"I think there are two other factors to consider as well that make GPS tracking bad.
A GPS would be able to track you while on private property, a ranch maybe, a couple of agents couldn't do that so in such a case a GPS is more invasive of a person privacy."
Which is also why this ruling doesn't really mean a whole lot. It's certainly good but people miss the elephant in the room.
Cell phones. Many have GPS capabilities. Those that don't still provide location information. Most people have them and carry them. And the companies will provide that information to the police without much resistance. So, yes, police may not be able to plant a GPS on your car without a warrant. But you may be willingly carrying one on your person. And its information may not be protected....
"These are all there to make the car nicer and doesn't change the vehicle's performance in any way."
Really? Are you serious? Aside from the fact that that some of those things have been present almost from the start (leg room, head room, windshields, roof, horn) many of them most certainly do affect performance. It's called weight. The more of it, the less performance. And many of those things I think make the car worse (automatic transmission, phones, gps, tvs, etc.) YMMV.
"Really, cars could do almost as much performance wise in the 30s as they do today."
Not remotely close. The crappiest econobox you can buy today is better than the top of the line of the 30's.
"The speaker moxie said basically, what the gov't had been trying to do but would never be able to is what google is doing now."
In this case the speaker is 100% wrong. The governments ability to do this has existed as long as aerial photography has existed. Google maps generally sucks compared to the resolution available to most local governments aerial photography. The areas where google maps have data but governments does not is probably very small. I doubt that this is one of them. Google maps might have been more convenient but I seriously doubt they didn't otherwise have access.
"The better question is, why isn't the city going after the people who built the pools?"
Because it is ultimately the homeowners responsibility to get the permit, not the builder. In any case, how exactly would the city know who built the pool if there is no record of it (such as a permit)?
"Oh, wait. It's because it's all about grabbing cash, not about making sure that things are built safely."
Permits generally are not money makers for governments. Where I live they don't cover the cost of the building, permitting and planning services. You are correct that they do have a monetary component. In addition to safety and code compliance, they assist in the accurate determination of property values. Failure to get a permit means that someone else is paying higher taxes.
"...because Iran is run by a messianic fascist theocracy which really couldn't give a shit about killing several million people while Israel is a semi-secular rightwing democracy dedicated to keeping a few million people alive."
Are you serious? Israel doesn't seem to give a shit about killing people recently. We should be far more scared of Israel than Iran. Considering what we have done to and for each country, Israel has killed more US citizens than Iran.
"Except that students are unable to do basic arithmetic these days."
Citation needed. In any case, one hardly needs to do basic arithmetic these days.
"Yes, math is abstract, but the ability to compute a result still matters -- when I was a teenager working in an ice cream store, people would sometimes give me some change after I had entered everything into the cash register, and so I was forced to quickly do some arithmetic...and many of the kids working with me could not even handle that."
So what? That was true when I was a teenager too. Back when calculators where just being introduced. And everyone learned multiplication tables and basic arithmetic. Everything was not better in the "good old days".
"It would be better if they were able to at least understand the most basic math and not run to a calculator than if they were unable to do any math and need a calculator just to subtract some numbers."
You are confusing the ability to do arithmetic with the ability to understand math concepts or do math. They are not the same thing. If they were, I would have been a math major. Sure, I wish everyone knew their multiplication tables or could do arithmetic in their head. But that is just because I learned it and found it useful-I mean why just learn up to 12 times 12? It's completely arbitrary. It is hardly an indication of math competence or skill.
"Now considering that one nuclear power station usually generates 1 to 5 GIGAwatts, and these generate in the order of TENS OF MEGAwatts, it is inconceivable to me how anyone can compare Solar to Nuclear."
Which is precisely why no nuclear power plants are being built in the US. Utilities don't need large amounts of new power all at once. They need smaller amounts over time. Solar and wind are great at supplying this incremental demand.
The utilities learned the hard way about the unreliability of future power generation predications. This led to the building off and default off many nuclear power plants in the past. If they actually need large amounts of power generating capacity they will build coal or natural gas plants because they take less time and are more economical.
