What Taylor built though was a fusor though, not a breeder reactor. A fusor is basically a vacuum chamber with a high voltage wire run into the center and a place to puff in a bunch of fuel gas. With a fusor you get a short term burst of radiation, but nothing before or after is contaminated. With a breeder reactor you start with a bunch of dirty material and make more even dirtier material.

he's copycatting the "Radioactive Boyscout" who built a reactor in his backyard in 1995
http://harpers.org/archive/1998/11/the-radioactive-boy-scout/

it leaked radiation and he was picked up and his back yard was dug up, garage and all, and put into barrells and taken to nuclear waste area. The EPA were all in "space suits" in his yard, and he had tricked the nuclear regulatory agency and several places into providing him with info by faking his age and making fake letterheads.

the wild thing is the boy scout actually made a breeder reactor, but it was leaking a lot of radiation the EPA was registering radioactive material all over the yard and into neighbor yards.

Yup, dogs remain attached after doing the deed. Freaked me out first time I've seen it but I got used to it since my grandmother was a Yorkie breeder.

I see an future in academia.
-Hope his speech impediment is correctable and he doesn't scare the breeders off with his "nature of time,space, and matter" date openers!

Look OUT! It's Charles Xavier!!

yeah, video title is just a tad misleading.

We really should be using nuclear. Someone smarter than I on the subject should comment, but I believe those breeder style reactors did reprocess the fuel and on top of it, were impossible to meltdown.

the problem is:

1. We're too scared to even touch nuclear. It's become taboo. and the NIMBY mentality has set in.
2. Crazy insanely expensive.

I'd say the only hypocrisy here is why is it ok to go after nuclear, but mention solar and suddenly the republicans start crying socialism. Or is it just that republicans are so desperate to pin anything on Obama that they don't give a crap if they're hypocrites. You heard Romney folks, we should be looking into everything.

I have a question that maybe open-minded individuals such as yourselves might help me answer.

I don't give a shit if somebody is homosexual. Honestly I don't even care if you're open about it, kiss your S.O. in front of me, eat sausage seductively while looking me straight in the eye...whatever it's cool with me. What I do hate though, is what many would refer to as "fags". The obnoxiously flamboyant, gregarious type that needs to rub the fact that they're gay in your face. I know that guy is a stereotype, but he really does exist. I feel like if that type sees that I'm comfortable around homosexuals they feel safe and decide to take their anger for less tolerant "breeders" out on me. It's the the homosexual form of militant. In my book, they're the "tools" of the homosexual world: what rednecks are to white people, what gang-bangers are Hispanics/Blacks. How do I exist with that specific disdain without being a "homophobe"?

Firstly, looks as if from the description that the animal was owned by someone who like many dog owners in general, regardless of breed, fail to consider before taking on the responsibility of pet ownership; Before taking on the care and control of a breed as predictable as a pit bull they might have looked to the future when the dog was an adult what they were in for. Most people make emotional decisions when choosing a pet. Oh~Quite certain that it is illegal to own a Pit or Rottweiler in the city limits of Denver.
Most insurance companies require a special rider for owners of certain breeds as well-the rates are higher. That this choggie took on the responsibility would suggest that instead of having the animal abused by another idiot owner (notice The blame be directed NOT at the canine?) instead it be humanly cared-for and exercised, in a fenced yard. The dog also looks well-fed (no collar though).
Regardless of the situation, I hear the above argument many times, usually evoking some tragic situation where some ghetto-raised Pitbull has mauled someone. Again, who is to blame, the careless owner or do you simply solve the problem by eliminating the breed? I tend to agree with the breeders: Eliminate the idiot factor~Humans too ignorant to have the dog.
Bottom line is either educate the idiots who own animals without a frikkin' license to do so, or butch-up: The world is an hazardous place and the #1 animals that make it so are the

P U N Y
H U M A N S !!

"Oh my little fluffy wouldn't hurt a fly!?", said the elderly woman whose ferocious Pomerweenian, tore out the eyes of another elderly woman at a bridge party, this and more stupid human bullshit at Seven, right here on The Good Moron Show, with Katerine Stuffupper and Glans Deferens!

>> ^ponceleon:

>> ^Lendl:
>> ^ponceleon:
Gaaaaah. I want a husky!!!

No, actually, you don't. Ate the back seat in my truck. Ate my garage wall. Ate the shop vac in my garage. Actually ate everything in my garage...the phone line, the cable, the wall. Ate the wall and the stairs in my house. The stairs! Ate everything. My friends tried to warn me. I didn't listen.
He's now racing sleds up north. Ate their chickens.
GLWT.

