You truly are the Avatar of Payback, Bringer of Justice. Forever alone to heighten the feeling of pure vengeance that will ring through the air of every nightly encounter with your foes. Who has done thee wrong to create such a revenant of fear? Did thou awake during the age of man or long before? Be thee angel, count, or man of bat? Or perhaps Darkwing Duck?

*promote ferret foes

Internet helped me to socialize since I can't talk and hear well. I have more friends and foes online than in person!

When Morgoth in that day of doom
had slain the trees and filled with gloom
the shining land of Valinor,
there Fëanor and his sons then swore
the mighty oath upon the hill
of tower-crownéd Tún, that still
wrought wars and sorrow in the world.
From darkling seas the fogs unfurled
their blinding shadows grey and cold
where Glingal once had bloomed with gold
and Belthil bore its silver flowers.
The mists were mantled round the towers
of the Elves' white city by the sea.
There countless torches fitfully
did start and twinkle, as the Gnomes
were gathered to their fading homes,
and thronged the long and winding stair
that led to the wide echoing square.

There Fëanor mourned his jewels divine
the Silmarils he made. Like wine
his wild and potent words them fill;
a great host harkens deathly still.
But all he said both wild and wise,
half truth and half the fruit of lies
that Morgoth sowed in Valinor,
in other songs and other lore
recorded is. He bade them flee
from lands divine, to cross the sea,
the pathless plains, the perilous shores
where ice-infested water roars;
to follow Morgoth to the unlit earth
leaving their dwellings and olden mirth;
to go back to the Outer Lands
to wars and weeping. There their hands
they joined in vows, those kinsmen seven,
swearing beneath the stars of Heaven,
by Varda the Holy that them wrought
and bore them each with radiance fraught
and set them in the deeps to flame.
Timbrenting's holy height they name,
whereon are built the timeless halls
of Manwë Lord of Gods. Who calls
these names in witness may not break
his oath, though earth and heaven shake.

Curufin, and Celegorm the fair,
Damrod and Díriel were there,
and Cranthir dark, and Maidros tall
(whom after torment should befall),
and Maglor the mighty who like the sea
with deep voice sings yet mournfully.
'Be he friend or foe, or seed defiled
of Morgoth Bauglir, or mortal child
that in after days on earth shall dwell,
no law, nor love, nor league of hell,
nor might of Gods, nor moveless fate
shall defend him from wrath and hate
of Fëanor's sons, who takes and steals
or finding keeps the Silmarils,
the thrice-enchanted globes of light
that shine until the final night.'

The SW:Battlefront games were never terribly good, so it's likely to see an improvement with DICE creating it. I've just had a lot of annoyance with the bugs in Battlefield games, from the Friend/Foe mis-coloring of names and server filters not working in BF2, to the "How did it ship like this?" netcode in BF4. They have been slow to fix things, and when they do, they often end up introducing several more less-serious bugs.

...War on Invisible Foes
Disinformation Coop
INGSOC Rock

I'd tell my daughter that makeup is war-paint: Wear it to intimidate your foes.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/How-to-Dismantle-the-Patriarchy-with-Makeup

'antagonistic, vitriolic style' newtboy???...That's rich, considering my motivation for letting the dogs out on the most recent foray into realms thought so sacred and impenetrable is directed at the very mirror image you look at every day but are still unable to see with repeated blows to the skull with a blunt instrument.

You "have to" ignore perhaps because you are unable to see the log-jam of compacted waste material that has shaped your world-view and has rendered you incapable of dealing with anyone who doesn't smell OK to you, or who walks and talks like yourself, or who ascribes to the same Kool-Aid ® drink you have so frequently injected into your throat-snatch to offer you the relief from thinking critically about the world you inhabit, the bed made for docile herd animals with the shit you've paid in blood for to tell you what to think to get along in the paradigm you find comfortable. Get yer college-money back, recant on your commitment to university loans, it's a huge, sinking boat yer on.

I don't have to imagine the foes of freedom of thought. They simply have to spew enough venom in my purview to be able to be recognized as the same old song-and-dance then FUCK with me, and they get my attention.

I'm beginning to see that issue as well. He is the first and only person I've ever had to 'ignore', and I'm seeing now that the reason I had to do so (his ranting, antagonistic, vitriolic style) also makes it nearly impossible to truly 'ignore' him since he picks fights on every thread and fills them with walls of text, text that's still in my face because his target invariably quotes him, and the quotes are not 'ignored'.
I also didn't really have a personal problem with him...but I ran out of patience with the constant antagonism and apparent thesaurus driven ranting. When I saw every post seemed to begin with ridiculous personal attacks based on previously corrected false assumptions, I gave up...but I still can't seem to escape. :-(
You are not alone, and you are not the first to point out his lack of communication skills, he knows how he sounds and does it on purpose, I think simply to get a rise out of his imagined foes and to feel superior to them.

Hey moron!? We need to teach you and the other morons who's a fraternal dick-polisher and who's a 'potential suspect or civilian (criminal)-We got Johnny dick-for-brains here to teach you "newer" LAPD officers, just how to use all 83 of your I.Q. tickets to use to determine friend from foe.

