Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:seriously (Score 2) 335

What a fucking moron you are.
The whole crisis over there was created by you neo-cons/tea-baggers that sit at kock brothers zippers getting slobbered faced.
The smartest thing that O can do is study the board before making visible moves.
In the mean time, he is busy training others over there and sending weapons there.

Sadly, it was you neo-cons/tea* that blocked O from going into Syria and helping the GOOD side, and instead, allowed Assad AND ISIS to gain strength.

Take the kock's cock out of your mouths and walk away from your addiction to them.

Comment: The real problem is not that they have weapons (Score 0) 335

Look, I have said all along that AQ has access to biologicals and that they can do FAR WORSE damage.
BUT, AQ had some warped and interesting principles. Basically, until a islamic priest would give permission to kill many innocents, they did not attack. In POF, they took responsibility for their actions. In a number of ways, they acted like a normal nation SHOULD

ISIS is NOT under the same constraints. Weaponized plague is easy enough to solve and cure.
I am far more concerned about their weaponizing avian flu, mers, ebola, or even rabies.

Thsee have the potential to spread much further through western society without easy ways to stop them.

Oddly, in some of my earlier posts about ISIS, we had a number of ppl defending these animals. I have to wonder if any of them were trolls with ISIS, or just sympathizers.

Comment: Re:Spent fuel containment is required infrastructu (Score 1) 173

by WindBourne (#47786181) Attached to: New NRC Rule Supports Indefinite Storage of Nuclear Waste
Only a fool thinks that Nukes are dead, or for that matter, wants them dead. Heck, with JUST the nuke waste ( both from nuke plants and from rare earth mining) that we have, if we use transatomic and flibe reactors, we would have enough ENERGY (not just electricity, but full energy) to do 100% of America's Energy for over 100 years.

And note that we got into the mess that we are, because we took coal to over 60% of our electrical usage.

Comment: Re:Department of Energy (Score 1) 173

by WindBourne (#47786109) Attached to: New NRC Rule Supports Indefinite Storage of Nuclear Waste
This is NOT nuclear waste. It is only waste, if you use it in the 3rd gens and under reactors that we have.
Instead, we should be building transatomic and flibe reactors at these old sites and using this 'waste' for fuel.
Then when it is REALLY done in another 100 years, we can bury less than 5% of the current volume and have it be safe within 200 years. Heck, we can just inject it back into ground.

Comment: Wrong again (Score 1) 173

by WindBourne (#47781657) Attached to: New NRC Rule Supports Indefinite Storage of Nuclear Waste
The REAL problem is that we are throwing away useful FUEL. None of that waste should be buried. Instead, it should go into new reactors that can make use of it, and then what is left from that, should be buried.

Right now, the greatest detriment is that the far left and far right are INSISTENT on pushing their own form of energy.
The only one being smart is O who wants to push them all, but is too busy dealing with the house neo-cons/tea*

Comment: Doing this SOOOO wrong. (Score 1) 173

by WindBourne (#47781591) Attached to: New NRC Rule Supports Indefinite Storage of Nuclear Waste
lets get mPower from B&W, TransAtomic, and Flibe funded and building new reactors.
In particular, mPower can have their first reactor ready in under 5 years. We should provide them a contract for 10 reactors which are then put in place in CA for water distillation, along with electricity.
Then Transatomic and Flibe will take a while to get ready, but they are IDEAL for putting on-site at the old reactors, and burning up the 'waste' fuel. And it would allow the old reactors to be taken down slowly, with the profits from the new reactors.

By all means do not remove the old 'waste'. Leave it there. Instead, ship a unit on a grain that is designed to reprocess the waste into fuel for transatomic and flibe.

Comment: Re:The backup-camera rule (Score 1) 256

by WindBourne (#47769367) Attached to: DoT Proposes Mandating Vehicle-To-Vehicle Communications
Wow. Such idocy rules the neo-cons/tea* today.
The reason for the COMMUNICATION is to have a single standard in which all cars talk and can tell each other that they are slowing down/speeding up. It does not mean that all will have sensors, etc. It will simply mean that they have the ability to talk.

This has NOTHING to do with Obama. This has to do with a bit of intelligence in the DOT. As to the back-up cameras, they really do NOT offer up much value. VERY FEW accidents involve a driver backing up and hitting cars/kids. So, I understand why the DOT is hedging on that, but wanting a common interface for all cars to communicate. If nothing else, look at what issues have shown up with electrical cars and simply getting a charge.

Do yourself a favor and quit sitting at the kock brothers zipper. .

E Pluribus Unix