"Your numbers still follow outdated technology cira 1970s. Consider the construction of modern reactor technologies. The waste is a tiny fraction of the size and danger of the kind you are now quoting the cleanup figures for."
And your evidence for this is what exactly? Have these modern reactors been built and operated for any length of time?
In the US all the data we have is for the "old" technology. There isn't much desire to build new reactors because all the data points to it being a very high risk despite all of the subsidies. The same claims about the current tech was being made about the previous tech too.
"Furthermore the numbers you're quoting for disposal assumes complete waste. Instead I wonder how much the cost would be if it is either reprocessed, or used as straight fuel for a CANDU reactor. That's right, they may even be able to sell the waste rather than simply pay someone to take it."
Reprocessing is not a panacea. One only needs to look at sites at the US where the government did reprocessing of nuclear material. It might not decrease the amount of waste or decrease costs at all. It's primary purpose is to increase the supply.
"But if there's a red-light camera there, it doesn't care about the extenuating circumstances, nor does it recognize the difference between a busy intersection and an empty one."
And it's pretty irrelevant. I don't get this obsession about figuring out whether one should run a red light to potentially avoid a rear end collision or not. Because if you have the time to run that calculation, then you never have to run the light in the first place. If running a red light is ever more than an extremely rare event you are not a good driver. I routinely exceed the speed limit, drive in urban areas, am tailgated, experience short yellows, drive through photo enforced intersections and drive in poor weather conditions and never been rear ended because I had to stop for a red light. Of course, I anticipate that I may have to stop for a light which provides me the opportunity to stop or enter the intersection on the yellow if needed.
I have been rear ended three times, once by a police officer. They all happened while I was stopped waiting at a light in traffic.
"If you really think that rolling through a stopsign at 5mph is equally as bad as (and should be treated the same as) blowing through it at 45mph, please shoot yourself now, or at least stop voting for my leaders."
This is a strawman. In the later case, the driver would likely suffer additional charges, at least if there were consequences from running the stop or if it were witnessed by a cop in person.
On the other hand, if there were no bad outcomes (no harm, no foul) one could argue that there should be no difference in how they were treated. If rolling through safely is okay, why not at speed?
Or one could make the case that a stop sign or red light indicates that one is to come to a complete stop. Failure to do so is a ticketable offense. Simple and easy.
I simply don't understand the outrage at being ticketed for failing to stop at a red light. They represent a significant monetary investment in traffic control indicating that society has assigned to them some importance. They aren't residential stop signs that grow like weeds. They aren't speed limits that bear no resemblance to reality.
"My understanding is that these AT-PZEV requirements need some work -- part of the standard requires an immediate warm-up of the engine even if you have a PHEV, and that part is a holdover from pre-hybrid days where there was no such thing as a car (other than pure EV) that might make short trips on battery alone."
They MIGHT need some work. Just because the car can take short trips on the battery alone does not mean that the other potential emissions go away. The IC engine catalytic converter still needs to be warmed if the engine is used to operate effectively and fuel can still evaporate from the car. The real question is the lack of emissions from running on battery power sufficient to balance out the emissions that are put out when the engines are used or the fuel is evaporating.
"Good intentions, but obsolete policy now."
If the point was low emissions then the policy is hardly obsolete.
"I think that it would probably help the majority of decent, competent cops to do their jobs if the bad ones (and their superiors) were fired and punished when they pulled this sort of crap, but whenever anybody calls for bad cops to be held accountable, police unions raise a stink."
I'm sorry, but there is actually little or no evidence that the majority of cops are decent and competent or to put it another way, that most cops are "good". Because if they were, they would be held accountable. And this sort of thing wouldn't happen. Officers that say nothing, do nothing and otherwise support actions that are illegal or against policy are not good cops. They are bad cops by definition.
"Take a domestic violence case. Who should the officer side with?"
And here is the problem. They aren't there to take sides. If a crime is committed, they need to arrest someone. And self defense isn't a crime. I don't care if it is hard to tell the difference. Being arrested is a real burden. Police don't seem to realize that.
