Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:So what replaces them? (Score 1) 718

by regularstranger (#41393443) Attached to: Why Aircraft Carriers Still Rule the Oceans
A depleted uranium doesn't have very high radiological toxicity, and is quite safe to handle, as long as it's not traveling at 1000m/s at your torso.. It's chemical toxicity is quite high, and is especially problematic for people unlucky enough to breath or consume it after it is vaporized during a high energy event. Still, other materials projectiles are made from offer the same, if not worse, results. A nuclear weapon is something that uses fission or fusion for its energy production, and I suppose that you could add in agents that cause radiation poisoning to that list, but DU would not fit the bill under any of those definitions. The purpose of using DU is not to cause radiation sickness, and radiation sickness is not a result of using DU - there has been no known case, and calculating dosage will show that it is pretty much impossible for it to happen. If anything, DU would be labeled a chemical weapon long before it could be labeled a radiological weapon, but it's not really that either. If you want to label DU a chemical weapon, you would have to label pretty much any other metallic projectile as a chemical weapon, and you'd end up with a completely useless definition for 'chemical weapon'.

And I have to go. It's been fantastic, you prissy dick licker. I'm going to get my weekly cosmic radiation dose, which will exceed any dose I have every recieved from DU, even though I regularly handle it. Good day, shitface. I say good day!!!!

Comment: Re:So what replaces them? (Score 1) 718

by regularstranger (#41393305) Attached to: Why Aircraft Carriers Still Rule the Oceans
To be fair, you are an idiot, and your posts are proof enough. You're such a sucker. Don't break your keyboard getting all angry. I wouldn't want you to have to use some of that disability money you get from the government to pay your mom off for getting you a new keyboard. You should buy her some flowers for letting you live in her basement.

Comment: Re:So what replaces them? (Score 1) 718

by regularstranger (#41393271) Attached to: Why Aircraft Carriers Still Rule the Oceans
AWwwwww Yeah. And you're back. I'm so glad, that you are hear. I thawt that you mite be chickening out. Dude, you are so unbelievabley pathetic. The quality of your posts is falling so dramatically that it is obvious to any one that I am getting to you. You really need to take a chill pill bro. Arguing with you is like arguing with a kindergartener. You have no idea how puthetic your posts seem. As they say, ignorace is bliss. You are getting so worked up, and your misspeling all of your words and making rediculously idiotic comments, it's a wonder you can lift a spoon to eat that baby food your so fond of. Maybe you should have put that extra effort in to graduate middle school, you pathetic excuse for a human. I am so getting to you. Your spending the better part of two days arguing with me, and you can't find anything to argue about because your and idiot. You are so stupid and pathetic.

Enjoy your high blood pressure and anuerysim, buttmunch.

Comment: Re:So what replaces them? (Score 1) 718

by regularstranger (#41393117) Attached to: Why Aircraft Carriers Still Rule the Oceans

I could give a rat's ass.

They why keep posting? Perhaps you're not as light-hearted as you're trying to imply? Seriously, do you have anything of merit to add. I'm still waiting for that. I can tell you are getting overworked, as your posts make less and less sense as the day goes on. You should consider logging off and taking a cold shower. Meanwhile, I'm just waiting for my flight. I'll log off when the stewardesses tell me to, or I'm tired of taking my break from doing science all day.

Comment: Re:So what replaces them? (Score 1) 718

by regularstranger (#41393059) Attached to: Why Aircraft Carriers Still Rule the Oceans
Likewise, after all you led with teh 'try'? Why is that? You also are easily provoked by the idiot accusations. Why is that? You must be getting bored, you're losing your edge man. I was having a good time. Aw well. It was good while it lasted. I hope those hemorroids recover quickly for you. BTW, I think Obama will go down as one of the best presidents in history, as soon as a generation of stupid people die off and humanity forgets that they spent years looking for a magical birth certificate that could prove what a real birth certificate couldn't. You're probably one of those people, right? Admittedly, he's not perfect though, and you're right about the persecution of whistleblower part.