Are you sure they gave you a husky at the breeder? I think there may have been a slight mixup and given you a very similar breed that looks the same, but has different behavior. I think they are called Godzillas.


See for yourself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwqq-ilGYeM&feature=plcp
(obviously I suck at embedding in comments)

>> ^Lendl:

>> ^ponceleon:
Gaaaaah. I want a husky!!!

No, actually, you don't. Ate the back seat in my truck. Ate my garage wall. Ate the shop vac in my garage. Actually ate everything in my garage...the phone line, the cable, the wall. Ate the wall and the stairs in my house. The stairs! Ate everything. My friends tried to warn me. I didn't listen.
He's now racing sleds up north. Ate their chickens.
GLWT.


Are you sure they gave you a husky at the breeder? I think there may have been a slight mixup and given you a very similar breed that looks the same, but has different behavior. I think they are called Godzillas.

@kceaton1 - bit of an over harsh critique there i felt. We don't know for sure that he didn't try and get the dog accustomed to the car normally but he just kept being scared, front or back. No point forcing the dog to be terrified when all he wants is a bit of affection/security from something which must be utterly freaky to a dog...

I personally believe the dog whisperer is spot on about being a pack leader. With a pack of dogs. If you've got one, you need to form a balance between pack leader and friend that you're happy with and the dog is comfortable with. Why else have a dog if you're not enjoying the company?

Also, a friend of mine has a dog like this called Blue. Has extremely blue eyes. It doesn't chew through stuff, and it's more or less the same as any dog i've ever had. It may be closer or further away from its natural wildness depending on what breeder you buy it from. And without a shadow of a doubt it depends how you raise it.

I believe there's a happy point between pack leader and best friend that gives both me and my dog the most out of living together, and i also believe there is more than one way to raise a dog correctly. One's rules are not necessarily better than the other, because the desires are different.

Eg. My mum has no discipline over her dogs, they run about, go crazy, drool over food right next to your face while you eat... she's not a pack leader, but she likes having dogs with a "personality" as she calls it, so that's what she wants. The dogs are definitely happy

Eg2. I give my dog his own lead to "walk himself" home. He loves carrying it and you might criticise me for giving him the symbol of power. But actually he listens to me better when he can carry his own lead than if i walk him on the lead - by now i know my dog better than any expert

This post is also way too long.

@berticus - the ads are based on your recent history. Now we all know your life is a lie...come out of the closet as a breeder, you phony.

ps: loooooove yoooooooou <3 <3 <3

>> ^bmacs27:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^bmacs27:
I'm pro-nuclear with almost any modern nuclear technology. In fact, if there is anything I'm against, it's preventing the creation of new capacity that could replace old nuclear plants (and maybe more importantly coal plants).

The main reason that Uranium plants were promoted was because they produce Plutonium for bombs. Still all for them?

You didn't seem to understand what I meant by modern. I'd like to see most of the currently operating nuclear plants taken offline and replaced with things like breeder reactors, or passively safe designs. I am for repurposing weaponized material for fuel however, and burning the "waste" problem in reactors that can use them. I haven't crunched the numbers, but I'd wager burning coal has released more radioactive material over the course of human history than nuclear power plants.
Or we could keep waiting for technologies that don't exist while we blow up our mountain tops to burn our coal. Your choice.


I'm sorry for the glib response.

Uranium fission still produces Plutonium and a don't trust that all of it will go into power production. Burning coal probably has released more radioactivity than fission plants (slowly and widely dispersed), BUT fission has produced huge amounts of long-term, radioactive waste which is haphazardly stored in an unsafe manner. If even one of the many storage pools is breached the release will completely swamp all other releases of radioactivity by humans.

Fission runs on Uranium enriched in U235. The same process can enrich Uranium enough to make a bomb. Plutonium is produced which can be used to make a bomb. The whole Uranium fission process was originally engineered in order to make bombs. Thorium reactors have never had proper government backing to be developed enough to produce power--any connection between these two facts?

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^bmacs27:
I'm pro-nuclear with almost any modern nuclear technology. In fact, if there is anything I'm against, it's preventing the creation of new capacity that could replace old nuclear plants (and maybe more importantly coal plants).

The main reason that Uranium plants were promoted was because they produce Plutonium for bombs. Still all for them?


