Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/20/08 05:30 AM, DemonX123 wrote: Are you mad? Nucluear power would make the biggest mess and would be the hardest to clean up.

Would? You realize that it's already being used and isn't making the biggest mess. Coal-fired power plants are putting mercury and other heavy metals into our water and toxic emissions into the air. These are things that are difficult to clean up. Radioactive waste is localized and transportable.

At 7/18/08 04:00 PM, Memorize wrote: Or, you know, it could further strain the relationship even more when the Muslim communities take note that the government is selectively choosing who and who isn't granted citizenship, primarily based on religion. Or more specifically: Their religion.

As opposed to them pushing their set of laws on the government and having the numbers and the political clout to do it?

This is called nipping a problem in the bud and, actually, the only reason this would escalate matters is if retarded people in the press make mountains out of mole hills about what the French government's responsibility to the world is, which they seem to be doing.

At 7/18/08 01:16 PM, Mr-Money wrote: NO ONE wants to attack America.

I guess all those people shouting "Death to America" are just kidding.

At 7/18/08 02:29 PM, Memorize wrote: Love the French logic.

"We're trying to ease the relationship with muslims in this country"

"Muslim woman wanting citizenship? Denied"

Because allowing more of the culture that's clashing with theirs in is better?

At 7/17/08 05:01 PM, SolInvictus wrote: i know, and i don't have that much of a problem with the rejection of that woman. i just find it hypocritical to reject her for being to submissive/extremist and then go on to say that those women are prisoners.

That's where the first part of my post comes into play. There are a lot of shitty situations in the world, but it's simply not in a country's best interest to try to solve them all at the expense of its own well-being. The United States acknowledges that millions upon millions of people are starving every day and yet we consume inordinate amounts of food. That doesn't make us hypocritical, it just means we're not martyrs.

The French government doesn't have to solve other people's problems, it's only tasked with handling the affairs of its own citizens, that's why it's not called the World government.

Also, another fun fact: 9/11 was the first instance of international terrorism in US history.

So, what's that you say? We've been doing a good job before we had to give our rights? The terrorists won't win if we don't let the government detain us indefinitely? Well gee, I guess I pissed away my rights for nothing.

The fact of the matter is, everyone knows we had the intelligence to stop 9/11. It's not a matter of how much intelligence we have if we don't have the analysts who can connect it all. There was no conspiracy behind why we didn't act on that intelligence, we just couldn't put it together until it was too late. So, how is it that getting even MORE intelligence is going to help us? We're inundating an already overworked group of analysts. We're hiring more people to gather intelligence and allowing them to get it from more places, but the increase in analysts has been relatively minuscule.

At 7/17/08 03:16 PM, hrb5711 wrote: So flamethrowers, hollow points, white phosphorus injure civilians? No. While yes we do ban some weapons that kill civilians, the ones that affect us the most are the ones they ban for use on combatants.

I believe the phrase "tend to" implies that there are exceptions.

I wasn't aware that all girls liked the same things.

Seriously, unless you want a bunch of lame, generic ideas, you'll have to give us more to go on.

Going back to one of my points earlier about how it seems that terrorists can be held without a trial, it seems that I was even making a conservative claim. The truth is that, not only can we do this to people on foreign soil, but we can even detain people in the US for conspiracy to commit terrorism and hold them without a trial for as long as we damned well please.

Ali al-Marri was arrested for credit card fraud and is being held in military custody because he's allegedly an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent who's mission is to bring down the US banking system. The evidence? A government official said so. Literally. A court tried to tell the government that they either need to bring up him on charges or release him, but it looks like that got shut down. Or, if you don't have bugmenot or an NYTimes account, you can check it out here. I'm not familiar with 'The Raw Story' so I figured NYTimes would add some legitimacy as an established paper.

When the fucking spokesman for the Justice Department makes a claim saying that al-Marri had "already received all the process he was due," added that the decision recognize the president's authority to "capture and detain [al-Qaeda] agents who, like the 9/11 hijackers, come to this country to commit or facilitate warlike acts against American civilians."

I don't give a shit what you're accused of. In AMERICA, you get a goddamn trial by a jury of your fucking peers.

At 7/16/08 05:33 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Nope. I caught the sarcasm. My anti-hippy rant was only on that post because... well, I didn't want to double post, and I hate hippies.