Comment: Re:So what replaces them? (Score 1) 718

by regularstranger (#41392881) Attached to: Why Aircraft Carriers Still Rule the Oceans
Wow man, you seem to be getting really worked up. Don't go take it out on your mother. All she did was give birth to you, you aren't supposed to try to get yourself back in that smelly twat. Calm down man, this Internet stuff is way too polarizing for you, and you might get hurt. Internet causes cancer, you know.

Comment: Re:So what replaces them? (Score 1) 718

by regularstranger (#41392781) Attached to: Why Aircraft Carriers Still Rule the Oceans
I opened with something along the lines of "DU rounds are not nuclear weapons.", to which you followed with another baseless claim concerning radiation poisoning. Do you have anything of merit to add to this discussion, or are you just going to continue your namecalling, production of baseless claims, and chastising of others who are continuing to point out that you have offered nothing of merit to your claims.

Comment: Re:So what replaces them? (Score 1) 718

by regularstranger (#41392717) Attached to: Why Aircraft Carriers Still Rule the Oceans

you're an incompetent asshole bully with a chip on their shoulder. Sorry for the mixup, incompetent asshole bully person.

Kettle, meet pot. You're not as Jesus-like as you probably want to believe.

zero risk

I don't remember saying zero risk. I might have said insignificant risk, but that's a little different, and we are to the point where the terminology will confuse you, and you're back to making stuff up.

Lemme guess, you're also one of those people who is convinced that a conclusive link exists between second hand smoke and cancer, right?

Nope, and you're back to making baseless claims.

kiddo, run out of "rational" points to make?

You haven't made any rational points. So there's that.

Doesn't surprise me, you seem the type who would get winded trying to remember your own name.

Hyperbole from an internet idiot who has nothing to add to any conversation? Say it isn't so!

You reap what you sow you comptemptible piece of shit.

Keep it coming imbreed, all of your posts are filled with high blood-pressure vitriolic inanities which you are chastising others for. You still have added nothing to the topic you started. You're a disgrace to this, and every, forum. You enjoy your high blood pressure, I know I've enjoyed increasing it for you:) Calling you an idiot seems to be the only way to get a rise out of you apparently.

Comment: Re:So what replaces them? (Score 1) 718

by regularstranger (#41392615) Attached to: Why Aircraft Carriers Still Rule the Oceans

Never took physics (should have, would have enjoyed it)

This is the point where you ask questions regarding physics, instead of declaring knowledge. It would be like me saying that a Chevy small block has three cylinders instead of the four cylinder big block, and passing that off as absolute knowledge in a car forum, and then being dumbfounded that people react strongly to the claim. Then, I defend myself by pointing out their behavior is not perfect, and the they maybe misspelled a word, all the while not addressing the original claim. This is exactly what you are doing!

I also like your insinuation that people with a career in the sciences never get laid, never experiment with drugs, and can't build a fast car, and don't live. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

Comment: Re:So what replaces them? (Score 1) 718

by regularstranger (#41392407) Attached to: Why Aircraft Carriers Still Rule the Oceans

Man, I really, really hope you never have any involvement in the education of children, with an attitude like that.

You see, if you had said something along the lines of "Wow, I didn't know DU was not a significant radiological hazard. Can you help me to understand this, and maybe show me how you would calculate the expected dose from ingestion or inhalation of DU?", you might actually get a good response. These are the kinds of people (children or adults - it really makes little difference) who are worth teaching.

Instead, you are making claims, acting like you already know something, and then expecting everybody else to go through all sorts of contortions to teach you, when all available evidence points to that fact that you have no interest in learning anything. You're just looking to start a flame war.

Is anything here beginning to make any sense to you? In any case, if you actually come back with something that is related to the topic that you started with your trollish comment, I might respond. Otherwise, good luck with your stubborn trollish fucktardishness.

