you might as well just burn down a forest or two for every dam you build. Since when is burning forests a problem? Forests not burning is a problem. Yeah, you don't want all of them ablaze at once, but fire is part of a natural cycle, as are beaver dams. Yes, dams do mess up a lot or stuff. But which is worse: a dam or a strip mine and coal power plant?
A damn might give your state a slightly higher amount of clean electricity, while it causes 1 billion people around the planet to starve. Are they going to march out here to fish the Snake River or something? The world isn't short on food, it's just in the wrong places.
Clean energy was killed by the very environmentalists who tout it. I was talking to an engineer recently who worked on nuclear power plants, and he told me about a plant somewhere (can't remember the name) that planned to build 6 cores. I can't remember the exact numbers, but the cost went up exponentially every time they finished a core because of the paperwork and regulations. The first core cost millions; the last would have cost hundreds of billions. They had to quit building at three cores, but if the legislatures hadn't messed it all up, that state would be a power-exporting state today.
Out here in Idaho, there are remnants of curiosities such as a regenerative reactor that worked once upon a time. (There's also a nuclear jet engine that didn't.) These reactors produce more energy for for the same amount of fuel and have less waste. But we can't use them, because (horrors!) they produce weapons-grade waste. I have a very simple solution to this dilemma: put it in a weapon.
Now the environmentalists want to blow up the dams that supply almost all of the state! I mean, you can't get much greener than a dam. But I guess fish are more important than people. And it's not like there's shortage of uranium. There's a deposit under my house for goodness sake!
If we could build more reactors at the real cost of building them, drill the oil in Alaska and give the tree-huggers desk jobs like everyone else, we'd be so much better off.
-Super-cheap electricity would mean less dependence on foreign oil. -We have more oil here than in Saudi Arabia, so we could quit importing oil altogether. -We could have electric cars. -Less coal and oil burning would make the environmentalists happy and stop global warming (or global cooling, whatever it is this year). -Breeder reactors would produce little waste, and what little they do produce could make more nukes (best defense is a good offense; see "Cold War" on p. 187)
Yes, I know I've posted this before, but it's worth repeating.
You people are out of your minds. http://people.ronpaul2008.com/campaign-updates/2008/02/09/this-candidate-doesnt-quit/
A few news sources are misreporting Ron Paul's e-mail from last night. The presidential campaign is not ending, not being suspended, and not even drawing down. It's slimming down and ramping up -- with over twenty states having already voted, we've shed staff, and we're concentrating financial and organization resources on the remaining states. We're going to the convention, and we're fighting for every vote and every National Delegate along the way.
Clean energy was killed by the very environmentalists who tout it. I was talking to an engineer recently who worked on nuclear power plants, and he told me about a plant somewhere (can't remember the name) that planned to build 6 cores. I can't remember the exact numbers, but the cost went up exponentially every time they finished a core because of the paperwork and regulations. The first core cost millions; the last would have cost hundreds of billions. They had to quit building at three cores, but if the legislatures hadn't messed it all up, that state would be a power-exporting state today.
Out here in Idaho, there are remnants of curiosities such as a regenerative reactor that worked once upon a time. (There's also a nuclear jet engine that didn't.) These reactors produce more energy for for the same amount of fuel and have less waste. But we can't use them, because (horrors!) they produce weapons-grade waste. I have a very simple solution to this dilemma: put it in a weapon.
Now the environmentalists want to blow up the dams that supply almost all of the state! I mean, you can't get much greener than a dam. But I guess fish are more important than people. And it's not like there's shortage of uranium. There's a deposit under my house for goodness sake!
If we could build more reactors at the real cost of building them, drill the oil in Alaska and give the tree-huggers desk jobs like everyone else, we'd be so much better off.
-Super-cheap electricity would mean less dependence on foreign oil. -We have more oil here than in Saudi Arabia, so we could quit importing oil altogether. -We could have electric cars. -Less coal and oil burning would make the environmentalists happy and stop global warming (or global cooling, whatever it is this year). -Breeder reactors would produce little waste, and what little they do produce could make more nukes (best defense is a good offense; see "Cold War" on p. 187)
Do you have a better explanation? To quote the Declaration of Independance:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Does that sound Muslim to you?
Even in the subset of things in this world called 'religion', these two are pretty fucking similar.
Don't go pretending Christianity is in any way better than Islam. They're as bad as each other. Yeah, America and Iran have such similar societies. What great freedom of speech, equality and tolerance everyone gets!
This is all fine and dandy, but what happens when I reformat?? Just today I had trouble activating some offline software online after a fresh XP install (the software doesn't need the net for anything except activation). If it just checked a CD, I wouldn't have such trouble.
