Seattleite

"Are you on crack?" "You tweakin' right now?" "Dude, let me see your pipe." "We have a report about a suspicious person. Now let us violate your privacy and personal space to confirm that your high energy level is natural, silly behaviour is related to frontal lobe damage, and no cocaine or anything harder than caffeine is on your person." I can't fucking win, can I? When my blood pressure is too low my cerebellum acts up, my hands shake, my breathing slows, my eyes lose focus and I get lethargic because I'm breathing like a sleeping person, so people think I'm on pot. When my blood pressure is too high, my frontal lobe acts up, so now that my naturally extremely high energy level is back I have a hard time remaining socially aware and do things like tell bad jokes, or long stories, or ramble for long periods, so people think I'm on crack. I need this like I need a hole in the h... Wait a minute...

Banned. You know what you did.

8/10. I'm a sucker for babies. Otherwise you'd get a 4 for low image quality and poor background choice.

Well, we're still shooting in the dark, aren't we? We can hope he notices. And yeah, I only know because of the wiki, but I tested it and it's true.

Well, judging by the release patterns, he is in hell! Development hell, that is!

Banned for arrogance.

0/10 for posting in an avatar thread without an avatar.

On that note: I've had so many people call me a stoner, insist I smoke pot, insult me about my "glazed" eyes, search me for marijuana because I "look" like I'm high (that is NOT probable cause), so on. I got SHOT. I have a BULLET WOUND in my BRAIN. It does weird things when my blood pressure gets too high or low. When it's low, I have a hard time focusing my eyes. That's why they're "glazed", okay? I'm NOT fucking HIGH, leave me the FUCK ALONE.

The issue is that it's nonsense. We're as likely to extract "quantum power" as we are to find compelling evidence steady-state theory.

Banned for hypocrisey. (In before BTG.)

Uh, BTG? 99.99% of the scientific community (and everyone else) agrees that the next step beyond fission is fusion. With a strong network of thorium reactors we should have a strong enough power supply to actually make solid progress on that. (And dammit, we need to. It's been "thirty years" off for sixty years.) The fact that we've been able to briefly make net gains for both magnetic confinement and inertial confinement fusion is a good sign, but that's only net gains during the time the reactions lasted, not overall. (Still a step up. We're getting there. The constant "thirty years" estimate just became "twenty".) As for nuclear weapons being made from the products of nuclear plants... Yeah, we 100% know they'll do that. Because they already DID. A LOT. Any power plant that CAN produce a nuclear weapons material WILL, and it WILL be used to continue producing the single most horrific weapon in mankind's history thus far. And while only two nuclear bombs have ever been used for anything, the way they were used is a perfect example of why NOBODY should EVER have them. EVER. So any reactor made needs to be completely incapable of producing any weapons-grade fissible materials. At all. If only to stop them to contributing to the problem. And yes, I know it's a bit late, but it's still worth it if we ever again achieve some measure of nuclear disarmament.

Banned for missing a joke so low-brow it didn't even meet eye level.

Bnned fur bad spelings.

Banned for calling professional standards "crazy".

Namely that they DO produce significant waste, it just has a much shorter half-life, you DO need to irradiate it, and it produces either highly unstable U-232 that is extremely radioactive or U-233 which can be used to make nukes. All manageable issues, but significant ones anyway. For the record, I'm STILL in favour of thorium reactors. But it NEEDS to be U-232 creating reactors, not the modified U-233 ones. Highly radioactive waste is a billion times better than nuclear weapon materials. (Well, unless we could tryst all the U-233 went to fueling our abundance of pre-existing uranium reactors, which it totally can but we know totally won't.)

Banned for not being paranoid enough.

BTG, there's a difference between waste with a two-week half-life and no waste. It's not problematic, but it exists. Further, there's no relation between meltdowns and waste production, although I've never heard of a thorium reactor melting down. Lastly, slight nitpick, don't call a nuclear reactor a "nuke". That shit promotes the myth that nuclear reactors can explode, which they can't. (A meltdown is NOT an explosion. It's just a runaway reaction, which results in enough heat to melt the containment system.)

Banned for not fearing the reaper.

I'm adding Black Mesa to the list of games to make a .cfg mod for. Should be up in a day or two.

Banned for banning the same person for the same thing again. Even though they deserve it.

Well, we won't really know until either we reach that episode or we get a statement from Ross. Until then, we're all just speculating.

OMG! Ross got a personal reply from Gabe Newell! He's not happy with the situation and promised to solve the problem ASAP! Also as an apology he funded us plane tickets to VALVe headquarters, a trip around the studios and a week stay at the best hotel in town I can't believe it! I even got a visa in a super-express mode! April fools? (Don't answer until the 2nd, please.)

Every one of you was wrong.

The problem with revolutions, other than the violence part, is that it damages the infrastructure enough to cause massive economic problems and potentially even outright collapse. Economic problems, especially economic collapse, ALWAYS result in an increase in corruption. The only way to avoid this is to find a way to keep the violence, and thus the damage to the infrastructure, contained. Like, if one side of the US went to war with another the damage would be (mostly) on the front of the war and spread across the losing side, leaving much of the infrastructure on the winning side intact enough to sustain the economy. The front, as it moves across the country, would suffer economic collapse but only where the fighting occurs, and when the front is pushed away towards one side, the other side's intact infrastructure makes recovery possible in the damaged area and prevents a collapse. If anything, the war might actually be GOOD for the economy as many sectors will see a sudden, massive boon due to the increased demand, and that means the money of the corporations and the wealthy will have to actually be spent instead of sitting in immense overseas bank accounts stagnating, something that doesn't happen normally because they spend very little under normal circumstances compared to the amount they take in. The problem is that this isn't the case. The US doesn't have a geographically defined schism. The fighting would be everywhere, leaving no places with an intact enough infrastructure to allow recovery. There would be no places where people would live regular lives, working regular jobs to produce goods and perform services related to the war, or unrelated to the war for that matter. The war would collapse the economy outright, because instead of increasing demand without hurting supply, it'll decrease demand and cripple supply. The economic collapse will not only make it easier for corruption to occur, it'll also leave a dangerous power vacuum, leaving room for radical parties to enter. These two things do not combine well. A revolution in the US is the nuclear option. It is an absolute last resort we should only ever use if things are so far gone that a complete economic collapse is better than the present course. We're not North Korea, we're not so far gone that becoming a third world country would be a step up. Anybody who thinks we are is completely insane.

We should stop derailing this thread now.