"....thats a large part of the police officers job. To make people feel safe in a very unsafe world."
Bullshit. That is a complete waste of time and money. Just like the TSA. If the feeling is a consequence of the actual work they do, great. I don't want to pay taxes to feel safe. If they can't actually deliver safety, then get rid of them.
"I agree but as the need for police rises the pay must also rise or the quality must decrease."
Bullshit. Police make a great deal of money. They receive a great deal of training. What they lack is real oversight. Corrupt and unethical police are the norm. Because reporting corrupt and illegal behavior is not acceptable behavior within the police force. Which means that there are essentially no good cops. Because the system doesn't allow it.
I'm not even a fucking American and I can tell you it's right at the top."
If you aren't an American, you do tend to have an advantage over most of us. You seem to have actually read our governing documents. Probably because many Americans have gone to schools in places like Louisiana. Sorry about that.
"Tell it to the federal Dept. of Education, or any number of federal laws like No Child Left Behind."
Of course their real power is in the form of money. The Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction recently stated his intention of adopting federal standards (subject to legislative approval, of course) despite not knowing all the details because it made schools eligible for a large amount of money. It didn't seem to matter whether or not the current standards were working or the costs involved. Just didn't want to miss out on that money.
Probably the one thing the founders never really considered when they wrote the Constitution.
It's probably the best way to make them non believers. How can anyone take the bible seriously after reading it? Not just portions of it but ALL of it. The same for other other religions. Most people have an extremely shallow understanding of their religion. They have no idea that what they are taught in church bears little resemblence to what the academics learn and the priests are taught.
"The majority of intelligent people are just being polite and trying to not to hurt religious peoples' feelings at this point."
Based on the polls, the majority of intelligent people are religious at this point. Atheist equals discrimination in society.
"You cannot disprove the existence of God therefore he isn't science."
If this is typical of the reasoning supporting science, no wonder science literacy is so low.
Science is a method for explaining how the universe works. Most religions claim their god operates on the universe. If a god operates on the universe science can test that claim. Science has found no evidence and has found evidence to the contrary. Those gods have been disproven.
"Run the numbers for the last several decades, let the math speak for itself."
Yes, why don't we. Ever hear of WPPS? AKA Whoops? (http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&File_Id=5482). They started construction of five nuclear power plants in Washington State in 1971. They managed to complete one reactor in 1984. They defaulted on 2.25 billion in bonds in 1982. The court case was settled in 1995. From the link:
"Several factors combined to ruin construction schedules and to drive costs to three and four times the original estimates. Inflation and design changes constantly plagued all the projects. Builders often got ahead of designers who modified their drawings to conform to what had been built. Safety changes imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission increased costs too, but the biggest cause of delays and overruns was mismanagement of the process by the WPPSS. The directors and the managers of the system had no experience in nuclear engineering or in projects of this scale. System managers were unable to develop a unified and comprehensive means of choosing, directing, and supervising contractors. One contractor, already shown to be incompetent, was retained for more work. In a well-publicized example, a pipe hanger was built and rebuilt 17 times. Quality control inspectors complained of inadequate work that went unaddressed."
Greenpeace didn't kill the nuclear industry. The nuclear industry didn't need any help. People in Washington are still paying for this disaster. And anyone who wants to build new reactors in the state has to prove to the ratepayers why the same thing won't and can't happen again before they even start to address any other issues.
"...once this happens more people will use mail (USPS or otherwise) because the inefficiency will be gone because it will either be deliver or go broke."
This is just plain stupid. I'm not going to start sending more letters because there are more options to send them. Even if they happen to be slightly cheaper. I send things through the mail because there is no other option (email, online). Things like government correspondence, contracts and the like. It happens to be cheap, reliable and recognized as reliable by all parties.
"The company that gets my shipping money just needs to do a few things:
* Track the package(s), the more accurately the better
* Deliver the materials when they said they would
* Pay quickly and reliably upon loss
USPS fails miserably on the first and third of these. If they want my shipping business, they'll have to do all three."