Comment: Re:So what replaces them? (Score 1) 718

by regularstranger (#41391881) Attached to: Why Aircraft Carriers Still Rule the Oceans
You said depleted uranium causes people to die of radiation poisoning. You have to provide the evidence for that - you are making the claim. You said depleted uranium is a nuclear weapon. You need to provide evidence of that, and you can start with the definition for 'nuclear weapon'. You are making the claim. It is not my or anybody elses responsibility to disprove all the claims people make, and certainly not yours. You're right though, you're a waste of my tyme. That's right tyme -- you can point out that I misspelled it so that you can have some pretense for feeling enlightened, while making up bullshit and passing it off as knowledge. Interesting how you haven't responded to my earlier point when I was nice about it. You seem only interested in chastising people who get frustrated with your stupidity. You are spreading misinformation, providing no sources, making up shit, and then chastising other people is your only recourse.

From the wikipedia article, under the heading "Radiological Hazards" Available evidence suggests that this risk is small relative to the chemical hazard.[77]

There's even a source for that, hence my, and everybody elses point that the chemical toxicity is more problematic than the radiological toxicity, hence your assertion that people are dying of radiation poisoning is asinine. There's still the nuclear weapon comment you made. Can you connect the dots on that one, you stupid cunt? I'm calling you a stupid cunt, because calling you names and calling you an idiot seems to be the only thing that actaully gets you involved in the conversation in any way. Not that it is a meaningful or productive way (you still have providing nothing put idiotic claims, and chastisement of others responding to you poorly), but it's as least some sort of response. You reap what you sow you comptemptible piece of shit.

Comment: Re:So what replaces them? (Score 1) 718

by regularstranger (#41391597) Attached to: Why Aircraft Carriers Still Rule the Oceans
You said depleted uranium causes people to die of radiation poisoning. You have to provide the evidence for that - you are making the claim. You said depleted uranium is a nuclear weapon. You need to provide evidence of that, and you can start with the definition for 'nuclear weapon'. You are making the claim. It is not my or anybody elses responsibility to disprove all the claims people make, and certainly not yours. You're right though, you're a waste of my tyme. That's right tyme -- you can point out that I misspelled it so that you can have some pretense for feeling enlightened, while making up bullshit and passing it off as knowledge. Interesting how you haven't responded to my earlier point when I was nice about it. You seem only interested in chastising people who get frustrated with your stupidity. You are spreading misinformation, providing no sources, making up shit, and then chastising other people is your only recourse.

From the wikipedia article, under the heading "Radiological Hazards"
Available evidence suggests that this risk is small relative to the chemical hazard.[77]

There's even a source for that, hence my, and everybody elses point that the chemical toxicity is more problematic than the radiological toxicity, hence your assertion that people are dying of radiation poisoning is asinine. There's still the nuclear weapon comment you made. Can you connect the dots on that one, you stupid cunt? I'm calling you a stupid cunt, because calling you names and calling you an idiot seems to be the only thing that actaully gets you involved in the conversation in any way. Not that it is a meaningful or productive way (you still have providing nothing put idiotic claims, and chastisement of others responding to you poorly), but it's as least some sort of response. You reap what you sow you comptemptible piece of shit.

Comment: Re:So what replaces them? (Score 1) 718

by regularstranger (#41390103) Attached to: Why Aircraft Carriers Still Rule the Oceans
You're the one making the rediculous claim that DU rounds are nuclear weapons. Provide sources for that, and don't expect other people to do your work for you. Because some of us may be more knowledgeable than you doensn't mean we want to spend our day looking things up for some lazy idiot on the internet. You could have, if you were even mildly ambitious, read the wikipedia article that you yourself linked. This might have, assuming you have a 5th grade reading level, prevented you from making idiotic comments. You're a disgrace to this forum, and I for one am not in the business of teaching idiots.

"Indecision is the basis of flexibility" -- button at a Science Fiction convention.

Working...