Gene Frenkle

Screw the AP, from now on I'm getting my news from prospect.org. Thanks for the link.

That's one sweet site you've got there.

If George was still around, he and Dexter might annihilate each other like matter and anti-matter. That would be fun to watch.

Ok, but first, what about the Israelis with regard to 911? I'm finding it hard to be objective here, because I'm a huge supporter of President George W. Bush.

You might want to consider that it's possible to discuss a topic or make a point without coming off like a raving lunatic conspiracy theorist.

And this is why you think Palestinian terrorists are killing Jewish settlers?

What are your feelings on W's involvement in 911? Personally I think he was clueless and the Israelis knew exactly what was going to happen.

I can put up with the anti-Jewish rhetoric, but leave Yoda out of this.

Nothing like some good old fashioned antisemitism to make the day go by.

When does Dexter start up again? That show is awesome!

From the wiki article again: That's pretty cool that they were able to build something like this without completely ruining the area for local wildlife.

Like Tom said, they picked Florida because it's as close to the equator as you can get while remaining on US soil, which makes it the best launch point we have. Financially, it obviously helps to be able to land in the same place, but it looks like a tough place to build a huge landing strip, let alone two. Note the water hazards, should you push or pull your shot enough to miss the fairway. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Shuttle_Landing_Facility.jpg/800px-Shuttle_Landing_Facility.jpg (Ah well, I can't seem to get the image tags to actually display an image)

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense as to why they might choose to land at Edwards instead of Kennedy today. At least one of the reasons, but it sounds like you know more about flying than I do. The wiki article also makes it sound like Edwards has wider landing strips as well, which would make it a bit safer while they were still working the kinks out in the early days of the program.

Ok, I was curious, so I did some digging...from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Landing_Facility Seems they were still developing the facility at Kennedy during the early missions.

I'm not really sure. Probably something to so with the facilities at each place at at time, but that's just a guess. That bird's pretty heavy!

I'm happy to be proven wrong. Some facts to support your conclusions, please...

It costs a small fortune to transport the shuttle back to FLA if it doesn't land there.

Kind of like this thread?

Oh, come on. It's the middle of the universe for 3 of the world's major religions. We could give the Jews Texas and solve the whole problem if they were willing to move. I'm genuinely interested to see you expand on your point.

All good, man, I can tell you dig this stuff. Have you been a member at 4chan for a while? You seem to be all over it whenever any Anon or 4chan news comes up.

I'm interested to know what you felt the need to edit in such a post?

Yes, it sucks - natural disasters of this magnitude usually do. I'm not going to get hung up on it, but I'm not sure what you're talking about with the weapons-grade plutonium or what that has to do with anything. It's not like terrorists are going to storm the reactors and steal the fuel. As best as I can tell, the generators were swamped and destroyed by the tsunami and it seems like the Japanese should have had accounted for that one. That's on them for placing the plants where they did and some poor design decisions it seems, which is honestly surprising. Let's hope they do a better job at containing the aftermath. Spent fuel rods can be stored safely. The advantage to storing them is that future reactor designs should be able to use this fuel, making nuclear energy even more efficient, with even less waste. Engineers are hard at work designing such reactors as we speak. I'm certainly not a "pro-nuclear at any cost" kind of guy, I just understand what an incredibly efficient, low-polluting form of energy it is. It is extremely environmentally friendly compared to coal, for instance. Nuclear energy does not do away with the need for solar or wind power either, just as solar and wind do not do away with the need for nuclear. I personally think that we need to get away from dependence on fossil fuels as soon as humanly possible, not that that is some profound statement. Nuclear is a huge piece of proven technology that will help us toward that goal. Now, aside from Chernobyl, ask yourself what devastating nuclear accidents can you name since first controlled, self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction was started in 1942? Three Mile Island, despite all the press it got, does not count (if you do some research). Xenu, that's so dumb. It was a !@#$ing EARTHQUAKE.

That's the funniest thing you've said in a while! Very nice. I totally am, but I blame the Bills, not dental x-rays.

Right, the dispute over the "holy land" has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Keep telling yourself that at church on Sunday or Saturday or whenever or never or whatever - dude.

It was an off-handed, sarcastic remark. Why so serious?