I live in the USA where a cult of "personal responsibility" stands little chance of evolving into a rational society. Where the tax you pay for Social Security or Medicare is considered a "gift" to win votes, but tax breaks for the wealthy is just good policy.
Problem is that many employers will say "yes" to sick time away from work. But years down the road promotions and opportunities will go to the employees who didn't go home sick. The only allowable solution is to hold employers liable if they permit sick employees to come to work and infect their coworkers or customers. Ambitious employees could end up attracting negative attention under such an environment if or when they try to conceal an illness just to get more facetime in the office. Of course, if they are genuinely ambitious and won't to prove their worth even when sick, then the work-from-home option is available to them.
It's in the government's interest to consume Helium as fast as possible, to keep it out of the hands of the Germans who could use it in their long-range strategic weapons, AKA "Zeppelins". Or it may just be one of the disadvantages of having laws, regulations, and policies that aren't scheduled for mandatory review every X years or so. Don't even get me started on why we still occupy military bases in Germany and UK over 20 years after the fall of the Iron Curtain, or why states regulate marriage but no longer restrict pre-marital relationships or cohabitation, or why we support democracy in Libya and help suppress it in Bahrain.
Shipping by ship, truck, train, or plane makes more sense than transporting freight by helicopter. Yet there are helicopters performing all sorts of freight moving operations. The key word is "niche application". I would imagine that an airship could fill in the void where an imaginary supersized but affordable and fuel efficient helicopter would be desired. A good example might be the logging industry. Logs could be selectively cut by crews lowered to the ground and lifted out of place much faster and without the environmental havoc of building logging roads through virgin forests.
Counter-examples (plural):
http://www.airships.net/hydrogen-airship-accidents
The Hindenburg was just the last and most famous of dozens of fiery hydrogen airship disasters. It was famous because it was one of the first disasters to be reported live over radio broadcast, not to mention the remarkable film and the fact that it was at a time when records were first being made of live broadcasts. The other disasters were just not as publicized, but the Hindenburg captured the attention of the entire world.
Just use Hydrogen. You can extract it straight from water, and it's lighter than Helium. That's what the Germans used back in the 30's.
Republican Counterpoint: But if the lives were really worth saving then someone would pony up the cash to pay for the helium extraction. If nobody is paying for it, then the lives aren't worth as much as people claim.
Yesterday in Slashdot we discussed that police departments are urging legislators to REQUIRE that mobile service providers keep a log of text messages for all users. While many would agree that using such information to prosecute true criminals of heinous crimes, the same logs could be abused just as easily by a tyrannical regime. Active monitoring devices in our own homes could have a chilling effect on dissent of any form. Congress inquiries with questions like "are you or have you ever been a member of the [fill in your political affiliation] Party?" McCarthyism unfolded on a public stage and revealed itself to the American people for what it was. Today we just have to mention the word "McCarthyism" and it has a similar connotation as invoking the words "Hitler" "facist" or "communist". But if a tyrannical regime could suppress dissent before it ever leaves the home from which the most fundamental discussions begin, then there would be litte hope of dissent ever forming a critical mass following that could effect change. The references to 1984 are quite appropriate.
But even without the threat from a potential tyrant, imagine the damage that could be done if scammers or British newspapers hack into the system?
And why does Switzerland care so much? Are they a target of terror? No drug lord, dictator, or terrorist would gain from attacking the nation-host of his own numbered (ergo anonymous) bank account. Not to mention that the Swiss make the world's best firearms.
Now, if Switzerland had a history of colonizing Africa or the America's, if they routinely invaded (oil-rich) sovereign nations, if they backed warlords to overthrow democratically elected leaders, if they rounded up civilians and locked them up in concentration camps, if they possessed enough WMDs to wipe out the earth's population 10 times over, if they were obliged by military alliances and treaties to defend one-third of the world's nations from any attack, then maybe I could understand if terrorist groups were motivated to target them.
Of course if they are not a threat, maybe they are a potentially easy target for conquest. But given that Alpine fortresses can house the entire population for months, every family is (or used to be) required to keep fully automatic assault rifles in their homes, every male 18-34 is obliged to serve in their military, and given the nation's longstanding traditon of fiece indepence and neutrality, I don't think there's an argument for weakness.