Thank God, you scared me, Funk.

At 7/17/08 12:50 PM, IETFB wrote: We don't, really. The energy and expense required to both escape Earth's gravity and then rid the waste bearing rocket of all its angular momentum (so it actually falls into the Sun rather than orbiting it) is immense. Not to mention what would happen if something goes wrong and the rocket explodes...

Nah, its safer and more cost effective to just bury it.

Bingo. The reason to go nuclear is to avoid the emissions involved in burning fossil fuels. Sending a rocket to space just seems ridiculous.

We have inordinate amounts of space for it and that's even with today's methods. As a previous poster mentioned, who knows what kind of advances we'll make, even in the next 10 years. Hell, we've discovered bacteria that feed on radiation.

At 7/17/08 12:23 PM, SolInvictus wrote: France now considers women who wear burkas to be prisoners. if this is the case then they have willingly failed to help the woman to who they denied entry despite being aware of her plight. nicely done France.

Fact: It is a government's duty to help out with everyone in the world's problems, no matter what.

France has problems enough as it is. Their immigration policy is their business, they don't have to let anyone become a citizen if they don't want to. Again, people don't have a basic human right to become a citizen of whichever country they want.

At 7/17/08 09:22 AM, Elfer wrote: We tend to ban weapons that kill more civilians than combatants. They're not considered inhumane because they're a nasty way to die, they're considered inhumane because they frequently kill people who were minding their own damn business.

For example, 98% of casualties from cluster bombs are civilians.

If you really wanted to wipe out all of your enemies in a given area, why not just use nuclear weapons?

It's not even just that. In this day and age, we can decide the exact pore on a person we want to drop a bomb on. Our munitions are getting so much more precise and it's not just because it minimizes civilian casualties. Using precision munitions, we increase the effectiveness of our attacks by enormous margins. Carpet bombing is just getting less and less viable. After all, a bomb dropped on a civilian is a bomb that's not dropped on an enemy.

Using more precise munitions doesn't hinder our military. We would be moving in this direction whether or not killing civilians was a concern. It's simply a matter of efficiency.

I guess that explains why the Earth is encased in glass.

Phenomenal movie. It really seemed like a modern-day fairy tale (a la Brother's Grimm, of course). You have an average, easy to relate to guy with a common debilitating problem that turns out to be a super power which allows him to escape the dreariness of modern life. It really takes the spirit of the old tales and sets it in modern life. It's really rare to see something do that instead of just rehash an old story with modern themes.

At 7/16/08 03:53 PM, jamboreen wrote: I think solar is a strong canidate for energy production, what about all those deserts that have droughts lasting 100's of days, pack some solar panels in their, store the energy, ship it out.

The latter two points are the catch. We have to develop energy storage and transportation. Of course, perfecting the cells themselves is going to be what's really going to make it viable. On-site energy that's more powerful during peak use, what's not to love? Storage is still a concern, of course, but it's not as essential for individuals as it would be for a centralized energy production site.

At 7/16/08 03:05 PM, LastSpartan wrote: Probably the dumbest thing I've read in a good while, but it got alot of laughs out of me. Especially the bowling part. Well done, sir. Well done.

At 7/16/08 02:53 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Wherein we decide that actual history is neither awesome nor is it cool:

No free rides here: ass, gas, grass, or ridiculous historical revisions.

At 7/16/08 02:47 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: You're funny.

In the blue helmet kind of way, that is.

Did someone forget to put on their sarcasm hat for the field trip?

Wherein we decide that actual history is neither awesome nor is it cool:

General George Patton (his given name, as decreed by God Almighty) was forged in the fires of Mordor in 1885. It is generally accepted as fact by anyone with half a brain that, during his formative years (not his childhood since he never had one), he spent his time wrestling bears and mountain lions for fun and profit.

Because wrestling wild animals and then ripping them in half is only fun for so long, General Patton decided to invent the pentathlon and then win it. Only then did he realize that this, too, was boring and he needed the thrill of killing men. Lots and lots of them.

According to history books, Patton then spoke the words that Jehova commanded and, from the dry bones around him, arose an army of exceeding might and power, which is referred to by modern historians as "The United States Army." He then decided to win World War I. Then he decided to win World War II. Both of which he accomplished single-handedly by slaughtering billions of Germans with his steely gaze and then using their leader's head as a toilet (back then, that was how victory was formally declared in warfare).

