Best Appetite Control Supplements on Amazon


Work at Home - Generate Income from Anywhere


35 Home Based Business Startups for under $500 - Be Your Own Boss





Garcinia Cambogia with 95% HCA Weight Loss Supplement - Best Fast Acting Fat Burner and Natural Carb Blocker Diet Pills - Pure Garcinia Extract


Ultra Optimized SLI Gaming PC

Find The Lowest Price HERE


Leveraging the power of the Intel® Core™2 Duo E8400 and the genius of the nVidia 680i chipset, Ultra Gaming is proud to offer our newest Optimized Gaming PC. Running at 3.0 GHz CPU power and dual video cards in SLI mode, this PC is a bargain at twice the price!
Video Rating: 4 / 5

Google Tech Talk December 16, 2011 Presented by Kirk Sorensen
Video Rating: 4 / 5

100% Pure Garcinia Cambogia Extract – Appetite Suppressant – Carb Blocker Capsules – 2100 MG – 90 Caps

Looking for something special ? Find The Lowest Price HERE


IdentityCloaker.com
Take back your privacy!

before and after women weight loss

Posted August 12th, 2012 in Bargain 500 Watt. Tagged: , , .

48 comments:

  1. masakruwolverine:

    This looks like my? case.
    HORRIBLE !

  2. AeroFix94:

    i was pretty intrested for this kind of PC… then? he said 9600GSO….. damn that sucks

  3. Rodhizzzle:

    lolp @? the motherboard

  4. hardcoretrollingFTW:

    why in the fuck you need 2? graphic cards??
    just buy 1 good

  5. Virgle144:

    Lol not? even using a ultra psu

  6. waseem1173:

    Hey i am? still running that processor

  7. BerriesMcGOO:

    lol yeah vram is not? stackable

  8. nelizmastr:

    that just? meets the minimal requirements, so lucky you 🙂

    I can run it on advanced settings with my gts250

  9. bornwisedistruction:

    Im pretty sure my grandmas? pc can run crysis 2i had a 8800 GTS 320 that i nolonger used and i could run it on that so yeah me thinks it can. ; )

  10. cal920c:

    thats what them noob’s do, thats why i don’t shop their no more? NCIX FTW!

  11. PenguInspiration:

    I could build a? better case….

  12. trunkmonkey23:

    so true?

  13. D0wnshift:

    Tiger Direct videos remind me of sleazy used car salesmen. They try to? make it sound like this crap hardware is “ZOMG 1337!!!1111”.

    Just watch Linus Tech Tips and Paul from Newegg. They are salesmen as well but they don’t try to blow smoke up your arse.

  14. xXfirewood149Xx:

    Crysis 2 is easier to run then the? original Crysis. Actually Crysis 1 was not even hard to run just 99% of the people used the wrong hardware recommended by Crytek

  15. xXfirewood149Xx:

    I lol’d when i read you never play at 60fps or? higher than 25. You have 2 GTX 275s in SLI thats well than enough to run at good graphics and 60+fps

  16. nelizmastr:

    but can it run? crysis 2?

  17. Phenomental1ty:

    lol?

  18. Goerletz:

    Bullshit?

  19. Ricky09ricky09:

    We should have a british show like this !!! We`d kick ass !! ?

  20. YouHaveMetYourMaker:

    I like my flashy window and LEDs in my computer. I hate running it at night. You can turn the fans down or just unplug them, but you CANT turn off the LEDs. I wouldn’t mind an Antec 300 with no window or LEDS. Really? wish I left more room in my build for upgrades. If I wanted to upgrade to what I want I need a new PSU, motherboard, video card, CPU, leaving behind the case, memory, DVD drive, and hard drive.

  21. vangstaz:

    I actually love the OEM looking case. It looks very luxurious and clean in style rather than a gaming case with a ton of useless neons, lights, and dozens upon dozens of noisy fans. More like saying? I would rather have a Mercedes than a ricer.

  22. daavee03:

    The case looks terrible for cable managment and air flow.. :/?

  23. daavee03:

    THE SIZE OF? HIS HAIR!!!

  24. Exzorzsist:

    I was wondering the? SAME thing

  25. krsjoker:

    this guy is not? a nerd you nob!

  26. munoz93305:

    Yhh,yh,h,h+h+hh+h3hyv by yh33+hht22$32?

  27. puncheex:

    I kind-of doubt that. What they really wanted is what they had – a system? for generating plutonium without any commercial competition at all.

  28. puncheex:

    You conveniently seem to “forget” that liquid sodium is not a salt but a liquid metal; it was still a solid? fueled reactor. The meltdown was not the fault of the cooling in any case. Corrosion of liquid salts has been overcome in other applications; why should the LFTR be different? Your assertion about engineering costs has no foundation; it can’t, because no pilot has been built to assess them. Nuclear power altogether was unprecedented in 1950.

  29. Fordi:

    I understood you; I objected to your wording. Spent LWR fuel can be more easily transformed into weapons than diverted LFTR fissile stream material – but not more easily than natural uranium. So I object to the moniker “weapons-supporting” with reference to LWRs or IFRs – it’s like saying that a rainstorm is? “dry” because of all the air space between the bits of water.

  30. hillerm:

    I think you misunderstood me.

    What I mean is that the by-products of a Thorium-based reactor are difficult to use in the creation of nuclear weapons. Uranium-based reactors create a by-product that can be utilized more easily in the proliferation of nuclear bombs. Hopefully I understand all? this correctly.