Now, get out there and fuck the world!!

*related=NOT SARCASM

I think that you will find enriched uranium is not plutonium. Also, depleted uranium can't be used to make nuclear weapons explode, so I don't know exactly why you bring it up. To be clear, all nuclear nations main weapons plutonium has been made in a very specific way, a way that is inconstant with power generation. It is exactly because power generation reactor are so costly that they are relatively poor weapons materials creators, the method in which uranium needs to be removed from the neutron flux requires you to shut it down often. It is better to get a small, non-power generation reactor and crank out the plutonium. This is what India did with a small test heavy water reactor (CIRUS reactor). You need a reactor you can quickly turn on and off (and uranium extracted), then chemically reprocess the uranium, let it cool down, then put it back into the reactor. This laborious method is why power generation reactors are poor candidates for weapons material generation and why the current generation of weapons have not been made this way.

IAEA safeguards are important to make sure enrichment centers aren't diverting enriched uranium, sure. Plutonium should also have some safeguards as well, so don't take my words for a lack of concern or action on a world stage, I just believe for most, their concerns are blown way out of proportion to the actual risk.

But to reiterate, the relatively complex process to make weapons ready plutonium is why powered reactors aren't used in for weapons material for any of the worlds nuclear weapons nations, nor have any of the non-nuclear nations which have nuclear power and participate in NPT and IAEA systems been implicated in such actions. If Amory Lovins is the one forming your opinion on this, I would suggest a different source. It is like asking the CATO institute their opinion on climate change. I would consult the IAEA or some respectable international organization known for objective science rather than an anti-nuclear advocate. I, actually, fell for the same supposed expert (Amory Lovins) and was fairly anti-nuclear myself as a result. While there surely is some overlap between weapons technology and reactors, they are separate enough that safeguards can be highly effective. The existence of many nuclear powered states without nuclear weapons gives credence to their abilities. Only those countries who decide not to participate in NPT and IAEA systems have been the players known to developing weapons, most notably North Korea.

IAEA Safeguards: Stemming the Spread of Nuclear Weapons

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/S1_Safeguards.pdf

I think he is pessimistic is because energy use is also in growth, usually from coal. When you similarly look at CO2 emissions over the past decade, they aren't going down...every year is a new record. Even in IEA's 450 Scenario, "oil, coal and natural gas — remain the dominant energy sources in 2035"...this is a problem.

I can't find a notable environmental group that endorsees nuclear at all. Like the public, most environmental NGOs don't really make a distinction in reactor types. Nuclear is nuclear is nuclear. From friends of the earth to greenpeace, they are all pretty proudly anti-nuclear, with only local chapters of FoE even remotely interested in revisiting their views.

At any rate, I hope you aren't finding me to be combative or argumentative, I am not the best communicator of controversial issues. But I think climate issues are forcing us into a pretty thick walled box which will be hard to breakout of even in the most optimistic technological factors, which is why even if every single concern people have about nuclear is completely justified, waste, weapons, ect, we would most likely still need to build lots and lots of nuclear to even hope to address climate issues...they are that challenging.

In Soviet USA, police threatening to arrest tourists for watching a protest means the tourists didn't know their Bill of Rights. Got it. Fee fi foe fist...

Fee fi foe fist, I smell the blood of a statist.

I don't feel compelled to provide concrete data because I never took a concrete stance for or against scientific spending. Even when referencing military research it was because some people commented about cutting military spending as though that would have no effect on research funding.

My posts were to point out that the question of research with merit is a very difficult one to answer especially if "the greater good" is used as a criteria because "greater good" encompasses things outside of science and which may be much more immediate than the results of research (ie healthcare, employment, international affairs, etc.)

Those things being high impact and immediate could have a negative impact when using "greater good" in a simplified way because each person's cost-benefit analysis of research will vary depending on their circumstances. I can only assume that the greater good is some kind of aggregate so you cant ignore the individual.

In fact, in order to use the greater good as a measuring stick to even START this debate in a "concrete" way as you say, the following would have to be answered and I don't think you could get a room of people to agree on the answers to them much less a nation or planet.


Who is affected by the greater good?
What do we mean by greater good (greater outcome, greater meaning, greater support)?
How is it measured?
Over what period of time?
In what way and to what are we comparing it?
What terms is the final measure of the cost-benefit analysis? Dollars? Happiness? Health? Opinion?

You said your reaction is not fanatic, yet you're attacking me as a foe despite the fact I never actually rallied against ur stance.

This entire time I'm essentially saying "people need to be more aware of the larger picture when trying to answer this question because both sides seem to focus on the smaller parts that support them (and therefore come across semi-fanatic). Furthermore if a proper analysis is used then ud likely find some research doesnt cut the mustard and some is not as insignificant as it might have first seemed."

To which you've promptly replied each time explaining about how mistaken I am in my understanding of the importance of scientific research. I left a piece of your last post so you can see how aggressively you address me directly despite me never having said I disagree with, but only with the vigor of which people will argue scientific research even when the other side has a valid point...or in this case were not making the point ur arguing against to begin with.