@karelj: Didn't know about that, point conceded. I guess I just have a hard time remembering there was ever a time when Iraq had any semblance of a functional air force.

@Nitesh: This was my introduction to facebook. Anatomically it may be questionable

@karelj: Because it wasn't as if there was another navy out there, or anything to seriously threaten a boat. A guy with a rifle on a canoe probably would have been fine.

@starbuck13: From glancing at the text of the actual study, at least some of your concerns seem to be covered. Never trust the reported results of a study without reading the study itself.

@Daniel Dale: I still can't believe these things were used all the way up to the Gulf War.

@cicadymn: Maybe this is the way to sell Thorium reactors to the people who can you know, afford to build them. Between it's superiority over Uranium and that kick ass name, who in their power-hungry mind could resist?

@3eyes: But that point doesn't fall in BP's favor. The exact amount is yes, "unknown," but impartial estimates have been placing it above BP's claim since the beginning. The legally exact amount should be determined through the court, but that number should most definitely fall above BP's.

@Jason Silverman: It shows up on mine, but CPU usage seems to be the same.

@ParrotHeadFL: But BP is only "disagreeing" because it doesn't want to pay up. All of the outside estimates of the spill have been far above what BP claimed at any given time, and unlike BP the 3rd parties don't have their profits affected by the estimates.

@BoscoH: That does make sense, but BP chronically underestimated the amount of oil spilled. The "truth" of the spilled amount is almost assuredly far higher than BP's internal estimates, as put forth by reputable 3rd party scientists.

@BoscoH: The game is optional. We can still hate BP for this. Besides, what with corporations being treated as persons and all, they should be held to the same standards.

@spinnaker0: Alright, I laughed

@aquaclear: If it's also not changed since I last really looked into it, the gas engine never actually puts any power to wheels: it runs at some peak power load to charge the battery, which powers the electric motor which turns the wheels.

@Alexander Riccio: That's not even remotely true. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, "In 2007, national-level losses were 6.5% of total electricity disposition excluding direct use." Your math doesn't need to be great to see that a 6.5% loss doesn't outweigh a 10-20%ish advantage in efficiency.

@Coulter: But what party would he run under? Lately his opinions have seemed to line up more on the liberal side, but he was originally appointed by Bush.

@Almightywhacko: I'm consistently surprised and impressed by Robert Gates. I'd be fairly okay with granting him supreme rule of the country.

@ShanaLD: My guess? Because the point isn't so much that Pakistan or North Korea in particular will become the source of nuclear catastrophe. It is that the pieces of the great chess board of the world are no longer held by two players, and the number of players is increasing.

@jennhillca: As someone from nearly as far as can be from Kennedy and still be the US, let us see one of the damn things in person. You've had plenty of looking already.

@Aathos: I'd like to see the Smithsonian, some museum in Texas, and Seattle get one. It would spread things out geographically so more people can ultimately see them, and Houston/Seattle both have enough connections to the space program to make plenty of local sense.

@3: And to boost the odds the director of the Museum is a former Astronaut as well. Also, no way are all three going to end up on the east coast. That makes all of zero educational-trip-traveling sense.