While he decided to set Kaiser Wilhelm's shit-filled head on fire and leave it on Woodrow Wilson's front doorstep as a gag (which currently maintains its status as the best practical joke of all time), Hitler's head is still on his mantleplace to this day, right next to his bowling trophy which he won for winning every single game of bowling there has been and ever will be.

He currently resides in his stately home in the Rocky Mountains, hewn from the very rock itself in his own image.

Well, it'd certainly look erotic, I'll admit.

While I did exaggerate, it's still a really hot issue and one that is exacerbating the other dividing factors (after all, while there were valid economic reasons for the conflicts, sure, the conflict was still along cultural lines). My point being that, while I don't believe France should completely bar Muslims from entry, of course, I think they still have a compelling interest in limiting immigration from people who refuse to assimilate.

It's a sensitive issue and I'm siding with France's measures to protect its stability. It's not a basic human right to gain citizenship to whichever country you want. France isn't doing anything monstrous and I can see where they're coming from. I fail to see a problem.

Sorry, I just noticed your topic and your body text are completely opposite. I was assuming your question went along with the topic title, but I'll also answer the question posed in your post.

I would not want my shit ruined by the giant stone behemoth Teddy Roosevelt became when he kicked God off His throne as ruler of the universe and then had Mount Rushmore built around as a memorial to himself.

Seriously, even though I'd have it coming, I'm pretty sure that he could punch my soul right out of my chest.

If we're talking about anyone in history: Teddy Roosevelt. That way I'd know I had it coming.

If it's only people who are alive today, I'm going to go with Clint Eastwood for the same reason.

Around the university I go to, none of that would work. Bikes get stolen even if they have locks if you leave them around long enough. A bike without a lock is as good as gone, no matter what precautions you take.

Not really an excuse, but:

"Oh shit, I guess that means I'm work pregnant."

Does that make me a bad person? I mean, I just got out of a long warranty with my old laptop and I just need to have a little fun, you know? Is that so bad?

At 7/15/08 04:53 PM, SolInvictus wrote: i never said it didn't.

Okay, then I'm wondering if what you're saying was a counterpoint or what. Were you just stating something as a non sequitur?

At 7/15/08 03:18 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: If I may play the devil's advocate...

Indeed, nuclear energy seems to be the most viable option, but what will happen after we've used up uranium?

That's really not even a concern. We have enough uranium to last us for an incredibly long time.

Also, what is being done to insure that we don't have a meltdown crisis?

Because this isn't Soviet Russia 30 years ago and we'll actually have qualified people running the latest technology? Current reactor technology can go without coolant for days, even weeks, without risking a meltdown, and that's even if the operators could willingly do that, which they can't.

Nuclear reactors are incredibly safe and clean. The only opposition is what to do with the waste. That's not even a monumental concern. True, it's not absolutely perfect, but the health effects are far overshadowed by what coal plants belch out.

Of course, the perfect solution would be something that doesn't involve hazardous material or having to mine for fuel. That's why I feel that, as it grows more and more viable, solar is becoming the clear energy source of the future.

Seeing as how there are plans drawn up for dozens of plants across the country, I wouldn't say that the issue isn't being ignored.

Either way, I think the biggest area we need to focus on is energy storage. We could have a great source of on-tap energy if we could harness off-peak production of wind and solar and use them when we need them. As it stands, a lot of the production is wasted.

A combination of nuclear and renewables is the best solution for the moment until we can wean off of it. The ideal solution is developing more efficient solar panels so that your site and fuel concerns disappear.

At 7/14/08 11:34 AM, Zoraxe7 wrote: I can imagine you can do stuf like play a real 'life' version of Halo, including re-spawning after you 'die'.

Imagine jumping around 'death' traps like the prince of persia.

You seem to have mistaken Heaven with Valhalla.

At 7/15/08 02:02 PM, SolInvictus wrote: the same people that took part in the riots were mainly poor, working class. damn Islam.

And yet, it was split along cultural lines.

But, no, you're right, it was an economic thing, culture had absolutely nothing to do with it. I mean, it's not like working-class French natives were up in arms against working-class Muslims, too. That would make France's decision to deny this woman's citizenship make sense and we can't have that.