StrangeSox

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

The Finnish reactor is being built for a fixed cost of $4.1b, though there is currently arbitration lawsuits filed by both sides to contest an additional $1-2b. That's still well below your $10b+.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 24, 2011 -> 01:24 PM) And having to cut corners and cut back on safety to do it. And that was 2 years ago. The article you posted does not support that claim. If they were cutting those corners and cutting safety, the project wouldn't be delayed to fix the earlier mistakes. I'm still waiting for something, anything that justifies even the $10b cost you're throwing around as a minimum. And a proposal for what large-scale carbon-free systems we can have installed and operating by 2030 for similar or less costs than new nuclear.

Right-wingers, apparently completely ignorant of how arbitration works, are melting down over OMG! SHARIA LAW! in Florida. http://www.fljud13.org/LinkClick.aspx?file...67&mid=1031

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 24, 2011 -> 01:18 PM) Let's be 100% specific...he was declared in material breach of resolution 1554 because the U.S. was given the right to declare him in material breach for virtually anything...including not having complete enough documentation that it had destroyed its weapons. Iraq was required to hand over all of its documents regarding its weapons programs and submit to full inspections. In early December 2002, Iraq handed over somewhere over 10,000 documents. Based on the fact that those documents were incomplete and did not show things that U.S. intelligence believed to be true, Iraq was declared in breach of 1554. However, Iraq was declared in breach of resolution 1554 based on U.S. intelligence...intelligence that was false. The way the resolution was written, the U.S. alone was given the right to determine whether Iraq was in material breach of the resolution, and no other country was given the right to challenge that determination. The U.S. made that determination before the inspectors hit the ground, based on the fact that Saddam's document declaration did not show things that U.S. intelligence *Knew* to be true about Iraq's weapons program. In other words, the U.S. declared Iraq in breach of 1554 based on false intelligence. The inspectors hit the ground in early 2003 and were in fact given unfettered access to Iraq's weapons sites. They found nothing that hadn't been declared before and that the items sealed when the 1998 inspectors were moved out had not been touched and were covered with 5 years of dust. They did find some missiles that were in breach of treaty obligations, and Iraq allowed the inspectors to destroy those missiles. The inspectors reported, repeatedly, that they had a complete record of compliance from the Iraqis, they found no evidence Iraq had restarted its weapons programs, and they found no evidence of Iraqi storage of older banned weapons. Iraq was declared in breach of 1554 based on U.S. intelligence statements. Iraq was judged to be deceiving the inspectors based on U.S. intelligence estimates. Those estimates could not be reviewed by any outside group or challenged by Iraq. The declaration that Iraq was in breach, and the full invasion, was motivated by intelligence that was complete B.S. Iraq did not continue defying resolution 1554, except in the sense that the U.S. was allowed to declare that they were defying it. That was an excellent bit of circular logic in 1554. We also know how hard the administration pushed for this war from the beginning and how the intelligence community was forced to throw together anything they could scrape from the bottom of the barrel for Cheney's group to "re-analyze."