As others have pointed out, the plant weathered the earthquake just fine. It was the tsunami that the quake generated that caused the problems, at one of the four nuclear power plants within the area of destrcuction. That and the deaths and injuries that resulted from the damage the tsunami did to other industrial facilities (chemical plants, for example) far outnumber that have resulted from the damage to nuclear plants. According to one source I read, the other nuclear plants were being used to shelter refugees because they were among the few buildings that survived the earthquake and tsunami intact (with heat and electricity as well).
Let's see, you are recommending that a business that received a threatening letter from the police union take that letter to the police. These are the police, some of whom addressed the protesters and said that if this law passed there would be violent retribution, who elected the person who signed the letter as head of their union.
I think the proper comparison is to the letters that the police and fire fighters' unions sent to business that contributed to Governor Walker's campaign in last year's election that contained veiled threats if those businesses failed to publicly express opposition to the budget bill that Wisconsin just passed. There is also the cases of Democratic Party affiliated groups using the open records laws to gather the information of people who signed petitions for referendum they opposed and then protesting at those individual's businesses and/or place of employment.
I find it interesting that until the Republican Party starts to use Open Records laws in this way, no one expresses much concern over Democratic Party affiliated groups doing the same thing.
Two factors, one, most reports that rate the healthcare delivery in various countries heavily weight whether or not the government pays for healthcare. Thus if in country A, the government does not pay for healthcare and in country B the government does pay for healthcare, the reports will rate country B's healthcare as being much better than country A's, even if all other things are equal (actually even if all other things favor country A, but that is a more complicated debate). That means that none of those reports can be used to determine if the government paying for healthcare results in better healthcare or not, since they define the government paying for it as better healthcare.
The reason that using longevity as a measure of comparing healthcare between the U.S. and other first world countries is twofold. First, the U.S. has a much larger population than other first world countries distributed over a much larger, more diverse geographic area. Second, U.S. population is much more heterogeneous than the population of other first world countries. An example of why this is significant, Japan has a longer expected lifespan than the U.S. and thus is used as an example of a country with better healthcare than the U.S., yet Japanese living in the U.S. have a longer expected lifespan than those living in Japan.
When I say serious illness, I do not mean some generic category. I mean pick a serious illness, say colon cancer, or diabetes, or heart disease, or lung cancer, or AIDS, or etc. In most, if not all of those cases, your prognosis if you are diagnosed with it is better in the U.S. than elsewhere in the world.
You missed the part where I said that Federal tax revenues have been between 18-19% no matter what the tax rate. This means even when the top marginal tax rate was 90%.
You do know that most measures used to compare medical care between countries weighs how much of it the government pays for rather heavily, don't you? And as far as metrics of health care goes one of the best I can think of is, what is your prognosis if you are diagnosed with a serious illness. By that metric, U.S. health care outstrips most other countries.
For no commercials, whetever show I wanted whenever I wanted, I might go as high as $10 a month...Of course then I would have to cut back on what channels I watch. That wouldn't be much of a hardship, since if I could watch the shows I like whenever I want to watch, I would not need to watch as many channels to find something I'm interested in when I want to watch TV.
Are any of these channels streaming their shows yet? Or in any other way making them available on non-TV devices? Have any of these channels even announced that they are going to do so? If not, then Time Warner is not using its position to screw them over. It is using its position to provide a service that their customers desire.
An important thing to note is that Time Warner is not going to allow you to stream these shows to your Ipad whenever you want. They are going to make it possible for you to watch these shows on your Ipad instead of on your TV (or in addition to your TV), this is no different than if you had a TV that received the show wirelessly from your cable box.
This is the comment I have been looking for. This is not about additional revenue (if it was they would be talking about raising fuel taxes), it is about tracking people. Although it is also about pushing people to use public transportation as well, because people who use public transportation are more receptive to government regulation of their lives (not all of them, but in general).
We can debate what they should cut later, but the first thing to understand is that they have to cut something. Historically, the federal government has collected between 18-19% of GDP in tax revenues, year in and year out, no matter what the tax rates. Until recently, Federal spending was between 20-22% of GDP. I think right there we can see that there is a problem. However, recently (the last 3 or four years, I would have to search for my source to get which year this change started in) federal spending has risen to right around 25% of GDP (I believe it is just shy of 25%, but that may be an incorrect recollection).
It is not sustainable to continue spending more than you take in year in and year out, especially not when the gap between the two starts to widen.
Would you tell young people that Social Security won't be there for them when they are elderly,...
If we do not reduce government spending soon, it won't be there for them when they are elderly, whether we tell them that or not.
No what this means is that it will be harder for U.S. companies to compete with foreign companies. It will mean that U.S. companies will not be able (or it will be more expensive for them to do so) to buy from foreign companies that may or may not be using pirated software. This means that the production cost for U.S. companies will be higher than for foreign companies. Even if these laws are set up so that they place the same limits on a foreign company that sells in the U.S., it still means that U.S. companies will be at a disadvantage selling in other countries.
Philosophically, I have a problem with this law because it holds someone accountable for crimes committed by someone else without the first person's knowledge. The only way I would find these laws acceptable is if it was necessary to prove that the company being sued knew that their supplier was using pirated software when they bought supplies from them.