Electric cars were also killed by the very environmentalists who tout them. I was talking to an engineer recently who worked on nuclear power plants, and he told me about a plant somewhere (can't remember the name) that planned to build 6 cores. I can't remember the exact numbers, but the cost went up exponentially every time they finished a core because of the paperwork and regulations. The first core cost millions; the last would have cost hundreds of billions. They had to quit building at three cores, but if the legislatures hadn't messed it all up, that state would be a power-exporting state today.
Out here in Idaho, there are remnants of such curiosities as a regenerative reactor that worked once upon a time. (There's also a nuclear jet engine that never worked.) These reactors produce more energy for for the same amount of fuel and have less waste. But we can't use them, because (horrors!) they produce weapons-grade waste. I have a very simple solution to this dilemma: put it in a weapon. Now the radicals want to blow up the dams that supply almost all the state! I mean, you can't get much greener than a dam. But I guess fish are more important than people. And it's not like there's shortage of uranium. There's a deposit under my house for goodness sake!
If we could build more reactors at the real cost of building them (little to no government overhead), drill the oil in Alaska and give the tree-huggers desk jobs like everyone else, we'd be so much better off.
-Super-cheap electricity would mean less dependence on foreign oil. -We have more oil here than in Saudi Arabia, so we could quit importing oil altogether. -We could have electric cars. -Less coal and oil burning would make the environmentalists happy and stop global warming (or global cooling, whatever it is this year). -Breeder reactors would produce little waste, and what it did produce could make more nukes (best defense is a good offense; see "Cold War" on p. 187)
Her health care plan is miles ahead of Obama I quit reading there. Her health care plan is socialism, plain and simple. Everyone pays for everyone else. The government has no business whatsoever taking charge of healthcare or other personal responsibilities.
If you want to see how that works, just visit the UK, where they have Hillary-style healthcare and it takes five weeks to get heart surgery.
Ah, yes, I remember SafeEyes. Just rebuild the TCP stack and it's toast. That filter was eventually replaced with a filter at the ISP level, which is the only technical solution that comes close to working.
A much better idea is to have the computer in a public place where others can see what you are doing.
Is that a serious question? No, it wasn't. I have a very low opinion of life-from-rocks and global warming. Shoot my karma if it makes you feel any better.
Don't forget that Google is bidding in the 700MHz auction. Perhaps they do want to become a carrier after all. They buy spectrum, have Dell make them special ad-supported phones...it all seems to fit together.
Bryers Ice Cream used to be really good with nothing but kitchen ingredients. A few months ago my family noticed that it didn't taste as good as it used to, and turn out that they had added some extra goo ingredient to it. I wrote an absolutely scathing letter to them, but all they did was blather about the ice cream not being kept at the proper temp by distributors and send me a free coupon.
We have since stopped buying their ice cream, and I guess we'll just have to go back to making our own.
That page is now dead, and although I can still search a random domain name at NSI and it lock it, GoDaddy now says their WHOIS server isn't responding. Keep it up till somebody does something about this.
Slashdot Mirror
Clean energy was killed by the very environmentalists who tout it. I was talking to an engineer recently who worked on nuclear power plants, and he told me about a plant somewhere (can't remember the name) that planned to build 6 cores. I can't remember the exact numbers, but the cost went up exponentially every time they finished a core because of the paperwork and regulations. The first core cost millions; the last would have cost hundreds of billions. They had to quit building at three cores, but if the legislatures hadn't messed it all up, that state would be a power-exporting state today.
Out here in Idaho, there are remnants of curiosities such as a regenerative reactor that worked once upon a time. (There's also a nuclear jet engine that didn't.) These reactors produce more energy for for the same amount of fuel and have less waste. But we can't use them, because (horrors!) they produce weapons-grade waste. I have a very simple solution to this dilemma: put it in a weapon.
Now the environmentalists want to blow up the dams that supply almost all of the state! I mean, you can't get much greener than a dam. But I guess fish are more important than people. And it's not like there's shortage of uranium. There's a deposit under my house for goodness sake!
If we could build more reactors at the real cost of building them, drill the oil in Alaska and give the tree-huggers desk jobs like everyone else, we'd be so much better off.
-Super-cheap electricity would mean less dependence on foreign oil.
-We have more oil here than in Saudi Arabia, so we could quit importing oil altogether.
-We could have electric cars.
-Less coal and oil burning would make the environmentalists happy and stop global warming (or global cooling, whatever it is this year).
-Breeder reactors would produce little waste, and what little they do produce could make more nukes (best defense is a good offense; see "Cold War" on p. 187)
Yes, I know I've posted this before, but it's worth repeating.
Clean energy was killed by the very environmentalists who tout it. I was talking to an engineer recently who worked on nuclear power plants, and he told me about a plant somewhere (can't remember the name) that planned to build 6 cores. I can't remember the exact numbers, but the cost went up exponentially every time they finished a core because of the paperwork and regulations. The first core cost millions; the last would have cost hundreds of billions. They had to quit building at three cores, but if the legislatures hadn't messed it all up, that state would be a power-exporting state today.