  31. Fordi:

    Additionally, since there’s very little mas to deal with, relatively speaking, (~1 T/GWy fission products, ~10 kg/GWy 233-U, compared to ~100T/GWy of mixed fission products, XXX-U and XXX-Pu), the? overall risk is lower.

    So LFTRs offer much more proliferation resistance than LWRs – but that is absolutely not to say LWRs are not resistant, or that they’re “weapon-supporting”.

  32. Fordi:

    Its diversion,? however, is easily noted (hey, where’s my start charge!?), and it’s basically the same stuff we use in research reactors around the country. We’ve already got security protocols surrounding that.

    At the fueling phase, there’s literally no proliferation risk. In the periodic defueling phase (i.e., removal of excess U-233 produced), proliferation is limited by the production of 232-U. In the spent fuel removal and storage, there is no risk, since there are no fissiles.

  33. Fordi:

    An LWR has high resistance at the fueling, defueling, and storage steps – first, low enrichment; second, high? radioactivity; last, high burnup meaning contamination of the 239-Pu with 240- and 241-Pu, which have gamma emitters in their decay chains (like 232-U) and a spontaneous fission problem (== premature fizzle).

    A LFTR has similarly high resistance, with one exception: the start charge needs to be fairly high enriched fissile uranium – 235 or 233. If 235, it’s entirely useful for weapons.

  34. Fordi:

    Woah there.

    I wouldn’t go so far as to call LWRs “weapon-supporting”. A nuclear reactor runs on fissile stuff – the same stuff any bomb runs on. This doesn’t suggest – as anti-nukes? insist – that a reactor is a bomb, but it does mean that every reactor type has a level of proliferation resistance at different points in its fuel stream.

  35. Fordi:

    It was politics, pure and simple. There may have been some influence from the idea that plutonium was plutonium, and the LMFBR made plutonium – but I doubt strongly that any of Nixon’s advisers on the subject were that ignorant. ? Agenda-driven, sure, but it’s a big jump to assume incompetence over self-interest.

  36. Fordi:

    The common trope in the LFTR community (started by Charles Barton, I think) as to why the US elected to go with the LMFBR – because weapons – never made any sense. The US already had means to produce weaponable material. Also, you either pay a lot? up front for the device to make pure 239-Pu (through short-term irradiation), or you pay through the nose in enrichment costs later to purify reactor-grade Pu (a mix of 239, 240 and 241). The former ends up being cheaper.

  37. Fordi:

    I disagree. There are legitimate uses for “conspiracy theory” – any hypothesis that involves large swaths of nigh-perfect secrecy, for example, the idea? that the US government faked the moon landings. That is a conspiracy theory.

    This isn’t though. The people who cared about the specifics of nuclear tech at the time were physicists with little political power and politicians who could gain from the side-benefits of the research (i.e., jobs). No one else cared enough for it to be secret.

  38. Arwiiss:

    Thorium reactors were discarded for one simple reason: these reactors were no good to make fuel for nuclear weapons therefore development was focused on breader reactors. Business was not interested in investing in development of new kind of reactor when they? could simply build already developed reactors that actually work and can make profit.

  39. hillerm:

    Spread the word everyone.

    If you get the public excited about this idea, then US politicians will follow suit.

    Once the US government gets excited, other countries will follow suit.

    Its quite an amazing? thing.

  40. hillerm:

    If we further develop the Thorium-based reactor? technology, we could sell this technology to opposing nations like North Korea and Iran as an alternative to weapon-supporting, uranium reactors.

  41. finefilth:

    nuke reactors in their present form are depopulation weapons…safer thorium was ignored? because of this… poison and depopulation their primary purpose… look how they built the reactors on fault lines and made them into sitting duck dirty bomb terrorist magnets,,,, the suckers of satans cock set this mess up

  42. getovergod:

    Fucking love you? science!!! Screw you religion!!!

  43. thekaizer666:

    come on man, anybody who? even uses the words “conspiracy theory” do not have self respect and decency, cuz they just refuse to recognize intelligent debates or facts in an objective manner. I make it a point to viciously snap back, or visibly ignore these dimwits in ANY setting. We cannot let the lobbyist tarnish, divide and conquer the platforms of intelligent progress. Feel free to thumb this up too and practice the same.

  44. Wayne Johnson:

    Anyone think facebook is waste of? energy after this?

  45. hwfanatic:

    Great video. Although, I’m perplexed as to why the Cold War wasn’t mentioned? as a factor in this presentation at all.

  46. hyperforce:

    Fusion is great when it works, but to get it to work is very hard.
    Compare it to one of those midget golf courses where you have to roll the ball up a steep cone to put it.

    You need just the right amount of speed, direction and skill? to get it to go in, get it wrong and it rolls back down the side. (tricky and hard to control).

    Now imagine thorium molten salt reactors are like a funnel. Yeah, much easier.

  47. RyokenMK:

    The worst-case predictions regarding fossil fuels depletion still have us running out of oil in 50 years, natural gas in 100, and coal in 150. We split the atom for the first time less? than a hundred years ago, and utilized nuclear power for the first time about seventy years ago. I think we have plenty of time to build thorium reactors, also, I don’t think you understand how electrical generators work. Using slaves for that purpose would be a waste of your slaves’ time.

  48. Patchuchan:

    Thorium is one of the best answers to the energy shortage there? is.
    It’s pretty much what fusion wishes it was.


Powered by Yahoo! Answers


1 or more persons associated with this website : http://eshcarmel.org are participants in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for blogs and websites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com -- Compensation Disclaimer : Some of the links on this site will earn a commission when a person makes a purchase through our links. Every effort has been made to remain fair, accurate, and unbiased. Also see our FTC Disclaimer page.