Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/28/06 11:08 PM, ironzealot wrote: phenotype are the observable physical characteristics derived from a combination of genetic and environmental influences, it has nothing to do with behavior

Phenotypes are observable characteristics that result from genetic and environmental influences. They aren't necessarily physical – a behavor resulting from certain genetics certainly is a phenotype. Arguing semantics (especially when you're wrong) does nothing to further your case, bud.

At 11/28/06 10:54 PM, Draconias wrote: If something about this plan seems economically infeasible, please specifically point out what you believe the problem could be.

Your post was along the lines of dispersing the waste into fine enough amounts that radiation levels would be "natural" again. You stressed the nature part. Simply braking the waste into chunks and dropping it into multiple holes doesn't solve anything. It would create multiple radioactive holes. The process of breaking the waste into small enough amounts that it wouldn't meaningfully contribute to radiation levels would be prohibitively expensive.

Draconias, you do understand what uranium is like "in nature," right? The uranium is trace amounts encapsulated in other [non-radioactive] rock..

At 11/28/06 10:36 PM, BanditByte wrote: The point I'm trying to make is not whether people are born gay or not, but rather is homosexuality the product of evolutionary change. According to trial and error: if this form of sexual preference was intended either the anus would evolve to become more elastic so not to damage it during insertion or the lining would become more durable. So I have my doubts whether or not sodomy is naturally intended.

You're working off of the flawed assumption that sodomy is an integral part of homosexuality. And EVEN IF it was, the assumption that sodomy would kill off small people / favor those with large openings seems wrong. The number dying from sodomy is small, and being "good" or "bad" at receiving doesn't seem to change your chances of procreating. Doesn't seem to have any effect at all in terms of evolution.

LOL.

Come on Proteas. Let's make a deal. You never voice an opinion in the politics forum ever again, and I'll do the same. Then we'll be the bestest of friends!

<3

At 11/28/06 10:13 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/28/06 09:56 PM, RedSkunk wrote: chrissakes.

I'm a paranoid sonofabitch, that's all man.

... Are you going to move or what?

imperator – you mean you're telling us that's not you in your profile pic?

Rooster, come on. Defend that asshole some place else man. =P

At 11/28/06 09:53 PM, Robbodestroyo wrote: There is no such thing as the "Gay Gene". Just think about it. How could a gay gene exist if gay people don't naturally reproduce? When gay people do reproduce, why don't their children end up gay.

Well, calling it a "gay gene" is an oversimplification, obviously. But if homosexuality is a result of biological factors, it'd be a combination of genes contributing to this phenotype. Most people would likely have most or all of these genes that contribute to it, but they would not be expressed. Telling people to "look at the basis of genetics" was kinda hypocritical, your post doesn't indicate a firm understanding of the subject..

I have not been persuaded either way in terms of the "nature versus nurture" question of homosexuality. I do believe it's a combination (but again, which is more important? Who knows).

But "curing" it? Why? Seems trivial. If homosexuality is totally chemical / genetic, and we can effectively "solve" it... Then I think we ought to focus on more pressing concerns. Say, diabetes.

At 11/28/06 09:23 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/28/06 09:06 PM, RedSkunk wrote: *Read's old awards thread..*

Why was Punk's account deleted??

... don't look at me, it was before my time on the bbs, man.

I'm not looking at you, jeez. I'm trying to watch the TV, you're standing in front of it

chrissakes.

And Punk had posted earlier this year once or twice. It must have been a requested delete, because he wouldn't have done anything to warrant it. But I wonder why the Fulps / other admin bothered to do it. They never delete my account >:(

At 11/28/06 09:17 PM, Jose wrote: What if we were to launch it into the sun?
Since we haven't tried it yet, are there any theoreticals on the pros or cons about such a solution?

I wrote a paper arguing for just this. But it's not economical in reality. And also, sort of dangerous. A certain number of rocket launches are unsuccessful, remember. A rocket full of radioactive material blowing up in the upper atmosphere would disperse it over a large area. No public support for this. Of course, nuclear-powered satellites and the like have blown up repeatedly, but this is on a smaller scale and I don't think the public realizes it.

