Its business. Schools make BIG BIG money from the slave labor of their athletes. But a student getting straight-As and being bright doesn't earn the district anything. So its a simple solution: make it illegal for an educational institution to profit from sports, cap the salaries of the coaches. Done. No more football, no more injuries, and you won't need to feel bad anymore for being smart.

I'm afraid not. Your counter-argument "no one is required to play football," unfortunately, falls short of negating my argument. Here is my argument: unfair deals are unfair. Football, as an institution, is unfair to the players, regardless of no requirement to play. A student injured in HS in a football game may very well have that injury, pain and suffering, for the rest of their lives... might be the first thing they're aware of every day they wake... 35 years on... the old injury is what wakes them up. With pain. But lets go ahead and say that doesn't matter because they weren't required to play. Students have been killed on the field. But its their fault, they weren't required to play?

Except that's not how logic, morality, law and fairness works. Continue to be obtuse if you wish, but you're not persuading anyone with stupidity.

Ah, perhaps you didn't know, that Yucca idea was political fiction from start to finish, though the scientists that did the work did not know. The Federal government had no intention of letting nuclear waste be transported on such a massive scale. Harry Reid was involved, but hardly a one man tour de force! It was politicians in Nevada, and it was the nimbi politicians... the entire idea was all a pageant.

Its ok, no one pro nuke will admit the obvious facts that Yucca was NEVER SERIOSLY CONSIDERED by ANYONE but you guys.

Ah, no. Where have you been? We decided to take efforts to save all the minorities, (Why? Blues. Jazz. Hip Hop. Dub Step. Morgan Freeman. etc.) and kill all the racist idiots, slowly and painfully. See, racists have never contributed anything to society, ever, so its really a method of survival that we cull this pointless group from our herd.

Best possible scenario for you: if you get a chance, you should kill yourself immediately.

Excuse my hyperbole, but this is a great idea, not just for West Africa, but Canada, Mexico, Central America, South America... and why not? The World, too. Imperialism is not a bad idea for the US... we sort of do it already, but then we abandon the people and natural resources for some reason and just pay for everything. But if we would annex what we want, we would make the place better, safer, healthier, the people better educated, will live longer, be happier... and we can keep the natural resources to finance what is known as Manifest Destiny.

At the HS level, its all sports and all injuries, not just football and concussions. The problem is not weak bones or weak athletes... the strongest are the first and most severly injured! The problem is the deal: "You're a good athlete! Come play for our high school team, and it may pay for your college, and lead to a lucritive sports career! But if you are injured in anyway, you have to cover your own health costs. No, we don't pay you anything, ever, unless you sue us. Yes, the district benefits massively from the slave labor of athletic minors! Hooray!" Basically, you are wrong, your argument is wrong headed, and I hope to God you never have children.

You're being intellectually dishonest. Your figures ignore the fact that nuclear is producing far more MW at the current time. So the $/MWh is a false analysis, even if true. If the energy produced by solar, wind and nuclear was at parady, THEN you compare the $/MWh cost, you will immediately see that nuclear is MANY TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE. Also, FWIW, solar/wind, no appreciable waste costs that go on and on forever and ever and ever (effectively)! You can lie to sell, lie to screw, lie to save your skin, but please don't be a liar just to make a thin point that is readily proved irrellivent.

um... you're forgetting the other 6 decades of insane spendatures and no return on investment, as well as the plant build subsidies, and the plant operating subsidies, and the plant waste subsidies... all the people that spent money on nuclear education... all the money spent paying retirements for these nuclear workers, all the lawsuits... you are barely scraping the surface with the Manhattan Project, which, by itself, was an amazing blue light special bargain considering all the nazi tech we got for almost free, and the savings of no land war in Japan. The bomb, as much as I hate it, was a great investment. Nuclear energy is the dog, not killing people with nukes. If its just business, killing people with nukes is a good buy, just don't go overboard with your inventory.

Oh, you have me shaking. Well, I guess we DO need nuclear then! ---- logical fallacy, much?

systemd is ... what... 35 TIMES LARGER THAN sysvinit. So, specifically, the junk code I am refering to is that, exactly. wtf... 35 times increase in bloat... is systemd 35 times better? Does it save you 35 times the time that sysvinit costs you? This increase in code does not justifiy what it can do. Its a big big warning sign. But... I guess if you're lazy, its worth it.

