StrangeSox

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 28, 2011 -> 09:58 AM) Maybe "goal" wasn't the right word. Let's go with "purpose." The purpose was fighting terrorism and like you said, creating a stronghold in the region. We have no such clearly defined purpose in Libya. We have a bunch of different bulls*** justifications. And that's BS that we garnered international support first. My perception is that other nations threw up a fit that no one was doing anything about MG and then we decided we'd act on behalf of the world (yet again). And yeah, look at all that political capital we threw away. No one trusts us anymore! No one is ever going to ask for our help! Bulls***, bulls***, bulls***. Iraq didn't do anything to hurt us in terms of foreign policy. We might have pissed off some citizens of various countries, but in terms of our actual dealings with countries it didn't do anything. Do we view Russia much different because of their actions in Georgia? Do we view the French different because they didn't want to get involved in Iraq? Nope. It's business as usual and always has been. Your perception is noticeably divorced from reality.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 28, 2011 -> 09:22 AM) Who wants to bet that Caterpillar gets a HUGE financial deal out of this (subsidy, tax break in another area, etc.)? In other words, this f***ed up government of ours, where one party protects the rich, and the other party protects the poor, continues to f*** the majority of Americans. LOL, who's that? Both parties protect the rich.

QUOTE (Whitewashed in '05 @ Mar 27, 2011 -> 01:19 PM) Is it too early to apply for jobs now if I graduate in may? Will companies even read past that part on my resume or cover letter? I'm not getting as much interest as I thought i'd get... Not trying to sound cocky. absolutely not. this was before everything in the economy went to s***, but I already had a job lined up by this point in my last semester.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 25, 2011 -> 04:06 PM) I finally got a job offer!!! Well that only took 23 months. I'll be starting in about three weeks. Yeah!!! Thank God that the stress of the hunt is over! 'grats!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2011 -> 01:26 PM) The difference is not the boiling point, it is what happens in the event of evaporation. If you evaporate fresh water, you're left with only small amounts of deposits. If you evaporate ocean water, you're left with substantial deposits of salt. If you're pumping salt water into a reactor around fuel rods, and that water is evaporating, that deposits the salt on the fuel rods. The fuel rod design is such that they're supposed to get really hot in the middle but have reduced temperature at the edges where they release that heat into the water. A diffusion gradient is set up in temperature. However, if you wrap the fuel rod in salt, you create another barrier to effective heat removal into the water. The salt acts as an insulation layer, causing the temperature in the fuel rod to go up as heat removal becomes less efficient. If heat removal becomes less efficient, this can cause the rods to reach their solidus (melting point), at which point the rod integrity will fail, you have a meltdown, and potential release of the material from the rods. Furthermore, salt in water is an electrolyte, it's corrosive. If you're pumping salt water through metal pipes, that dramatically enhances the corrosion of those pipes and can cause additional spillage. This post is 100% correct.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 26, 2011 -> 01:05 PM) Just watched that Rose MVP vid. Who would've thought Stacey King's largest contribution to the Bulls franchise would be as an announcer. which video is this?

Awesome, seriously.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 25, 2011 -> 08:54 AM) If you're going to argue that it's ok when resolutions are broken because no one got hurt then yeah, resolutions are pretty worthless. What's the point if that person can violate the resolution and expect no retribution? What's the point if the attitude is, well, breaking the rules didn't really hurt anyone, so we'll just let it pass, this time and the seventeenth time. That's not my argument. You're also still making the really bad argument that "if relatively minor violations of one particular resolution aren't enough to justify a stupid war and occupation, then all resultions are bad."

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 25, 2011 -> 12:18 PM) ?? That's why you were wrong. You forgot to include that portion of his requirements. The goal wasn't just to make sure he didn't make any MORE weapons it was to ensure that he didn't have ANY weapons of that caliber, then or now. As to the second bolded part, you don't remember the part where he kicked out the inspectors? Despite being required to let them in whenever they wanted? I'd say that was a pretty blatant violation and since the UN didn't care to enforce the violation, the sanction didn't work. Except that he didn't have weapons and didn't post a threat.

