Comment Re:hm (Score 1) 50
No. It just means that banks are looking for ways in which they can manipulate them.
Either that or the person that "commissioned" this study has personal interests (ie. family) in the company that's doing it.
No. It just means that banks are looking for ways in which they can manipulate them.
Either that or the person that "commissioned" this study has personal interests (ie. family) in the company that's doing it.
Why am I not seeing much more discussion of the "Waste Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor" (WAMSR)?
http://news.discovery.com/tech...
According to the description, the WAMSR produces power like any other nuclear power station - but it is fuelled by "nuclear waste", which is essentially just fuel that has been 5% consumed and then discarded as no longer viable. Its proponents say that the WAMSR could provide all the power the human race needs until 2080, while using up all the nuclear waste that people are so upset about.
Better still, if necessary we can go on running conventional nuclear plants, and feeding their waste directly to WAMSRs.
OK, please tell me what's wrong with this picture? I obviously have missed some serious problem, but I'm puzzled that I haven't read articles debunking the WAMSR - instead, it's been completely ignored. Just as puzzling as the way bacteriophages are being ignored as replacements for antibiotics.
The key failing of the cradle and the (actually extremely similar) pole theory is that it does not explain how they moved the far larger slabs that were not square blocks.
So they could only move 90% of the stones that way...
Yeah I guess that _does_ definitively prove they could never have used them for anything at all. Not.
This is very interesting, and maybe that's good enough. But isn't there some evidence of what method they might have used?
Yes.
There's another fact that this theory ignores: Moving the blocks this way takes wood. Lots and lots of wood.
a) No it doesn't. Wood can be re-used.
b) They brought the stones in on boats, why couldn't they bring the wood as well?
Anyone that actually lived in the middle east knows that sand is everywhere. They simply stacked the blocks while building up a sand pile around it, then eventually dug the sand away again
I think you massively underestimate the amount of sand needed to make a ramp up to something that tall.
Why use rods?
If you're going to strap something to the stones why not use something a bit more rounded that turns them into actual circles?
PS: We know how they did it from paintings on the walls:
"Anyone stupid enough to just dismantle nukes instead of selling them is a moron".
Thanks, that's the best laugh I've had this year! So, to whom do you suggest selling the British nuclear deterrent:
1. The USA (which sold it to us years ago, doesn't accept trade-ins, and has masses of more up-to-date equipment of its own);
2. The potential enemies against whom the deterrent has been directed;
3. Or nations that currently don't have nuclear weapons (thus breaking the NNP treaty and making the world a far more dangerous place)?
Or perhaps you would prefer they be sold directly to a terrorist group?
"Scotland has only been invaded by, erm, one country, many times as it happens, in the last 1000 years".
Nice try, and I agree with the spirit of your post. But have you forgotten Norway?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
Although the Scots gave back as good as they got:
"The real question is what are Scotland going to do about their currency post-independence?"
Why not use the dollar, like everyone else?
"My other half is from Inverness. ALL, repeat ALL of her family will leave by the end of the year is there is a Yes vote in September".
Great, that means there will be lots of cheap houses for sale in that beautiful, tranquil (except near Lossiemouth) part of the world. Where are those estate agent pages?
"Nukes are, well, the nuclear option, so they are of little use except in extreme circumstances..."
Very true. To clarify matters, we might ask ourselves: against which nations are the UK's thermonuclear weapons potentially useful today? (I hope no one is going to suggest that they frighten ISIS, for example).
Russia? If so, why? Russia's interests do not clash with the UK's anywhere on earth - quite the contrary, it is in our best interests to live in peace with the Russians. Whereas we lived in fear (rightly or wrongly) of the USSR invading Western Europe, Mr Putin has shown supernatural restraint in not even invading Ukraine after 750,000 of its citizens fled to Russia for safety. As for Georgia, he was "in and out quickly", as the saying goes.
China? Likewise, only if possible even more so. The Chinese are quite extraordinarily pacific (especially compared to other superpowers that shall be nameless), and what's more they are very nearly on the far side of the world.
India or Pakistan? I don't see it. They're not quite so peaceable, but they have no quarrel with us, and we should make sure that remains the case.
Israel? Not really - they would probably get in a first strike, and they have far more missiles and warheads.
And as for France, that's just childish. We should be content just to go on annoying them.
Sod it, I meant "Newcastle-upon-Tyne or Barrow-in-Furness". Too early in the morning... er. afternoon.
Apologies to citizens of those two noble towns.
Most likely Newcastle-on-Tyne or Barrow-on-Furness. The main reason for siting the base in Scotland was presumably to get it as far away from London as possible.
Futile, though. Either the Russians decide to take out Britain, or not. (They might as well, since they have plenty of missiles). Half a dozen big warheads should render the entire country uninhabitable - why would they take out the Holy Loch and not finish the job?
Given the US administration's evident enthusiasm for starting WW3, the UK would be well advised to throw away - not drop - its nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. In a war they would make not the slightest difference to either side, but they would probably get us all fried.
"Sorry, the corporate card has no bearing on scientific topics. Save it for politics".
You don't sound stupid, so you must be cynical. It goes without saying that no scientific results can possibly be trusted without a clear understanding of ALL corporate influence and funding behind them. Witness, to take just one example of hundreds, the current advocacy of statins by panels of scientists most of whom have received huge sums of money from the corporations that manufacture statins.
"Do you really think the scientific community, which overwhelmingly supports GE crops (don't even try to deny this), does not pause to consider such things?"
You do make your astroturfing obvious, don't you? 8-)
1. In science, it doesn't matter in the least if anyone "overwhelmingly" supports any conclusion. All that counts is whether that conclusion is true. Copernicus and Galileo were right; tens of thousands of "experts" were wrong. Semmelweiss was right; the vast majority of the "medical profession" who had him fired, drove him mad, and had him confined in a lunatic asylum were wrong.
2. We have no way of knowing what the "scientific community" (whatever that may be) considers. All we know is what published papers say - always remembering that, when a corporation funds a study, any paper that does not suit that corporation's goals is most unlikely to be published.
"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."
