jerryskids

Renewables seem to lack the fundamental oomph to be the primary source of power for large metro areas. Complimentary, sure. Of course, technologies advance, but it would take some revolutionary development to make it happen. Nuclear has that power and more, even current fission power. I have often said here that the lack of embracing nuclear is a sure reason to believe that the climate alarmists don't really want to solve the climate problem. Because if they did, we could pretty much do it with nuclear today.

I'm always left-leg first, although I'm right-handed all around, not like you lefty demon spawn. As I think about it, it probably evolved from being more comfortable on my right (dominant) leg as the one-legged base. When I did TKD, I tended to have my left leg in front, which is relatively uncommon for right-handers who prefer to kick with their dominant leg, but I preferred it as a solid base. Also I wasn't very good at TKD so...

I'm not sure why you think it would be so difficult to take a handoff. My slower speed would have a minimal time impact over the yard or two needed to get to the QB. If I'm getting hit before I get the ball, an NFL RB isn't going to fare much better. Have you ever watched American football?

Also I'm kinda thinking through this in a non-cancer sorta way. My laryngectomy left me with no left pectoral, breathing through a hole in my neck, and a weakened neck. On this last point, I'm honestly not sure my neck is strong enough to support the helmet, let alone take a hit from an NFL defender. So yeah, probably option 1.

That's silly, I could get the handoff. But you remind me of another question: what happens on a fumble? Because I'm confident that we'd have more than a few of those.

My heart wants me to try #2 but my brain says to take #1. I think I could get the 5 net yards, enough to risk it, but I don't think I could survive the 10+ hits. Chance of survival goes up for runs around the end, since you could probably control the hit a little better. Problem is, my lack of speed would offset the odds of gaining the yards. I'm convincing myself #1.

I've wondered how they make sure they contain the reaction. Obviously the smart people working on this have thought about it as well, but during the development of fission for the bomb they had to be very, very careful to not start an uncontrollable chain reaction. I very much hope that the people doing such analyses are the very best in their fields, and not diversity hires.

I have a classic Atari collection for my Switch. Asteroids, Centipede, and Millipede are probably the games I play the most. Missile Command and Defender are next tier.

The pope didn't say to accept gay marriages, he said you could bless people who were in them. What I've heard that has upset priests the most is that he basically left if very vague and up to the interpretation of the individual priest, which is very un-Catholic-like. But it is consistent with the theory I posed in my previous post, which is that a priest in the US may give such blessings more than a priest in middle of nowhere Africa.

Basically you ignored my entire post. Not surprising, from a person who knows more about how to worship God than Jesus did when he set Peter up to run his church. Well, I've enjoyed this riveting conversation, carry on.

This topic probably merits its own thread. Also, that's not exactly what he said. When Jesus set Peter up to lead his church, the one true church, the Catholic Church, he did so with the knowledge that God's message would need tweaking over time, but that it was impractical for him to return directly to earth for every instance. Jesus himself contradicted the old testament on many occasions, showing that God's message does indeed evolve as people grow over time. To think that all guidance for all time is contained in words from thousands of years ago doesn't make much sense. Regarding the pope's statement: religions are as much a prescription for a healthy culture as they are a worship of God. Most religions are against homosexuality, because historically such behavior was not good for a culture. It was important to bear many children because many of those died and those who survived were needed to work your land, and to create more children to grow the society. It is only very recently, and only in first world countries, where that has changed. The Catholic Church is global, and many of their constituents are not in a position to enjoy the "luxury" of homosexuality, so I doubt they will ever full endorse it. I believe that this statement from the pope is his attempt to have us "love the sinner" where it makes practical sense within the local culture.

I agree that in the US, Southern Baptists on average spend more time reading the Bible and shouting "Praise Jesus!" than their Catholic counterparts. It's unclear to me if that translates into more good deeds. I'm confident that the Catholic Church does more overall good on a global scale.

I'll need to look into the details, but on the surface this is extremely exciting news.

Funny, I'm a Catholic. Our church does a tremendous amount of good in the community which extends beyond the 1 hour on Sunday. I've got some good friends who are Southern Baptist. I remember hearing years ago from them that they decided to "accept" Catholics as Christians; I thought how nice of you, since Catholicism is the church established by Christ through Peter. Our very good friend and maid of honor in our wedding once seriously dated a Southern Baptist guy, who broke up with her because she wasn't Christian enough for her. My perception of Southern Baptists is that they are, not individually but as a sect, a collection of pompous dooshism which has decided (much like weepaws) that their particular sect is the only way to salvation.

I still don't get it. What is "all or nothing" to a "real" Christian? The Bible? If so, I disagree. If not, then what?

Got it. Where weepaws struggles is that he is a bible fundamentalist, in which case it is like you said, you are either all in or not. I've pointed out multiple contradictions in the bible to his worldview throughout this thread, which he basically ignores. I'd disagree with your general premise though, if I understand it. I think you can be a Christian and not be a 100% bible fundamentalist.

I haven't followed this exchange closely: what are you trying to accomplish here?

Do you qualify for the shipment of Viagra and Depends?

I had a plate inserted in my foot for a Jones fracture (5th metatarsal in an area that gets very little blood flow). Maybe 9 months later they removed it -- the theory is that the bone will get fragile if they keep the plate and it does not need to support weight. That worked well until the next year when it broke again. Whereas the first break was a good ballistic injury (landed hard on the outside of my foot), the second one was quite benign, just a slight rolling of weight onto the outside portion of my sole. Luckily I heard the snap and didn't walk on it to make it worse, so I avoided another surgery/plate. This was maybe 10 years ago. Every once in a while my weight will shift and I feel a little twinge. It scares the bejeesus out of me but I think (hope) it is just scar tissue in there. Good luck!

What's pathetic? There are already a lot of questions about election integrity here, right or wrong. If Trump were removed because some people don't like him (and let's be honest, that's really all that is, because he's not even charged with insurrection), some folks would be quite upset. Arizona used to be a bastion of libertarianism, but we've been inundated by people fleeing their shiotty blue areas (Chicago, Minny, Cali). It has been something of a boiling frog to date, but an event like this could set off some fireworks.

A federal judge just ruled that the challenge in AZ had no standing. Seriously, if he were removed from the ballot here, there would be a civil war.

Congrats and welcome to the club! Your complimentary supply of Viagra and Depends is in the mail. Don't use them all at once.

Well, it's hard to tell from your Wiki link, because it reads like somebody's term paper to justify that position. It is anything but objective. As I implied above, if you asked me if there is anything inherent to skin color which directly drives average intelligence, I would say no. If however a significantly higher percentage of people with a particular skin color evolved through many generations to reward physical vs. intellectual achievements, there may be a correlation (not causation). The Wiki link also defines "race" as a sociopolitical phenomenon and not a biological one, and questions the definition of "intelligence," so it's premise is to muddy the discussion such that no consensus can truly be achieved. Which, as near as I can tell, is what this article concludes, although you like to toss around superlatives like "most" quite easily in creating your perception of consensus. In the end, to believe that any human brain from any ethnicity, geographical region, etc. is statistically likely to be 100% physiologically identical (i.e., immune to localized evolutionary factors) seems unrealistic. But, as has been discussed when this topic has arisen before, there is no clear social benefit to pursuing it. It just rankles me to be considered "racist" by soft-thinking wokists because they can't grasp this concept.

Just wondering because I missed it, but what were the facts again? The only facts I see are test scores. Also for the record, I see no reason for skin color to implicitly be related to intelligence.