Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Theres quite a bit of exposed boob, so, I dunno about safe for work....

And yeah, that's the one I posted a news link of yesterday that it turned out that he is just a complete jerk.

[Flying Dice]

In local news, Dan Johnson offed himself after the story re: him sexually assaulting a 17 year old broke.

This is a trend I can support.

EDIT: I see his widow has already said she'll run for his vacant seat, saying "these high-tech lynchings and half-truths cannot be allowed to win the day".

A few reactions:
1. Eww. His body's barely cold and she's literally using it as a campaign platform. That's one stone-cold woman.
2. "Half truths"? That implies that there's something to the allegation.
3. "High-tech lynchings" is the exact phrase coined by Clarence Thomas to describe the Anita Hill hearings decades ago. It's virtually a dogwhistle to the right-wing base.

Yep, was just about to mention this. She's all but said that his seat belongs to her. Half-inclined to think that she talked him into it so that she'd have the opportunity.

[bloop_bleep]

I just saw an Alex Jones tweet that net neutrality was "invented by socialists to censor the Internet." Pretty moderate by Alex Jones standards.

The repeal of net neutrality would have to be defended in courts before it is set in stone, though, so there's still hope.

[smjjames]

I don't think Alex Jones even knows what socialists are. The term socialism/socialist has come to become a dogwhistle meaning liberal/Democrat/anything-we-don't-like.

[deathpunch578]

I don't think Alex Jones even knows what socialists are. The term socialism/socialist has come to become a dogwhistle meaning liberal/Democrat/anything-we-don't-like.

the man has gone on record saying they put chemicals in the water that make the friggin' frogs gay. I think it's safe to say he has no clue what he is doing.

Theres quite a bit of exposed boob, so, I dunno about safe for work....

And yeah, that's the one I posted a news link of yesterday that it turned out that he is just a complete jerk.

look, this is america. you can show the most gory, horrible, violent things you want, but no nipples are allowed. that picture is SFW

[Starver]

Theres quite a bit of exposed boob, so, I dunno about safe for work....

And yeah, that's the one I posted a news link of yesterday that it turned out that he is just a complete jerk.

look, this is america. you can show the most gory, horrible, violent things you want, but no nipples are allowed. that picture is SFW
[/quote]
The big boob on the right is 'safely' covered by pyjamas, it seems. A horrible sight, for sure, but more so as a basic sartorial error than one of intrinsic decency.

The gal on the left, meanwhile, has deliberately exposed ventral skin, beneath laces, and high-thigh exposure, but seems otherwise fairly unexposed compared with your average swimming-cozzie that wouldn't bat an eyelid in a holiday/vacation catalogue. (It's the combinations of the bits you can see vs those that you can't that makes it 'sexy', as with many things. And if she wasn't deliberately aiming at that then she should sue her face for conspiring to make it look like she was.)

[Folly]

Lindsey Graham is estimating 30% chance that Trump will attack NK after their next missile test, 70% chance that he will attack after their next nuke test.

Is it time to panic yet?

[Egan_BW]

*Counts on fingers*
...That means a 100% chance of war after both tests! Paaaaaaaaaaniiiiiiiiiiiic!

[smjjames]

An actual aboveground test would still be a hell of a provocation and the aboveground test isn't going to be done on North Korean soil.

What the response is depends on what exactly happened, and a small miscalculation on NKs part (like the trajectory of the rocket screwing up) could result in getting attacked. I'm pretty sure that NK and Kim Jong-Un know that detonating a nuke aboveground would be a risky move in the very extreme or they'd have done one already.

They can't do it on their own territory, the US and Russia had the luxury of wide open and remote places to do testing, NK doesn't. The only places that they can do it is over the ocean, but where? Doing it in the sea of Japan isn't an option because it'd be too close for everybody involved. Out in the open seas? No guarantee that Trump won't see that as a complete provocation. And in all options, the radioactive fallout that gets blown around will piss off everybody.

I doubt they'll actually do an aboveground test because there is practically no room for error.

[smjjames]

Well, assuming it goes through, RIP a lot of your internet, American members.

Wonder how this'll affect American internet companies if it does. I can't imagine many of them are going to want to host servers in a country where doing so can increase charges.

As mentioned earlier, this'll effectively change nothing because the policy this change reverses was implemented in 2010 and killed in the courts in 2012.

So, all the drama is all for nothing since what is being reversed hasn't been enforced for five years now? heh, figures.

[redwallzyl]

Well, assuming it goes through, RIP a lot of your internet, American members.

Wonder how this'll affect American internet companies if it does. I can't imagine many of them are going to want to host servers in a country where doing so can increase charges.

As mentioned earlier, this'll effectively change nothing because the policy this change reverses was implemented in 2010 and killed in the courts in 2012.

So, all the drama is all for nothing since what is being reversed hasn't been enforced for five years now? heh, figures.

I'm very certain that's inaccurate.

[smjjames]

Well, assuming it goes through, RIP a lot of your internet, American members.

Wonder how this'll affect American internet companies if it does. I can't imagine many of them are going to want to host servers in a country where doing so can increase charges.

As mentioned earlier, this'll effectively change nothing because the policy this change reverses was implemented in 2010 and killed in the courts in 2012.

So, all the drama is all for nothing since what is being reversed hasn't been enforced for five years now? heh, figures.

I'm very certain that's inaccurate.

In that case, I fail to see how it changes nothing.

[Akura]

The only places that they can do it is over the ocean, but where?

Doing it over the ocean would probably be worse than doing it over land. The fallout spreads further from an above-surface oceanic nuke, depending on the location and weather. A quick look at a map of oceanic currents shows that, anywhere NK could test a nuke in the Pacific(Sea of Japan included), it'll drop fallout on Japan.

[smjjames]

The only places that they can do it is over the ocean, but where?

Doing it over the ocean would probably be worse than doing it over land. The fallout spreads further from an above-surface oceanic nuke, depending on the location and weather. A quick look at a map of oceanic currents shows that, anywhere NK could test a nuke in the Pacific(Sea of Japan included), it'll drop fallout on Japan.

Well, theres a reason why everybody agreed to stop doing aboveground nuke tests.

I suppose they could attempt to aim for some random tiny isle in the Pacific, but I doubt their accuracy is THAT good for ICBMs, and neither the US or Russia ever did tests (outside of computer simulations) where they actually launched a nuclear missile and detonated it some random somewhere. They could do it in the high atmosphere, but even if it doesn't result in getting attacked, people will still be pissed at the fallout floating in the air. It's a situation with a massive cost and very tiny payout.

[WealthyRadish]

I can't imagine any practical reason to do a test of an ICBM with a nuclear payload; nothing would be learned that couldn't be better studied doing the two separately.

Above ground testing of nuclear weapons shouldn't be necessary either. The DPRK could still benefit to some degree by proving that they have an ICBM that could at least hypothetically reach the US (capable of carrying the necessary weight), but they don't need to actually launch that distance to reasonably prove that.

And even that isn't necessary at this point. The DPRK has enough nukes and enough ballistic missiles and enough chemical/biological weapons and enough infantry and enough artillery etc etc etc that attacking them in any capacity would just be stupid. The ICBM is just the final nail for that particular coffin, but the crypt's been sealed for decades.