At 11/28/06 08:56 PM, BanditByte wrote: The funniest thing about this thread is everyone except lapis seems to not know what the fuck they're talking about.

Thanks for the contribution!

*Read's old awards thread..*

Why was Punk's account deleted??

Agreed.

with everything, basically. Scary picture.

At 11/28/06 08:52 PM, Draconias wrote: RedSkunk, hasn't it occurred to you that this uranium we use didn't just come from nowhere-- it existed before we mined it. The radioactive "waste" is already there, so a very obvious solution is to refill depleted uranium mines with the waste from reactors, but diluted to relatively safe levels. From the ground, and back to the ground, doing as little overall "damage" to that environment as possible.

I don't believe that's very economically feasible. But please enlighten me if you aren't just talking out your ass. Prove that this is economical and that a corporation would be willing to do this.

At 11/28/06 07:32 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: I've lost, like, 80 pounds. I'm still fat though. Goddamn heavy metal lifestyle getting between me and my intimate relationship with buffalo wings........

Tofu wings motherfucka. The pizza place that made them has temporarily closed, plus I don't live in town anymore. But what I discovered? Ya can make identical-tasting ones by just slicing up your own tofu and dumping the Frank's on them after frying (pan frying works fine).

mmm.

At 11/28/06 07:41 PM, Kev-o wrote: Marxists and neo-cons are waaaaaaaaaaaay different.

I must say, Demosthenez's post was much more intelligent than yours.

The connections are interesting.

As far as storing nuclear waste being a permanent solution, we've hit a brick wall. You're entitled to your opinions Begoner. But it's a pity that you can't substantiate the single concrete claim you made. Next time, huh?

At 11/27/06 10:11 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/27/06 09:42 PM, Grammer wrote: Did you see her interview with Bill O` Reilly? I missed it, but I got a hold of the transcript on Oprah's website :|

I saw most of it. He put up a good argument.

Proteas whipping out some very dry sarcasm there. Sometimes you just kill me bud. =P

At 11/28/06 06:34 PM, Politics wrote: The fuck, I'm 6'4" and just shy of 200 lbs. Don't tell me I'm the tallest one on the poli forum...

I hear Shrike is pretty tall...

At 11/28/06 04:15 PM, Flashfire wrote: As always Wikipedia has a wealth of information. See the suggested reading and external links also.

The connections made on wikipedia are tenuous at best. "Some neocons are influenced by some people who used to be Trotskyists?

But that's interesting, it's the same thread as what this topic is asking. Funny.

At 11/28/06 04:20 PM, Begoner wrote: No, it's not. If our waterways are contaminated, that could contribute to wide-spread health problems in large parts of the world. However, if only a certain section of land is used to store radioactive waste, it will not pose a danger to other areas.

Again, I can just reiterate what I've already said. Creating radioactive dump zones is not a smart idea, whether or not people might live in that immediate vicinity in this point in time.

I believe that the area surrounding Chernobyl is now fit for human life. Why would any area be "permanently" unfit for human usage? We have the capacity to contain radioactive emissions -- gamma rays can be stopped by several feet of lead, thus allowing humans to live in close proximity to large quantities of radioactive waste.

The area where the meltdown occured is still an uninhabited wasteland. And the effects are still being felt. They'll continue to do so for generations down the line. And the French case that I already linked to is just a sample of how well we're able to store radioactive materials. You can't keep it locked away perpetually.

Here's a Guardian article about nuclear re-processing. According to it, 96% of spent fuel can be converted to plutonium, 3% to plutonium, and 1% to waste.

That is a totally irrelevant source about theoreticals. It doesn't say that France recycles 99% of their spent fuel rods. Please provide a source to your claim. And as an aside, perhaps you ought to peruse the rest of The Guardians material on nuclear power.

At 11/28/06 01:45 PM, Flashfire wrote: Perhaps reading about the trotskyist origins of some Neocon thinkers would answer your questions.