Why exactly is one and three important if two is reliably done? For a business customer, possibly. But for most people, not important. I have never had a letter or package lost or damaged to an extent that needed insurance payout by USPS, FedEx or UPS. Any problems happened before or after shipping.
Slashdot Mirror
"I think there are two other factors to consider as well that make GPS tracking bad.
A GPS would be able to track you while on private property, a ranch maybe, a couple of agents couldn't do that so in such a case a GPS is more invasive of a person privacy."
Which is also why this ruling doesn't really mean a whole lot. It's certainly good but people miss the elephant in the room.
Cell phones. Many have GPS capabilities. Those that don't still provide location information. Most people have them and carry them. And the companies will provide that information to the police without much resistance. So, yes, police may not be able to plant a GPS on your car without a warrant. But you may be willingly carrying one on your person. And its information may not be protected....
"These are all there to make the car nicer and doesn't change the vehicle's performance in any way."
Really? Are you serious? Aside from the fact that that some of those things have been present almost from the start (leg room, head room, windshields, roof, horn) many of them most certainly do affect performance. It's called weight. The more of it, the less performance. And many of those things I think make the car worse (automatic transmission, phones, gps, tvs, etc.) YMMV.
"Really, cars could do almost as much performance wise in the 30s as they do today."
Not remotely close. The crappiest econobox you can buy today is better than the top of the line of the 30's.
"The speaker moxie said basically, what the gov't had been trying to do but would never be able to is what google is doing now."
In this case the speaker is 100% wrong. The governments ability to do this has existed as long as aerial photography has existed. Google maps generally sucks compared to the resolution available to most local governments aerial photography. The areas where google maps have data but governments does not is probably very small. I doubt that this is one of them. Google maps might have been more convenient but I seriously doubt they didn't otherwise have access.
"The better question is, why isn't the city going after the people who built the pools?"
Because it is ultimately the homeowners responsibility to get the permit, not the builder. In any case, how exactly would the city know who built the pool if there is no record of it (such as a permit)?
"Oh, wait. It's because it's all about grabbing cash, not about making sure that things are built safely."
Permits generally are not money makers for governments. Where I live they don't cover the cost of the building, permitting and planning services. You are correct that they do have a monetary component. In addition to safety and code compliance, they assist in the accurate determination of property values. Failure to get a permit means that someone else is paying higher taxes.
"...because Iran is run by a messianic fascist theocracy which really couldn't give a shit about killing several million people while Israel is a semi-secular rightwing democracy dedicated to keeping a few million people alive."
Are you serious? Israel doesn't seem to give a shit about killing people recently. We should be far more scared of Israel than Iran. Considering what we have done to and for each country, Israel has killed more US citizens than Iran.
"No, real journalists aren't breaking the law by publishing classified information."
That's odd. I could have sworn that the NY Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel were covering this story.
And even publishing some of the documents:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/26warlogs.html
I guess it's not as illegal as you think it is.
"There is certainly nothing that indicates they did it for the hell of it."
Perhaps you should listen to the unedited tape. They were clearly enjoying killing people.
"The crew saw people approaching the US position carrying AKs and at least one RPG."
They did NOT identify an RPG. A camera is not an RPG. Protocol requires clear identification.
"According to protocol, they received clearance to fire, and did so."
They LIED in order to receive clearance to fire. I believe that is against protocol.
"A van approached and started loading bodies, a common insurgent tactic."
It's also a common civilian tactic.
"They are obviously unaware (based on later audio) that there are children in the van."
Who would have thought there would be civilians in a van in a city. They certainly weren't concerned about having killed them
"Again, according to protocol, they received clearance to fire, and did so."
What part of protocol allows them to fire on civilians? The people loaded into the van weren't going to walk away.
"There is nothing in the tape to indicate intent to kill photographers..."
Other than the fact that they did.
"Not all of these are developed in house. So the blame may lay with a contractor or supplier."
The blame still lies with the company that bought the product. They chose, right or wrong, to save money upfront.
"Except that students are unable to do basic arithmetic these days."