You apparently missed the poster who noted the article about how some people exposed toradiation as a result of bombing Nagasaki and/or Hiroshima lived longer than their peers who were not exposed to any radiation. There are several studies which suggest that our belief that long term exposure to low levels of radiation are harmful is not only wrong, but the reverse of the actual facts. These studies are not conclusive, merely suggestive of something that requires more study.
the desire for maximising profit at inappropriate risk.
So you think we need to do a lot more work before we deploy wind farms? Considering that over the last ten years there have been 44 deaths worldwide associated with wind farms and 7 deaths worldwide related to nuclear power plants (I'm not sure if this number includes the current situation) if nuclear power is not yet safe enough, then wind power has a long way to go.
I have seen studies (I no longer have the link to them) that indicate that self-professed Christians are less likely to believe in ghosts than self-professed atheists. I do know that there was a little more to accepting the self-professed classification than the simple assertion by the individual, but I no longer remember how they did that sorting.
I am very familiar with Christian theology. The only Christian sects which believes in so-called "saints" as a special class of believers is Roman Catholic and Orthodox. All other Christian groups hold with biblical teaching that all believers are saints.
According to traditional Christian theology, when one dies one goes either to Heaven or Hell and the soul/spirit does not remain in contact with this world.
Since according to Buddhism, the goal is to reach enlightment and therefore not be reincarnated, the fact that there are more people alive today than at any point in the past (and according to some math I have seen more people are alive today than the sum of all the people who lived before 1900), it seems that there is some logical disconnect. Shouldn't the number of living beings be steadily decreasing?
I have seen studies (although I no longer have links to them) that said that self-professed atheists were more likely to believe in ghosts than self-professed Christians. This made sense to me since the concept of ghosts is contrary to Christian theology.
Do you, or do you not, have to believe in reincarnation to be a Buddhist? If you do have to believe in reincarnation, then you clearly have to believe in something that does not make sense.
The LimeWire shutdown may account for a chunk of the drop, but since we do not know how much of that drop occurred before the LimeWire shutdown we are unable to make even an educated guess as to whether that is true or not. Actually, since the article uses an initial number from so long before the LimeWire shutdown, it seems likely that the LimeWire shutdown accounts for an infintessimal portion of the drop.
If by ghosts you mean the disembodied souls/spirits of those who have died, then ghosts are contrary to Christian theology. So perhaps the OP meant Muslim (I do not know the Muslim position on ghosts)?
Slashdot Mirror
As others have pointed out, the plant weathered the earthquake just fine. It was the tsunami that the quake generated that caused the problems, at one of the four nuclear power plants within the area of destrcuction. That and the deaths and injuries that resulted from the damage the tsunami did to other industrial facilities (chemical plants, for example) far outnumber that have resulted from the damage to nuclear plants. According to one source I read, the other nuclear plants were being used to shelter refugees because they were among the few buildings that survived the earthquake and tsunami intact (with heat and electricity as well).
Let's see, you are recommending that a business that received a threatening letter from the police union take that letter to the police. These are the police, some of whom addressed the protesters and said that if this law passed there would be violent retribution, who elected the person who signed the letter as head of their union.
I think the proper comparison is to the letters that the police and fire fighters' unions sent to business that contributed to Governor Walker's campaign in last year's election that contained veiled threats if those businesses failed to publicly express opposition to the budget bill that Wisconsin just passed. There is also the cases of Democratic Party affiliated groups using the open records laws to gather the information of people who signed petitions for referendum they opposed and then protesting at those individual's businesses and/or place of employment.
I find it interesting that until the Republican Party starts to use Open Records laws in this way, no one expresses much concern over Democratic Party affiliated groups doing the same thing.
Two factors, one, most reports that rate the healthcare delivery in various countries heavily weight whether or not the government pays for healthcare. Thus if in country A, the government does not pay for healthcare and in country B the government does pay for healthcare, the reports will rate country B's healthcare as being much better than country A's, even if all other things are equal (actually even if all other things favor country A, but that is a more complicated debate). That means that none of those reports can be used to determine if the government paying for healthcare results in better healthcare or not, since they define the government paying for it as better healthcare.
The reason that using longevity as a measure of comparing healthcare between the U.S. and other first world countries is twofold. First, the U.S. has a much larger population than other first world countries distributed over a much larger, more diverse geographic area. Second, U.S. population is much more heterogeneous than the population of other first world countries. An example of why this is significant, Japan has a longer expected lifespan than the U.S. and thus is used as an example of a country with better healthcare than the U.S., yet Japanese living in the U.S. have a longer expected lifespan than those living in Japan.
When I say serious illness, I do not mean some generic category. I mean pick a serious illness, say colon cancer, or diabetes, or heart disease, or lung cancer, or AIDS, or etc. In most, if not all of those cases, your prognosis if you are diagnosed with it is better in the U.S. than elsewhere in the world.
You missed the part where I said that Federal tax revenues have been between 18-19% no matter what the tax rate. This means even when the top marginal tax rate was 90%.