Out here in Idaho, there are remnants of curiosities such as a regenerative reactor that worked once upon a time. (There's also a nuclear jet engine that didn't.) These reactors produce more energy for for the same amount of fuel and have less waste. But we can't use them, because (horrors!) they produce weapons-grade waste. I have a very simple solution to this dilemma: put it in a weapon.
Now the environmentalists want to blow up the dams that supply almost all of the state! I mean, you can't get much greener than a dam. But I guess fish are more important than people. And it's not like there's shortage of uranium. There's a deposit under my house for goodness sake!
If we could build more reactors at the real cost of building them, drill the oil in Alaska and give the tree-huggers desk jobs like everyone else, we'd be so much better off.
-Super-cheap electricity would mean less dependence on foreign oil.
-We have more oil here than in Saudi Arabia, so we could quit importing oil altogether.
-We could have electric cars.
-Less coal and oil burning would make the environmentalists happy and stop global warming (or global cooling, whatever it is this year).
-Breeder reactors would produce little waste, and what little they do produce could make more nukes (best defense is a good offense; see "Cold War" on p. 187)
I might be a nutball, but you, sir, are a Coward.
Do Muslims believe that all men are equal? I don't remember that...
Wind power is a drop in the bucket compared to nuclear or hydroelectric.
Don't go pretending Christianity is in any way better than Islam. They're as bad as each other. Yeah, America and Iran have such similar societies. What great freedom of speech, equality and tolerance everyone gets!
Go read a history book.
This is all fine and dandy, but what happens when I reformat?? Just today I had trouble activating some offline software online after a fresh XP install (the software doesn't need the net for anything except activation). If it just checked a CD, I wouldn't have such trouble.
Electric cars were also killed by the very environmentalists who tout them. I was talking to an engineer recently who worked on nuclear power plants, and he told me about a plant somewhere (can't remember the name) that planned to build 6 cores. I can't remember the exact numbers, but the cost went up exponentially every time they finished a core because of the paperwork and regulations. The first core cost millions; the last would have cost hundreds of billions. They had to quit building at three cores, but if the legislatures hadn't messed it all up, that state would be a power-exporting state today.
Out here in Idaho, there are remnants of such curiosities as a regenerative reactor that worked once upon a time. (There's also a nuclear jet engine that never worked.) These reactors produce more energy for for the same amount of fuel and have less waste. But we can't use them, because (horrors!) they produce weapons-grade waste. I have a very simple solution to this dilemma: put it in a weapon. Now the radicals want to blow up the dams that supply almost all the state! I mean, you can't get much greener than a dam. But I guess fish are more important than people. And it's not like there's shortage of uranium. There's a deposit under my house for goodness sake!
If we could build more reactors at the real cost of building them (little to no government overhead), drill the oil in Alaska and give the tree-huggers desk jobs like everyone else, we'd be so much better off.
-Super-cheap electricity would mean less dependence on foreign oil.
-We have more oil here than in Saudi Arabia, so we could quit importing oil altogether.
-We could have electric cars.
-Less coal and oil burning would make the environmentalists happy and stop global warming (or global cooling, whatever it is this year).
-Breeder reactors would produce little waste, and what it did produce could make more nukes (best defense is a good offense; see "Cold War" on p. 187)
If you want to see how that works, just visit the UK, where they have Hillary-style healthcare and it takes five weeks to get heart surgery.
Ah, yes, I remember SafeEyes. Just rebuild the TCP stack and it's toast. That filter was eventually replaced with a filter at the ISP level, which is the only technical solution that comes close to working.
A much better idea is to have the computer in a public place where others can see what you are doing.
Has anyone found out how to hide this "Idle" section? It doesn't seem to be with all the other categories in Preferences.
So will global warming stop evolution?
Would that be like Ron Paul getting elected even if he didn't win the caucus?
It seems to me like most of the things you listed as missing were things IPv6 was specifically designed to get rid of.
Don't forget that Google is bidding in the 700MHz auction. Perhaps they do want to become a carrier after all. They buy spectrum, have Dell make them special ad-supported phones...it all seems to fit together.
Would you want him to speak if he DID have a science degree? What if he was a ID proponent with a science degree?
Bryers Ice Cream used to be really good with nothing but kitchen ingredients. A few months ago my family noticed that it didn't taste as good as it used to, and turn out that they had added some extra goo ingredient to it. I wrote an absolutely scathing letter to them, but all they did was blather about the ice cream not being kept at the proper temp by distributors and send me a free coupon.
We have since stopped buying their ice cream, and I guess we'll just have to go back to making our own.
That page is now dead, and although I can still search a random domain name at NSI and it lock it, GoDaddy now says their WHOIS server isn't responding. Keep it up till somebody does something about this.
Infinite entropy anyone?
So just run weirdo Linux. It's amazing all the junk you can avoid (at colleges, businesses, etc.) when you run an unsupported OS.