You didn't seem to understand what I meant by modern. I'd like to see most of the currently operating nuclear plants taken offline and replaced with things like breeder reactors, or passively safe designs. I am for repurposing weaponized material for fuel however, and burning the "waste" problem in reactors that can use them. I haven't crunched the numbers, but I'd wager burning coal has released more radioactive material over the course of human history than nuclear power plants.

Or we could keep waiting for technologies that don't exist while we blow up our mountain tops to burn our coal. Your choice.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

This kind of thoughtful reply is all too rare on the Internet - and I'm proud that it's here on VideoSift.>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

@TheFreak @Yogi
Er, yeah, wow, I've been a bit of an idiot. It's surprising to find oneself called a reactionary, but that is indeed what my comment was, and you two are right to call me on it. But my initial reaction was just that - another homophobe, another joke about gay kids being murdered for their sexual identity, fuck that guy. But my initial reaction isn't the end of my thinking on the subject, so forgive me my knee-jerk reaction and allow me if you will to claw back a little bit of my reasonableness.
I agree with Louis that the gay community has missed the opportunity to ask Tracy Morgan why he feels the way he feels about gay men - such dialogue would be helpful in highlighting some of the attitudes people have to effeminately-voiced gay men. Since my speaking voice is not effeminate, many people don't guess that I'm gay on first meeting me, and in the period before they do realise (which is usually when I get drunk on pink cocktails and start talking about Sondheim), I've put up with a lot of blokey jokes about gays, and have witnessed the shift in men's attitudes when they realise that a gay man is in their midst. The gay jokes dry up immediately, which is kind of a shame because I enjoy offensive jokes of all kinds, and can usually counter jokes about "queers" with equal numbers of jokes about "breeders". I've noticed first-hand the difference in the way that people regard non-obvious gay men like me, and the way they treat the more effeminate and flamboyant members of (er) "my tribe". I've been explicitly told that I'm not included when they criticise gays, because I'm "straight enough". Sigh!
What I've realised is that, in a way, I'm more supportive of Tracy Morgan's joke than I am of Louis's rationalisation of it. Tracy Morgan can make such a joke if he chooses, and I can think him a sad man with backwards views on masculinity if I choose. Where I disagree with Louis is that he sees Tracy Morgan's joke as a kind of "progress" towards acceptance, but I don't see how making jokes about killing his gay son doesn't sound like he's "trying to figure out" gay male masculinity or that he's somehow less homophobic for qualifying precisely what it is that makes him want to stab some gays as opposed to stabbing all of them.

@TheFreak @Yogi

Er, yeah, wow, I've been a bit of an idiot. It's surprising to find oneself called a reactionary, but that is indeed what my comment was, and you two are right to call me on it. But my initial reaction was just that - another homophobe, another joke about gay kids being murdered for their sexual identity, fuck that guy. But my initial reaction isn't the end of my thinking on the subject, so forgive me my knee-jerk reaction and allow me if you will to claw back a little bit of my reasonableness.

I agree with Louis that the gay community has missed the opportunity to ask Tracy Morgan why he feels the way he feels about gay men - such dialogue would be helpful in highlighting some of the attitudes people have to effeminately-voiced gay men. Since my speaking voice is not effeminate, many people don't guess that I'm gay on first meeting me, and in the period before they do realise (which is usually when I get drunk on pink cocktails and start talking about Sondheim), I've put up with a lot of blokey jokes about gays, and have witnessed the shift in men's attitudes when they realise that a gay man is in their midst. The gay jokes dry up immediately, which is kind of a shame because I enjoy offensive jokes of all kinds, and can usually counter jokes about "queers" with equal numbers of jokes about "breeders". I've noticed first-hand the difference in the way that people regard non-obvious gay men like me, and the way they treat the more effeminate and flamboyant members of (er) "my tribe". I've been explicitly told that I'm not included when they criticise gays, because I'm "straight enough". Sigh!

What I've realised is that, in a way, I'm more supportive of Tracy Morgan's joke than I am of Louis's rationalisation of it. Tracy Morgan can make such a joke if he chooses, and I can think him a sad man with backwards views on masculinity if I choose. Where I disagree with Louis is that he sees Tracy Morgan's joke as a kind of "progress" towards acceptance, but I don't see how making jokes about killing his gay son doesn't sound like he's "trying to figure out" gay male masculinity or that he's somehow less homophobic for qualifying precisely what it is that makes him want to stab some gays as opposed to stabbing all of them.