You do know that most measures used to compare medical care between countries weighs how much of it the government pays for rather heavily, don't you? And as far as metrics of health care goes one of the best I can think of is, what is your prognosis if you are diagnosed with a serious illness. By that metric, U.S. health care outstrips most other countries.
For no commercials, whetever show I wanted whenever I wanted, I might go as high as $10 a month...Of course then I would have to cut back on what channels I watch. That wouldn't be much of a hardship, since if I could watch the shows I like whenever I want to watch, I would not need to watch as many channels to find something I'm interested in when I want to watch TV.
Are any of these channels streaming their shows yet? Or in any other way making them available on non-TV devices? Have any of these channels even announced that they are going to do so? If not, then Time Warner is not using its position to screw them over. It is using its position to provide a service that their customers desire.
An important thing to note is that Time Warner is not going to allow you to stream these shows to your Ipad whenever you want. They are going to make it possible for you to watch these shows on your Ipad instead of on your TV (or in addition to your TV), this is no different than if you had a TV that received the show wirelessly from your cable box.
If I could pay for just the channels I watch, I would pay $3 per month. I might even go as high as $5 a month.
Because if they just read the odometer, they don't know where you have been. (You weren't supposed to notice that part)
This is the comment I have been looking for. This is not about additional revenue (if it was they would be talking about raising fuel taxes), it is about tracking people. Although it is also about pushing people to use public transportation as well, because people who use public transportation are more receptive to government regulation of their lives (not all of them, but in general).
It is not sustainable to continue spending more than you take in year in and year out, especially not when the gap between the two starts to widen.
Would you tell young people that Social Security won't be there for them when they are elderly,...
If we do not reduce government spending soon, it won't be there for them when they are elderly, whether we tell them that or not.
No what this means is that it will be harder for U.S. companies to compete with foreign companies. It will mean that U.S. companies will not be able (or it will be more expensive for them to do so) to buy from foreign companies that may or may not be using pirated software. This means that the production cost for U.S. companies will be higher than for foreign companies. Even if these laws are set up so that they place the same limits on a foreign company that sells in the U.S., it still means that U.S. companies will be at a disadvantage selling in other countries.
Philosophically, I have a problem with this law because it holds someone accountable for crimes committed by someone else without the first person's knowledge. The only way I would find these laws acceptable is if it was necessary to prove that the company being sued knew that their supplier was using pirated software when they bought supplies from them.
You apparently missed the poster who noted the article about how some people exposed toradiation as a result of bombing Nagasaki and/or Hiroshima lived longer than their peers who were not exposed to any radiation. There are several studies which suggest that our belief that long term exposure to low levels of radiation are harmful is not only wrong, but the reverse of the actual facts. These studies are not conclusive, merely suggestive of something that requires more study.
the desire for maximising profit at inappropriate risk.
So you think we need to do a lot more work before we deploy wind farms? Considering that over the last ten years there have been 44 deaths worldwide associated with wind farms and 7 deaths worldwide related to nuclear power plants (I'm not sure if this number includes the current situation) if nuclear power is not yet safe enough, then wind power has a long way to go.
So it is Mac OS ten, ten point seven?
If the X in OS X means 10, why is the next version OS X version 10.7? Wouldn't it be OS X.VII?
I have seen studies (I no longer have the link to them) that indicate that self-professed Christians are less likely to believe in ghosts than self-professed atheists. I do know that there was a little more to accepting the self-professed classification than the simple assertion by the individual, but I no longer remember how they did that sorting.
Yeah, that story makes it all make sense now. /s
I am very familiar with Christian theology. The only Christian sects which believes in so-called "saints" as a special class of believers is Roman Catholic and Orthodox. All other Christian groups hold with biblical teaching that all believers are saints.
According to traditional Christian theology, when one dies one goes either to Heaven or Hell and the soul/spirit does not remain in contact with this world.
So basically all you have to do to be a Buddhist is say that you are a Buddhist?
That certainly fits the self-professed Buddhists I have met.
Since according to Buddhism, the goal is to reach enlightment and therefore not be reincarnated, the fact that there are more people alive today than at any point in the past (and according to some math I have seen more people are alive today than the sum of all the people who lived before 1900), it seems that there is some logical disconnect. Shouldn't the number of living beings be steadily decreasing?
I have seen studies (although I no longer have links to them) that said that self-professed atheists were more likely to believe in ghosts than self-professed Christians. This made sense to me since the concept of ghosts is contrary to Christian theology.
Do you, or do you not, have to believe in reincarnation to be a Buddhist? If you do have to believe in reincarnation, then you clearly have to believe in something that does not make sense.
The LimeWire shutdown may account for a chunk of the drop, but since we do not know how much of that drop occurred before the LimeWire shutdown we are unable to make even an educated guess as to whether that is true or not. Actually, since the article uses an initial number from so long before the LimeWire shutdown, it seems likely that the LimeWire shutdown accounts for an infintessimal portion of the drop.
If by ghosts you mean the disembodied souls/spirits of those who have died, then ghosts are contrary to Christian theology. So perhaps the OP meant Muslim (I do not know the Muslim position on ghosts)?