Further reading suggestions?

At 11/28/06 03:40 PM, Begoner wrote: It can be rendered completely innocuous by being deposited far away from human life.

That's the sort of short-sightedness that allowed us to dump our garbage into lakes, rivers, and the oceans. We have a finite amount of land on the earth, rendering any of it permanently unfit for human use is incredibly stupid. And I'll have to call you on your French statistic. "99%" eh? And reprocessing spent fuel rods still results in radioactive waste – that's one of the major contributors to the French dumping site Centre de Stockage de La Manche (one of the largest sites in the world) which is leaking. The wells of farmers nearby see 7x the amount of radiation over the European safety limit, and the farmland nearby is 90x over said limit. And the CSM was meant to only hold "low level" radiation to boot. url

Yeah, the byproduct is one whopping reason why I don't support nuclear power. The "waste" can be recycled and used again but that's sorta expensive.

Also the possibility of accidents and the idea that it contributes (indirectly or otherwise) to nuclear weaponry.

Yes, that probably would make sense, but my question remains..

At 11/28/06 11:18 AM, RedSkunk wrote: Wait, why did I come in here?

I remember now. To LOL at the fli wrestling pic!

=P

At 11/27/06 08:02 PM, WalksWithGrizzlies wrote: You do realize that you contradicted yourself, what eleven times there.

Could you please point out the contradiction.

At 11/27/06 10:36 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Forgive me for asking, but did Marx actually mention a global economy or is that your own conclusion?

I've read little Marx. I get my interpretations moreso from others who have much more free time on their hands. Ultimately he believed that what united people was class and not nationalities or false distinctions like that, eh? But whether this belief that liberal markets the world over must exist for the next step to be achieved is Marx or "Marx revisionists," I'll leave it up to others to decide. Either way, k?

Now you're saying that anyone who pushes for global capitalism is just a pawn?

I'm asking whether or not they are in this instance, yes.

At 11/28/06 09:42 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 11/24/06 04:21 PM, StrawberryCat wrote: You are the asshole. The guy has a point. Why should our brothers and sisters be sent to war to die while the politicians eat in fine restaurants and drive BMWs?

You know politicians have family members in Iraq and Afghanistan, too.

Haha, about a dozen of them. =P

At 11/28/06 07:38 AM, Grammer wrote: I have ideas for funny threads to make for when I reach 9k and 10k posts, but that's a bit far off

My 10k topic got locked. That sucked. >:(

Oh boy, and talk about weights! I'm 6' and down to 180lbs now! I've lost six or so pounds since coming back to college, but kept the muscle I built up over the summer (..for now..)

It's funny how I eat much better living on my own (at college no less) than back with my parents.

This is from a high of nearly 220lbs back in HS.. I was a chubby little fuck. Pictures from those years are embarrassing.

Wait, why did I come in here?

•passes out on the couch*

What I want to know is what a "driver's helper" does at UPS. Is it as obvious as it sounds? Just sort shit? I've never seen any little helpers with the UPS vans.. Maybe just a seasonal thing tho.

At 11/27/06 04:06 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: How do you get this type of job.
Did you do it in College.
Do you need any type of training.

My father worked at the same Post Office. Now that I have experience I could probably get hired at most anywhere they're hiring. But an "in" is definitely needed because it's such a gravy job for requiring nothing more than a high school diploma. Also, if you ever serve in the military than you've pretty much guaranteed a supervisor position too.

I did it two summers ago for a couple months. Business at these places ramps up in the second half of the year, so they start hiring more seasonal sorts of people by the end of the summer (when the holiday catalogs start going out). But the office I worked was totally understaffed. I ended up working six days a week and was pretty much THE clerk during most of the day. I received virtually no training because I was just there for a few months. There were three of us there just for the summer. We were told to follow around someone else for a day, and then were pretty much on ourselves. Needless to say, mistakes were made. =P

I worked from 7am to 6pm with a huge lunch break thrown in so I wouldn't get too many hours... But anyone who was here back then probably heard enough moaning + groaning, so I'll end with that. =P