Comment Re:Old fashioned idea... (Score -1, Offtopic) 384
UBdaFool. ROFL.
UBdaFool. ROFL.
So you used a bogus email addy when you established your account here?
Nice to test the political waters but there are lot of just clueless sociopathic idiots that get fat consulting contracts, then spew nonesense until your ears bleed.
Some idiots are lucky. It's like the old adage that nothing is foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
OTOH, Cousin Ernie may have gotten the gig for reasons that don't meet the test of credulity, either. Never leave to conspiracy that which can be explained by sloth.
Add to the costs: fuel. Overhauls from hell, with designs that haven't improved much since the 1940s. Draconian IFR costs. Jepps that break the bank. Tie down fees from the depths of hell. NOTAMs only a mother could love or an engineer understand, and plentiful poundage of them. Insurance costs.
Yeah, older planes still fly, fewer pilots, new plane costs far higher than the cost of an average new home.
And people wonder why sales are in the crapper.
And so you didn't read it. Paying for a report doesn't pay for its bias, although it could. You could find out by climbing into what's being said. A healthy skepticism is required, of course.
Funded science occurs all the time, and it doesn't necessarily buy results. Certainly bad results often are buried, but this is more about joining forces, rather than projection or statistical nonesence. That said, I don't believe that nuclear development at this time is a good idea no matter the crux of their science, as the main issues are still untenable for future generations until they can be resolved, and nothing resolves them in this report other than furthering the concept that current generation methodologies, like coal, natural gas, and others are unsustainable. Nothing new there.
Not necessarily. Read the report. It's more like the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Nonetheless, one source is largely renewable and works from small to large scales, recycles its parts fairly well, and is a store-and-forward technology. The other has onerous disposal problems, and a vicious amount of potential vulnerabilities.
Perhaps one day, spent nuclear fuel could be repurposed and made harmless, but not today. And with rotten designs and poor oversight, nuclear power represents great danger to the environment as a potential hazard. Some may argue increased plant safety, but external events show that safety isn't inherent.
Where possible, migrate if that will feed your happiness. I'm happy because I'm alive, warm, have the love of family, and food in the fridge. I have bills, some sadnesses, but happiness tips the bad stuff, just by a bit. Happiness is where you find it, in small things. TV and media wants us to find it in big things, but that's not really where it rests. It's mostly in the small, day-to-day things.
Joblessness is very difficult. One does what one can-- nothing else is tenable. Chop wood, carry water.
No. Your information is absolutely incorrect. Kick your insulin and you store. Don't kick the insulin, you'll nourish from your body's stores. Every nephrologist will give you that answer. Read Taube's "Good Calories Bad Calories"-- horrificly long as it is, and you'll know this answer. It's undeniable.
That's a rationalization. You can be happy anywhere. Certainly the affluent are perceived to be happy, but mostly it's because they're drunk, or stoned, and trying to get a grip like everyone else. Happiness is what you make of it.
There's no magic about one place or another, it's all your own attitude. It's very personal, and carbs are horribly addictive. Take out the carbs, and life is much better. Less sugar means your insulin doesn't kick in and store everything to your tissues. This takes place in London, Bath, Stokes, Leicester, Wales, wherever. It's how we're put together. Depression causes people to carb-load. That's a personal problem, not a regional one. Carb loading to increase serotinine is a well-honoured pass-time.
There is snoopwall and others that stanch the flow of bad stuff. But honestly, Facebook ought to heavily fined for their boorish invasion of privacy. The data hogs need to be taught a lesson of the value of ecosystems, which is that if your customers revolt, your business model is dead.
Well, there was that "Kendall" in his name. Once in a while, there is a response that enlightens you as to the context of such responders, so as to be able to decide if long interaction is worthwhile or nihilistic.
So I march on, until there's a stop point that often corroborates suspicions with more data. Once in a while you can hit the right button on a LIbertarian, and all sorts of stuff flies out their butts in this cavalcade of WTFs. If nothing else, it provides awe and humor value for the immense diversity of humanity.
And other times, it's a stick up the hornet's next. I like to wear gloves on those missions, but sometimes it's just worth the honey.
Ends don't justify the means. You all but admit the monetary motivations. I don't justify the maltreatment of people anywhere. Not even in Texas.
Nah, even those University of Texas resources can't be believed.
Tell me this: are you an astroturfer? Do you get paid to shill for these guys? I'll take an honest answer. If you really believe this, I'll criticize no further.
We're far from agreement on the issue of fracking, however. I believe it's detrimental, and holds down the inevitable transition to other less-caustic fuel sources.
No one is doing a lot of work to prove it one way or another. It's best to watch Justin Beiber get busted, rather than do any real research. Sign.
It's true Indiana doesn't have fracking; I believe the same is true of Virginia. Indiana doesn't quite lay on the New Madrid, rather it's to the S and W of Indiana-- look on a map.
Is fracking a contributor? Some evidence says yes.
There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.
