I'll need two fossils and the sex tape
And a marriage certificate.
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
I'll need two fossils and the sex tape
And a marriage certificate.
First - what do the kids want? That takes precedence over ANYTHING that you want, your special other, or your attorney. What do the kids want? And, I hope you haven't been propagandizing them in preparation for asking them.
Second - what do they lose by getting dual citizenship? Absolutely nothing, right? What do they gain? Obviously, they gain the RIGHT (not the privilege, but the right) to enter and to leave the US at will, the right to vote, the right to bear arms, the right to serve - the list of rights goes on and on. No losses, all gains - it would be ignorant to deny the children the opportunities.
Your decision will last all of their lives - and all the lives of their children.
Do the right thing, and give the kids all the options possible for the future. If the children live long happy lives without ever visiting the United States - that's all well and good. If, however, politics and life somehow make their homes uninhabitable or unendurable some time in their lifetimes, they have an out. Hey - the reverse is equally possible. Life HERE may become unendurable sometime in the future, in which case MY kids would envy YOUR kid's rights and opportunities in Europe.
Give the kids the options, now and in the future. No good parent denies his/her children opportunity.
I'm rocking multiple new mac minis
Are you "rocking" them? Really?
Naturally occurring uranium? Is it really dangerous? Maybe you should check out the enrichment process. How many tons of uranium ore does it take to make one hot reactor core? One more time - I lived on a freaking coal vein. We grew vegetables on top of it. The horses seemed to like it - the colts especially would take a lick of it now and then. Coal. As natural as granite. Uranium? Find me a vein of U238 that can be shoveled directly into a furnace/reactor.
"Uh... for someone quoting wikipedia, you need to actually read it. The "hundreds" you refer to is actually 60."
Sixty people didn't contain that disaster. A hell of a lot more than sixty people answered the call - some few were recognized. These sixty mentioned on Wikipedia's page are the "official" group of people who sacrificed themselves. The rest are to be swept under the rug, without so much as an honorable mention. Maybe their widows and children got a modest little pension as a "thank you".
Uh-huh. Not one child has become sick due to elevated levels of poisons associated with a nuclear generator? Right - I'm believing that. Try this article: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/op...
Now, I'm not one to attribute every "stress-related illness" to the nuclear plant, but I'm also aware that elevated levels of radiation and contaminants are probably killing people who may or may not have been the healthiest members of society to start with.
Centralia is a fire. Like any other fire, when the fire is extinguished, the land will be habitable again. You're not making any points here at all. Every year, we have fires that involve national park lands. Would you suggest that national parks are dangerous, and should be outlawed?
"Fun fact: not only is nuclear best in terms of death per kWh, it also renders the least land unusable per kWh generated. And yes that includes all the nuclear accidents."
Does that also count all the land from which the fissionables were mined? Several people here are pointing to coal mines, but they make no mention of mining operations that support the nuclear industries.
You claim that Chernobyl is "managed"? In the weeks after the accident, all the management that was possible was performed. Hundreds of workers sacrificed themselves to dump the concrete on top of the site. Wikipedia isn't the go-to place for information, but you've already used it. Wikipedia will suffice to make my own point.
Today, the only "management" being done, is to man the gates that block access to the exclusion zone.
About sixty dead, huh? I don't accept that, any more than I accept the inflated figures of a million dead. A lot of people whose deaths might be attributed to the accident are simply not mentioned. For instance, scroll down to this guy's mention: Ignatenko, Vasyli Ivanovych - note his unborn baby's fate.
Alarmists, on the one hand, want to attribute every unfortunate death in the region to the accident. People who might lose money, status, or political capital are going to down play the numbers. I suspect that the real numbers are probably in the thousands, making both the high and low estimates ludicrous.
Uhhhh, setting the coal on fire doesn't exactly render the region uninhabitable for generations to come. When the fire goes out, it's habitable again. Just like any forest fire, or grass fire, or house fire.
Which regions in the US have been rendered uninhabitable? Sounds to me like you've had to much Kool-Aid. I mentioned in an earlier post that I grew up in coal-cracker country. I am unaware of ANY regions in the US where man cannot live today because of coal contamination. I grew up drinking water from a well drilled into coal and limestone. I don't glow in the dark or anything. Come on, man, stop making things up. Coal is a naturally occurring compound, found all over the world. It's not THAT dangerous, unless you throw yourself into a furnace after the coal has been lit.
I stand corrected. I thought the exclusion zone was larger than that - at least the size of Delaware. So - roughly half the size of Rhode Island. Thank you, AC.
Uh-huh. Read my statement again. Is there a region of the world in which mankind can no longer live, due to some coal-related disaster? I am unaware of any such region.
Are people living in the Chernobyl area? No? THAT is my point.
Yes, the wildlife is stronger and healthier. That is a tangential subject for discussion, but one that I am interested in. There are no crazy mutations of wolf, fox, wolverine, deer, or anything else. I've watched several videos now regarding wildlife around Chernobyl, most recently about the wolverine. Pretty awesome, IMHO.
All the same, the entire area is basically off-limits to humans, and ground zero is still dangerous as all hell. No one knows what has happened, or might happen, at the center of things. Is it even remotely possible that the radioactive materials MIGHT collect into a pool, deep in the ground, and reach critical mass? Face it - mankind lost control, and anything might happen now. Is any of that crap leaking into the water system, and simply hasn't been discovered (or acknowledged) yet? Are distant cities pumping any of it into their water systems?
As I suggested above - I grew up in coal country. The concerns you bring up are serious, but they are manageable. Chernobyl - not so manageable, huh? Fukishima? That has polluted cubic miles of ocean already, much of it headed toward America's west coast.
Nuclear power may be a good thing - but I don't trust any corporation or any government to manage it safely.
Good observation - but the engineers should have been astute enough to realize that Japan has historically experienced tsunamis that have flooded those areas. The engineers should have put the brakes to any construction efforts taking place in those locations, based on that fact alone.
Can't blame that on the oil. Blame it on human greed. Anything of value can motivate greedy people to kill for it. People have been killed over water rights - does that make water dangerous?
"Mr. Watson, come here, I want you." -- Alexander Graham Bell