The problem with the gun control people, is that they fail to realize that they are in fact, not against guns, per se. They are against the people (common citizens) of having guns. They are all for the government having guns.

Lets call it what it is, they don't think the common people need or deserve protection from tyrannical governments, because they mistakenly believe that their government cannot possibly be a tyranny. I would love to round up all these people and force them into "first amendment zones" where we can control their speech, like the government tried to do in Nevada.

I have the same ad, and it's not from Google. The link is to another page on the same site. Now that page does have a Google ad, about slimming fat wallets.

Agreed.

Falcon Wolf

The most racist thing I've ever heard, were the liberals whining about black people's "plight", making excuses for the bad behavior being "cultural". It is clearly the most bigoted viewpoint, and it isn't coming from "Tea Baggers", it is coming from the left. And some of the worst, is coming the black/african left. These people are poverty pimps and race baiters who DO NOT WANT a successful Black (see Ben Carson character assassination).

When success is rewarded with hateful words like "Uncle Tom", and "Race Traitor" you can squarely call it "racism". There is no greater racist than those that DO NOT believe black people can be smart, intelligent and successful.

But, instead of taking a close look at the policies that are designed to hold black people captive (slavery??) inside the invisible cages and to be ruled by their plantation masters (voting 80% DNC), we have people calling the wrong side "racist".

The real Racism are those that insist that black people cannot be successful, without a handout.

If left to market forces, and not state planners, the markets would not build nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is Hooked on Subsidies. Notice how that is a CATO Institute reprint of a "Forbes" article first published on November 26, 2007. And in case you don't know what CATO is, from their about page "The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank – dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues."

FalconWolf

I oppose taxpayers paying for nuclear power. Actually I advocate eliminating all subsidies. And don't think energy companies aren't subsidized. Allocation of subsidies in the United States lists some subsidies different energy producers received between 1950 and 2010. Nuclear power received $73 billion in federal subsidies. "BusinessWeek" has the article When It Comes to Government Subsidies, Dirty Energy Still Cleans Up date 21 October 2012..

I also support the NRA and their stance on gun controls. The only effective gun control is when the shooter hits what they aim at. And if they hit someone they should pay for it. I find it ironic the first "environmentalists", those who cared for the environment, were conservationists and hunters. Now how can hunters be environmentalists? They kill wildlife. Guess what, they also want the environment that that wildlife lives in to be clean and not polluted. Teddy Roosevelt was an avid hunter who as president created the National Park Service. He wanted to preserve wild lands for hunting among other reasons. Many hunters supported this too.

FalconWolf

France has not done well with nuclear power. Sure they get most of their electricity from nuclear power plants, however despite their lead in reprocessing France still has trouble with storage. While reprocessing allows spent fuel to be reused and shortens it's half-life doing so creates toxins and hotter fuel.

As far as building nuclear power plants go state planners on free market determines what gets built. CATO, that is the institute "dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace" printed the article "Hooked on Subsidies that was first published in the November 26, 2007 issue of "Forbes". The opening statements is "Why conservatives should join the left’s campaign against nuclear power." Further down it says:
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don’t. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."

Now if private businesses want to build nuclear power plants they should get, and pay for, their own insurance. They would also have to finance the construction, not government. I might even invest in such a company that uses thorium as it's fuel. Provided the finances come out good.

FalconWolf

Unless of course you're one of the unwashed masses that has an abundance of credit card debt. Using that extra money to pay off your debts more quickly can give you a great return, at least in the sense that you'd LOSE less money.

Most of them only look at how much they're getting back, which is the majority of people. If you really wanted it to sink in, you'd need to end paycheck income tax withholding and actually have them write a check on April 15.

You can still get them, newegg *very* occasionally puts a 1200 on sale.

I figure it'll be another 2-4 years before the new '4k' televisions start trickling down to computer monitors. That will be nice.

I'm going to agree with Sarten-X - turning in a wide circle shouldn't get anybody dizzy.

Also, with my lawn mower I have a turning radius that I can maintain without lifting the wheels at all. So at least the first few loops I wouldn't need pressure at all.

It also depends on how you define 'most efficient'. If the extra effort of pushing down a bit is outweighed by the time saved, it may we worth it.

On trick I've used in the past is to not turn the mower around - after clearing around the fence a bit, after pushing forward you pull the mower back.

I've come to the conclusion that it's likely a scaling problem. IE once we can do continuous fusion(or at least pulse/'diesel' fusion fast enough for steady power), it'll be a matter that the energy costs will scale by the square, but power production will scale by the cube.

Going by the size of ITER, considering that many research nuclear reactors had generators hooked up to them but ITER has no provision to ever produce electricity, ITER isn't big enough.

We may be looking at needing something crazy like a 10GW facility before it makes sense.
(not an expert)

Personally, I'd almost rather put the money(and a lot of money from other sources, such as the F-35 program) to start building new fission plants - stop the majority of our CO2/power plant pollution.

Do the research necessary to develop liquid thorium to remove that restraint. Put solar panels on buildings south of the Mason-Dixon line where they'll do the most good, solar water heaters, etc...

Employing all the people it'd take to do this would help solve our employment problem for a long time, and it actually benefits the country.

There is no difference. People are also searching for "proof" of God, and theories and experiments to prove HIS nature. The fact is, dark matter is theoretical and unprovable, and may not exist at all, because our limited viewpoint cannot allow for us to discover this truth.

"They only reason physicists came up with it in the first place is because... they did experiments and observed space, and noticed that there was too much gravity compared to observable objects"

This is 100% true, but flawed logic. They assume that which is not in evidence. They created a "force" (god) to account for things they observed (miracles), that they couldn't explain otherwise. The only thing they have done is cloaked it in "sciency" language to mask the fact that they have done the very thing that they make fun of religious people of doing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Assuming "Time" is a single dimension. We assume it, because that is what we can observe from our limited viewpoint. Time may not be single dimension.

"We know that the universe itself is a finite age"

We don't "know" this. We assume it based on the facts we have as we understand them. There are a couple conditions (assumptions), 1) Time is a single dimension, 2) Dark Matter exists (we have no proof). There are good reasons to believe that time is not single dimension, which interestingly enough would negate the need for Dark Matter, while also explaining redshift light in a non-expanding universe that has always existed.

As humans, we assume things not in evidence, based on what we know. But if what we "know" is wrong, then our assumptions are likely to also be wrong.

By your example, we have NO good example of how people should behave. All humans are critically flawed, and therefore we should not act in any way other than how we want. Selfishness is the end result of your argumentative point. There is no perfection in the human condition. Period.

Of course, that is kind of the point in the Bible, if you can get beyond your own bigotry and ignorance, taking stories (literal or figurative) out of context and extrapolating your own flawed viewpoint out of them. Having read the whole book series of book, including the apocryphal, I see it for what it is, a tale of flawed people who need redemption.

Of course if you're perfect, you don't need redemption. And if you're not perfect, and don't want redemption because you like your flaws, well then you're part of the problem, and not a solution.