beowulf

Members
  • Content

    5,060
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by beowulf

  1. I already provided my solution. Open pit mines don't compare to actual mountains.
  2. That was what I was thinking of and maintaining a frozen dam indefinitely didn't seem possible. Having a dam would mean creating a lake that continuously increases in size. So the dam would have to increase in size to keep up with the in flow of water. I keep thinking of friends of mine that complained of a water leak in their kitchen. The apartment complex maintenance men's solution was to use duct tape to stop the leak. Creating a frozen dam is similar.
  3. Money is always a determining factor. Keeping a 1 mile long swath of land frozen indefinitely is extremely expensive and is not likely to stop the water indefinitely.
  4. Saying you're not delusional right after suggesting moving a mountain?!!! That suggests you are delusional.
  5. Well, I think they need to be honest with how bad the situation is and then ask for help. I am sure there are many very smart engineers that would be happy to travel to Japan to help come up with a solution. It seems to me that they have not been honest about the situation and are having trouble coming up with a solution. From what I have read there is no easy solution. One of the solutions suggested seems pretty stupid. It was freezing about a 1 mile long section of the ground as a dam, in order to stop the ground water leakage. That's a very temporary and expensive idea. You can't reasonably expect to maintain that long of a frozen length of ground for very long.
  6. I posted 2 good methods to find a leak. 1) Locate where the water is presenting itself as a leak (and follow it back) 2) Start narrowing sources down. I never mentioned humans. They used unmanned subs to fix the oil leak in the gulf....etc. You are speaking from ignorance. It's not a simple task like stopping the inflow of water. The water is underground and coming down from the mountains. There is no valve to just turn it off.
  7. Suits only work to a certain point, from what I have read it's beyond that point. The leak is underground and it's much more complicated then the simple scenario you or bignugget are describing. Pretending that you know everything about the scenario and then Monday morning quarterbacking the situation is pretty silly. Yes something needs to be done. Pretending that there is an easy solution and they are just too stupid see it is dumb and condescending.
  8. I think you are ignoring one important aspect in your genius plan. Radiation. The radiation levels are high enough that humans can't go everywhere they would need to in order to find the leak. Also the water is draining down from the mountains. You really need to do more research before you stick your foot in your mouth.
  9. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_vic-crime-rape-victims http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_vic-crime-assault-victims
  10. I posted a link, not too bright?
  11. So you don't care about the higher crime
  12. Yes. That is why we have 4x the homicide rate of the UK. That is why we have so many people 'milking' the system. Etc. Etc. Personal responsibility is in fact, long gone. As such, we need some grown ups to tell people what is OK and what is not OK. Surprisingly we are one of the last 1st world countries to have this issue still outstanding. Europe, Japan, etc have already addressed this problem, and greatly reduced it. Nice Fantasy...
  13. nice try, but that wasn't my point. That just makes you a liar.
  14. http://www.thedailysheeple.com/18-little-known-gun-facts-that-prove-that-guns-make-us-safer_082013 http://www.click2houston.com/news/woman-opens-fire-on-group-of-robbers-at-dennys/-/1735978/21394538/-/3f3c2c/-/index.html
  15. You couldn't be more wrong with this statement. If no one had guns then the physically weak would be subject to the physically strong. That is because the weaponry available would knives, swords, bludgeoning weapons and bow and arrows. Other then the bow and arrow or crossbow, the others require physical strength and agility. The firearm doesn't. Although the bow and arrow or the crossbow do require more strength then a firearm. Many bows require quite a bit of upper body strength as do crossbows. Agreed. Thank god for guns, now hardly anyone takes advantage of the weak. Back when all they had was Bow and Arrow, lots more weak people got taken advantage of. What a salient point. P.S Has anyone seen my 300 Megaton Nuke, I have it you know....to protect myself against the strong! Just watched a really interesting documentary about the Nuke race. Funny most of the arguments you guys use to justify why more/bigger/deadlier weapons are 'needed' is the same reason they have for building more/bigger/deadlier bombs. You guys must be right. I know the consensus is that thousands of nuclear weapons makes the world safer. There are plenty of stories of firearms being used by physically weak people to defend themselves.
  16. You couldn't be more wrong with this statement. If no one had guns then the physically weak would be subject to the physically strong. That is because the weaponry available would knives, swords, bludgeoning weapons and bow and arrows. Other then the bow and arrow or crossbow, the others require physical strength and agility. The firearm doesn't. Although the bow and arrow or the crossbow do require more strength then a firearm. Many bows require quite a bit of upper body strength as do crossbows.
  17. Sliders are real! Lot's of restaurants have them. Taste good too.
  18. How do you know that? None of the mass murders were done with a fully automatic weapon. Do you have any experience with firearms?
  19. FYI, the AR15 is a semi automatic weapon. Fully automatic weapons are very expensive to legally purchase here in the US. The Newtown murders were done with a semi automatic AR 15. There have not been any recent crimes committed with a legally owned fully automatic weapon. "Who needs an AR-15?" Well the AR 15 is the most popular semi automatic rifle in the US. So lots of people have decided they need it for various reasons. It's been used for self defense, hunting and sporting reasons. As far as murders are concerned it's the least used fire arm, less then one percent. Banning it would not be likely to have any affect on crime. The thing with banning things is it doesn't make them go away. The criminals don't care if you ban them.
  20. Elon Musk's "success" with Tesla is due to his political connections more then anything. If he didn't have that he wouldn't be building electric cars. They aren't economically viable.
  21. The subsidies for electric cars are an attempt get people to buy something that isn't economically viable in the first place. That's a far cry from engineering bridges to handle heavy loads, which are necessary for industry. "free air traffic control for air travel", it isn't free. Our taxes pay for that. Tax breaks for SUV's is a bad idea and isn't near as much as the subsidies for electric cars. It doesn't compare.
  22. Normiss's point here was regarding the subsidies provided for electric cars and bilvon pretended to not understand that.
  23. snark = doesn't like to have a dishonest answer pointed out Content = pretending to not understand normiss's point when formulating your answer. there I spelled it out for you, happy now?