Fuel efficiency isn't a safety thing? What, exactly, do you think happens to all of Western Society when we hit peak oil?
We go nuclear
That's so simplistic it's idiotic. I'm sorry, but you're making a ridiculous point.
Show me an electric fighter jet. An electric cruise missile? Are any actually on the horizon? How about an electric APC?
The military had a nuclear jet in the works but they could never figure out what to do with the waste; the beast plane was to dump it; just as commercial flights dump the passengers feces.
There was also the trail of fallout that the engine created, IIRC. A real-life chemtrail that would actually sterizilize civilians.
We must not let the folks at Coast to Coast find out about this; they will go crays with their ancient alien theory's.
just as commercial flights dump the passengers feces.
LIES.
On the CRJ-200 (a typical commuter jet) the waste from the toilet is stored in a tank and is off loaded after landing much like an RV, waste water (grey water) from the bathroom and galley sinks is vented directly overboard through heated vents (to prevent the water from freezing) the water hits the airstream and is instantly turned into a fine mist. As happens when you're going at 400MPH.
just as commercial flights dump the passengers feces.
LIES.
On the CRJ-200 (a typical commuter jet) the waste from the toilet is stored in a tank and is off loaded after landing much like an RV, waste water (grey water) from the bathroom and galley sinks is vented directly overboard through heated vents (to prevent the water from freezing) the water hits the airstream and is instantly turned into a fine mist. As happens when you're going at 400MPH.
My uncle who serves in the National Guard. I guess I reinterpreted it a little. He told me that most vehicles use diesel as fuel, but it didn't occur to me that they would be multi-faceted.
Oh, that makes perfect sense - He's right, most vehicles do use diesel as fuel, that's what they put in them most often. It's got better fuel economy and the engines are both tougher, and much easier to repair and maintain. However, like I said, the engines they're using are capable of running on damned near anything - It's seen as very desirable in a millitary vehicle, because that way you're not utterly fucked if you're cut off from the nearest friendly depo with refueling equipment, or other regular fuel supplies.
It's alright, I can see where you went wrong there, and it's an understandable and entirely normal mistake to make. It's not like multi-fuel engines are common in consumer vehicles, at least, not multi-fuel engines that are that adaptable, mostly they just run either ethanol or petrol.
And people think it's weird that I'm squicky about anal.
As an aside, it's not weird. ;^) I've personally never seen the appeal as a mostly hetersexual male engaging in sexual intercourse with a female.
Things that Rym agrees with aren't weird. ;-)
Seriously, though, I don't think it's weird to be put off by the idea of sticking your sensitive body parts into waste producing orifices any more than it's weird that you wouldn't want to eat feces or otherwise interact with them. It's a pretty natural aversion.
And people think it's weird that I'm squicky about anal.
As an aside, it's not weird. ;^) I've personally never seen the appeal as a mostly hetersexual male engaging in sexual intercourse with a female.
Things that Rym agrees with aren't weird. ;-)
Seriously, though, I don't think it's weird to be put off by the idea of sticking your sensitive body parts into waste producing orifices any more than it's weird that you wouldn't want to eat feces or otherwise interact with them. It's a pretty natural aversion.
I should clarify: when compared to other things that I don't find squicky.
And people think it's weird that I'm squicky about anal.
As an aside, it's not weird. ;^) I've personally never seen the appeal as a mostly hetersexual male engaging in sexual intercourse with a female.
Things that Rym agrees with aren't weird. ;-)
Seriously, though, I don't think it's weird to be put off by the idea of sticking your sensitive body parts into waste producing orifices any more than it's weird that you wouldn't want to eat feces or otherwise interact with them. It's a pretty natural aversion.
I should clarify: when compared to other things that I don't find squicky.
If you're into scat play then I think I'm not allowed to talk to you anymore.
And people think it's weird that I'm squicky about anal.
As an aside, it's not weird. ;^) I've personally never seen the appeal as a mostly hetersexual male engaging in sexual intercourse with a female.
Things that Rym agrees with aren't weird. ;-)
Seriously, though, I don't think it's weird to be put off by the idea of sticking your sensitive body parts into waste producing orifices any more than it's weird that you wouldn't want to eat feces or otherwise interact with them. It's a pretty natural aversion.
I should clarify: when compared to other things that I don't find squicky.
Um like what? Making sausage? No, no, I think you're making up that people think it's weird. I'm pretty sure just about everyone thinks it's just fine and normal.
I also want all elected officials to HAVE to convert all of their investments into government bonds.
Okay, out of curiosity, just what you think this would accomplish?
