And people wonder why the 'social sciences' are so despised.
Thorium has the potential to generate power cheaply and without bomb-making potential; unlike uramium. As to the 'enrichment' question, once separated as a metal from the ores (a basic technology every metal needs to be recovered from the ground in any quantity), Thorium does not need enrichment. The primary isotope for nuclear fuel usage is the +90% content component. There are technical issues to solve, but the main issue to the willingness to concider nuclear power and forgo bombs.
Quote from the article;
"Amazingly, right now Chihuahuas are still considered C. lupus familiaris, a subspecies of wolf. And calling a Chihuahua a wolf is like calling someone at the Discovery Institute a scientist."
I can't speak to the Discovery Institute point directly; but without a doubt, small dogs can be as aggressive as a wolf. We own a 10 pound poodle and my daughter and SIL have a 7 pounder. DO NOT get on the wrong side of either. They may not take as big a bite, but it still hurts.
Here is yet another group of 19th-century bozos
You are overestimating them. These are 15th Century BOZOs.
There have been a number of news reports regarding Super-Volcanic action in the recent weeks. Much of it centers on increased seismic activity in the Yellowstone area of North America. Another has been the report of a theoretical analysis of the Earth's Moon being formed as a result of a Super-Volcanic eruption, instead of the currently prevalent impact theory.
If the NYT lost such a case (not likely), what would the outcomes possibly be?
1 - NYT hires some junior reporter wannabes whose job it is to read articles on other sites, rewrite them without plagiarizing, and post as NYT material. The winner gets neither fees and advertising revenue. NYT gets the stuff cheap.
2 - NYT pays licensing fees for linking to the winner's site. The winner gets both fees and advertising revenue. NYT gets shafted.
3 - NYT goes to the winner's competitor(s) and gets approval to aggregate their material instead. The winner gets neither fees and advertising revenue. NYT gets the stuff cheaper than option 2, but probably more than #1.
To me, given the possibility that the NYT would win a 'fair use' case, especially since the stuff was on an open RSS feed anyway, and a cheap possible solution if they lose, the complainant is a fool.
This is about your signature, not the post directly. I checked out your referral to the Bible Gateway and they don't have an English version of the Hebrew Bible. Since there are significant differences in the translations into English from the original Hebrew between the Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant versions (not to mention some of the differences recognized by Islam, which also considers these books to be holy), why not an English version of the Hebrew Bible? The JPS 1917 translation is available for free at http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm