I'm assuming that there is some sort of Star Trek universe remake of the scene from Spartacus, but I can't seem to find it. If so, does it have the same set-up (slave gladiators battling for the amusement of the elites)? I'm not entirely sure this makes sense...
There is a Star Trek episode where Kirk is forced to watch as Spock and McCoy fight as gladiators against Roman guards. There aren't any Klingons involved, but it does feature Roman clothing. There is another episode where alien brains want Kirk, Ohura and Checkov to fight as gladiators on their planet for the rest of their lives. There is a third episode in which Spock and Kirk are forced to fight in front of Vulcans as part of a Vulcan trial-by-combat marriage ceremony. Their is also a fourth episode in Voyager which features a gladiatorial combat but in a sci-fi arena that looks like the set of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire." Those are the only references I could find, but let's just say that this idea has seen its fair share of screen time on Star Trek.
I was wondering if the explicit naming of the weapons was supposed to refer to that exact scene in the Kubrick movie. Which, given it was one of the triggers of the slave rebellion make the original email seem possibly quite weird.
Politics, nothing -- someone who can read a review such as the one Mrs. Bezos wrote, and not once question his assumption that a 13-year-old wrote it, has extremely sloppy habits of thinking at the very least.
Maybe imagine you're a happily married account manager for a baby formula company and then when you go to professional conferences (of mostly women), every time you try to engage someone or get involved in a group conversation the talk subtly turns to nipple tenderness and mid-term horniness. It makes doing your job and life in general harder than if you were just another woman.
Something hot should not be thought of as inert, because something hot by definition is something with incredible internal velocity. But then there are multiple definitions of inert..
I think what you're saying, though, is that if you contain something extremely hot and dense, you cannot get any useful energy out... Because the energy needed to contain it prevents you from getting anything out. Right?
Because I'm coming from a perspective that says: if you can contain something like a small bit of solar core: and if you can let some of that heat leak to the outside environment: you can derive terrific power from the thermal dynamics at work.
The sun exists in the pressure-free vacuum and thus extends to a far less dense outer layer where the heat gradient (the argument against power potential per volume) is low. However if you could contain the sun into a smaller volume, it would have the same massive heat flux but over a much lower surface area and thus with far more power potential per volume.
I assume we're not so much disagreeing: over focusing on different issues. Is it correct that you're saying that the act of containment itself prevents the ability to harness the flux?
We might be slightly talking at cross purposes. I agree that something hot contains a lot of available energy. I'm making the point that it may not produce any available energy (i.e. inert in the sense of nuclear fusion).
The complication is vaccines have two benefits.
1. I am less likely to be infected
2. I am less likely to infect someone who can't be vaccinated.
If you want people to leave you alone then you have to convince them that point 2 is less important than something else.
We begin to see the true purpose of GAVI once we realize that its official literature contain thousands of papers, journals and textbooks on what is known as "Reproductive Immunology" or to the layman, "how to make women immune to pregnancy." A GAVI article from 1991 has the headline "The WHO Task Force on Vaccine for Fertility Regulation". Numerous institutes have reproductive immunology on their research scheme. And as we see, the method is based solely on vaccination programs and the WHO is deeply involved in their practical implementation.
Nah, it's South Brisbane. They knocked down the old exchange for the hospital extension, Telstra installed fibre, supposedly eventually it will be rolled into the official NBN network, but until then, we get rates way worse than ADSL and I'm forced to pay $30/mth for a "landline" which I never use... still, it's worth it for the latency.
Yeh, this is the thing I always find a bit suspicious about nuclear power. If noone is prepared to price the risk (and can also realistically pay out on a claim) then how can you ever come up with a $/KW price for comparison?