I mean, I can see the point of wanting to avoid any potential conflict of interest with elected officials promoting companies/industries/etc. they happen to have invested in over others. However, a proper blind trust with proper safeguards against elected officials peeking into the trust to see how the investments are doing should be sufficient. Mind you, I know that this is more or less what we have now (at least for presidents, not sure about other officials), but more oversight in this may be beneficial.
I also concede that even with a blind trust, if an elected official knows beforehand where they have invested, they may decide to still promote those investments under the assumption that they would still be invested in them.
Perhaps a better solution would be to require elected officials to convert all their investments to cash and then have that go into a blind trust that's properly maintained to make sure that they have no knowledge as to where their money is going. This trust could be maintained by the government itself, similar to how many government pension programs invest in private industry to get appropriate rates of return.
The main problem with converting investments to government bonds is that their rates of return are not as high as those of private investments (although, to be fair, their risk is also significantly lower).
Bonds would still be best. Even a blind trust is not really blind. If the candidate supports widget factories the blind trust will invest the money to benefit from that support .
Elected officials are supposed to make the country richer not just themselves .
Bonds would still be best. Even a blind trust is not really blind. If the candidate supports widget factories the blind trust will invest the money to benefit from that support .
Elected officials are supposed to make the country richer not just themselves .
It depends on how the blind trust is set up. If there is only a single manager (and "manager" may refer to a group of managers or something that work in concert with each other) that all candidates are required to rely on, regardless of what they personally support, then individual candidates should be sufficiently insulated from the trust that their political stances should not matter. For example, if Candidate Alice supports widget factories but Candidate Bob supports gizmo factories and they're using the same trust fund, then said trust cannot invest in widget factories to the detriment of gizmo factories and vice versa. In fact, this may be some sort of impetus to help make the country richer as Alice and Bob will need to worry about legislation geared to help all industries as they'd have no idea which industries are being invested in by their common blind trust.
And people think it's weird that I'm squicky about anal.
As an aside, it's not weird. ;^) I've personally never seen the appeal as a mostly hetersexual male engaging in sexual intercourse with a female.
Things that Rym agrees with aren't weird. ;-)
Seriously, though, I don't think it's weird to be put off by the idea of sticking your sensitive body parts into waste producing orifices any more than it's weird that you wouldn't want to eat feces or otherwise interact with them. It's a pretty natural aversion.
I should clarify: when compared to other things that I don't find squicky.
Um like what? Making sausage? No, no, I think you're making up that people think it's weird. I'm pretty sure just about everyone thinks it's just fine and normal.
I've had a couple of weird looks and the quizzical "Really?" But I'm also an exaggerator.
I think it's weird that anyone would be squicked out by meat processing. It's so much fun!
Comments
On the CRJ-200 (a typical commuter jet) the waste from the toilet is stored in a tank and is off loaded after landing much like an RV, waste water (grey water) from the bathroom and galley sinks is vented directly overboard through heated vents (to prevent the water from freezing) the water hits the airstream and is instantly turned into a fine mist. As happens when you're going at 400MPH.
I love you too, Nine, let's run away.
It's alright, I can see where you went wrong there, and it's an understandable and entirely normal mistake to make. It's not like multi-fuel engines are common in consumer vehicles, at least, not multi-fuel engines that are that adaptable, mostly they just run either ethanol or petrol.
Seriously, though, I don't think it's weird to be put off by the idea of sticking your sensitive body parts into waste producing orifices any more than it's weird that you wouldn't want to eat feces or otherwise interact with them. It's a pretty natural aversion.
I mean, I can see the point of wanting to avoid any potential conflict of interest with elected officials promoting companies/industries/etc. they happen to have invested in over others. However, a proper blind trust with proper safeguards against elected officials peeking into the trust to see how the investments are doing should be sufficient. Mind you, I know that this is more or less what we have now (at least for presidents, not sure about other officials), but more oversight in this may be beneficial.
I also concede that even with a blind trust, if an elected official knows beforehand where they have invested, they may decide to still promote those investments under the assumption that they would still be invested in them.
Perhaps a better solution would be to require elected officials to convert all their investments to cash and then have that go into a blind trust that's properly maintained to make sure that they have no knowledge as to where their money is going. This trust could be maintained by the government itself, similar to how many government pension programs invest in private industry to get appropriate rates of return.
The main problem with converting investments to government bonds is that their rates of return are not as high as those of private investments (although, to be fair, their risk is also significantly lower).
So here's this:
Elected officials are supposed to make the country richer not just themselves .
I think it's weird that anyone would be squicked out by meat processing. It's so much fun!