FlaSox was an extra in the film

Huh. That's an interesting way to read a post that explicitly states not all resolutions are worthless. It's also a pretty terrible conclusion in general because it assumes resolutions are only worthwhile if countries can use them as an excuse to invade, depose the existing leadership/government and subsequently occupy the country for years, even if the country violating the resolution presents no material threat or harm to the invading country. It's almost as if your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises at all.

fair enough!

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Mar 24, 2011 -> 05:03 PM) That's fine and well, but Phelps' hands came down on the pad, while Cavic's came in straight. So what? If Phelps' fingers are bent backwards and Cavic's are not, then Phelps must have touched the pad first. Simple momentum. Look at the photo-the tips of Phelps' fingers are bent backwards, it's not just his hand coming in at an angle.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Mar 24, 2011 -> 04:51 PM) That picture is supposed to tell me the gap their is one-hundredth of a second? Exactly. It shows Phelps' fingers bending backwards and Cavic's barely touching. Which means Phelps was about an inch closer to the wall.

QUOTE (fathom @ Mar 3, 2011 -> 08:57 PM) Also, I know this will piss off some, but Michael Phelps winning by the slighest margin possible a few years ago in the Olympics was pretty remarkable. Watched that from my 10th room at the Hyatt in Cincinatti. A few minutes later, the Cubs-Reds game finished up and I was treated to the best fireworks show I've ever seen right outside my window.

you could have used the opportunity to take more challenging or interesting courses?

this doesn't follow: It sounds like the matter was dropped. So why did he stop?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 24, 2011 -> 04:39 PM) So either resolutions are totally worthless (my point), or even if resolutions are worth something, using 17 violations of violations of said resolutions to justify enforcement action isn't appropriate? False dichotomy. Using 17 violations that weren't really affecting anyone to justify a full-scale invasion and decade-long occupation that results in hundreds of thousands dead, a significant portion of the country's infrastructure destroyed and on-going violence, not to mention the billions spent, is totally worthless. Passing a resolution that results in immediate and appropriate action is not. here's a completely left-slanted blog giving a summary of documents that came out last year clearly showing the Bush Admin. focusing on military action in Iraq in early 2001. The rest was just them looking for something to justify it, no matter how transparently terrible the evidence and the arguments were.

I think Amazon could offer a credit card with no-interest financing if they wanted to.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 24, 2011 -> 04:27 PM) Yeah, none of those quotes do anything to negate what the wiki article states. Kinda reinforces the summaries actually. And second, that's your revisionist history again. The point was that Iraq violated something like 17 resolutions before the US got serious about enforcing their violations. I think history has borne out how terrible of an excuse those violations were as a pretext to a massive invasion and decade-long occupation.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 24, 2011 -> 04:11 PM) Boo people shouldnt be free to contract their own dispute procedures. Booo letting people contract! Yay for more govt interference in contract! I But its SHARIA LAW! It's the ISLAMIFICATION OF AMERICA! NOW WOMEN CAN BE STONED TO DEATH THANKS TO THIS LIBRUL JUDGE! It's a stupefying amount of ignorance.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 24, 2011 -> 03:49 PM) Also, this nonsense about the US intelligence being the only intelligence used is bulls***. But continue your revisionist history. Most of the world thought THAT portion (WMD) of the case for war was accurate. I have no problem with you saying the pretense for war based on some Al Qaeda link was weak, but you're simply wrong here. Most of the world thought the whole argument was bulls***. Years of revelations on the Bush administration's push for the Iraq war before 9/11 even occurred in addition to the massive amount of manipulation, fraud and pure bulls*** they twisted in contradiction to NSA/CIA/etc assessments showed that to be the correct position. Perhaps the Bush admin. really did believe Saddam had weapons a priori, but there was never any good justification for that position. It was simply a giant case of confirmation bias to confirm what they already "knew," regardless of what the evidence actually showed.

That hasn't happened and the Finnish government utility isn't paying $8b. Like I said, the original contract was fixed-price and there's currently legal disputes over an additional $2b or so. It isn't to $8b, which was an estimate two years ago. It isn't doubling every couple of years. eta: Finland also approved the construction of two more nuclear reactors last year that will make them completely energy self-sufficient

Fossil fuels are far deadlier than nuclear power