Regardless of your source, which in no way supports your claim, your comment is provably false. Quite, quite, quite the opposite. Every one of the 100+ commercial plants the US built cost the US at least $50-100M each. That's just one of the costs that were never, and never will be returned. And that is a tiny cost compared to what was spent prior to the first commercial plant being commissioned. Its obscene money that has been spent on nuclear... so much its not easy to get your head around it. You could say we'd have no national debt, but a rather handsome national surplus, had we not spent that money. If not for nuclear power... we'd all be a lot richer.

Its a rather thin thread that nuclear is hanging on, if it is merely the demands for energy that have you sold on it. If the demand is there, the demand will pay for energy no matter what its cost. We don't need to bow down to the "demands for energy" like its an enemy we need to placate somehow. Fuck energy demands, seriously. Energy is not food... is not air... is not anything that the human race needs. I know this because there was no stored energy of any capacity less than 100 years ago, and for hundreds of thousands of years this "demands for energy" was an unanswered cry.

I'm not saying we need to go back 100 years and do without power at all... I'm saying that "demands for energy," as some rationale that we need nuclear power, is bullshit. Its like demand for anything at all, such as gold. The higher the demand, the higher the price. The market does not need nuclear power. There is no demand for nuclear energy... its just a demand for energy, and its not that big of a deal.

Billions? BILLIONS? I do not think you know what that word means. The US has likely invested close to half a trillion in nuclear energy development. Whatever change accidently slipped out of Uncle Sam's pockets and into solar R&D is, in comparison, quite nothing at all. Also, had the US invested just 5% of what they spent on nuclear energy development since the 1950s on solar, we wouldn't even be arguing. Solar would be crazy cheap! And nuclear, still where its at... competitive with coal, (not beating the crap of the cost of coal, but just competing with it) until you see the its hardly even the tip of the iceberg of the cost.

Nuclear energy is a dog. A very very expensive dog with toxic crap. It has an extremely high initial cost of building a power plant, as well as the continuing forever cost of maintaing the waste. It's been this way since the start, so its amazing that with nearly 70 years of this crazy money being thrown at nuclear that we keep doing it. And it keeps biting the finest nuclear engineers and architects in the ass. I'm not afraid of radiation. I'm not even afraid of the mountain of toxic waste we have piled up for our children's children's children's great great great grandchilden. What bothers me is it is a poor investment. The money we already invested got it only so cheap... so it is clear we screwed up. We needed fuel for bombs, or thought we did, and we went nuts building these things... 110 plus military and resarch plants... and 1 plant would have provided all the bomb fuel we'd ever need... and we're stuck with this dirty, outrageously expensive power. And yet I'm arguing with someone that likely belives nuclear energy is some kind of solution, still, at the expense of investing that money in cleaner energy technologies. I imagine you just like nuclear power, irrationally with no compelling reason, probably like gun people just like guns... you don't need a gun, more a danger to yourself than any criminal that wants to hurt you or rob you, but they're neat. We don't need nuclear, but we have this really expensive infrastructure and all these workers trained... heck... lets just keep going down that road until we're bankrupt and living in waste!

They have no problem with continuning to do what they've been doing since they started.... just pile it up on location. There is no commercial nuclear power plant in the US that isn't also a rather large unregulated depository of nuclear waste.

A single breeder reactor would eventually process all the US nuclear waste. So it is a good idea, but lets not go crazy and build 50 when we only need one, because its not as though its a free lunch and there is no waste. The waste is more compact... its just another bandaid, and brushes aside the core problem with temporary reprieve. We need to stop using nuclear fission reactors in the next 100 years, and completely switch to other cleaner energy technologies. It is reckless to keep investing on a global scale in such an outrageously expensive and potential massively dangerous energy source. No one can build these things without massive government subsidies. Compare that to other energy technologies that do not need massive government subsidies to exist. Then ask yourself why we are beating ourselves up just to spend more on energy and have the permanent waste problem remain.