Citation needed. In any case, one hardly needs to do basic arithmetic these days.
"Yes, math is abstract, but the ability to compute a result still matters -- when I was a teenager working in an ice cream store, people would sometimes give me some change after I had entered everything into the cash register, and so I was forced to quickly do some arithmetic...and many of the kids working with me could not even handle that."
So what? That was true when I was a teenager too. Back when calculators where just being introduced. And everyone learned multiplication tables and basic arithmetic. Everything was not better in the "good old days".
"It would be better if they were able to at least understand the most basic math and not run to a calculator than if they were unable to do any math and need a calculator just to subtract some numbers."
You are confusing the ability to do arithmetic with the ability to understand math concepts or do math. They are not the same thing. If they were, I would have been a math major. Sure, I wish everyone knew their multiplication tables or could do arithmetic in their head. But that is just because I learned it and found it useful-I mean why just learn up to 12 times 12? It's completely arbitrary. It is hardly an indication of math competence or skill.
"Now considering that one nuclear power station usually generates 1 to 5 GIGAwatts, and these generate in the order of TENS OF MEGAwatts, it is inconceivable to me how anyone can compare Solar to Nuclear."
Which is precisely why no nuclear power plants are being built in the US. Utilities don't need large amounts of new power all at once. They need smaller amounts over time. Solar and wind are great at supplying this incremental demand.
The utilities learned the hard way about the unreliability of future power generation predications. This led to the building off and default off many nuclear power plants in the past. If they actually need large amounts of power generating capacity they will build coal or natural gas plants because they take less time and are more economical.
"Your numbers still follow outdated technology cira 1970s. Consider the construction of modern reactor technologies. The waste is a tiny fraction of the size and danger of the kind you are now quoting the cleanup figures for."
And your evidence for this is what exactly? Have these modern reactors been built and operated for any length of time?
In the US all the data we have is for the "old" technology. There isn't much desire to build new reactors because all the data points to it being a very high risk despite all of the subsidies. The same claims about the current tech was being made about the previous tech too.
"Furthermore the numbers you're quoting for disposal assumes complete waste. Instead I wonder how much the cost would be if it is either reprocessed, or used as straight fuel for a CANDU reactor. That's right, they may even be able to sell the waste rather than simply pay someone to take it."
Reprocessing is not a panacea. One only needs to look at sites at the US where the government did reprocessing of nuclear material. It might not decrease the amount of waste or decrease costs at all. It's primary purpose is to increase the supply.
"But if there's a red-light camera there, it doesn't care about the extenuating circumstances, nor does it recognize the difference between a busy intersection and an empty one."
And it's pretty irrelevant. I don't get this obsession about figuring out whether one should run a red light to potentially avoid a rear end collision or not. Because if you have the time to run that calculation, then you never have to run the light in the first place. If running a red light is ever more than an extremely rare event you are not a good driver. I routinely exceed the speed limit, drive in urban areas, am tailgated, experience short yellows, drive through photo enforced intersections and drive in poor weather conditions and never been rear ended because I had to stop for a red light. Of course, I anticipate that I may have to stop for a light which provides me the opportunity to stop or enter the intersection on the yellow if needed.
I have been rear ended three times, once by a police officer. They all happened while I was stopped waiting at a light in traffic.
"If you really think that rolling through a stopsign at 5mph is equally as bad as (and should be treated the same as) blowing through it at 45mph, please shoot yourself now, or at least stop voting for my leaders."
This is a strawman. In the later case, the driver would likely suffer additional charges, at least if there were consequences from running the stop or if it were witnessed by a cop in person.
On the other hand, if there were no bad outcomes (no harm, no foul) one could argue that there should be no difference in how they were treated. If rolling through safely is okay, why not at speed?
Or one could make the case that a stop sign or red light indicates that one is to come to a complete stop. Failure to do so is a ticketable offense. Simple and easy.
I simply don't understand the outrage at being ticketed for failing to stop at a red light. They represent a significant monetary investment in traffic control indicating that society has assigned to them some importance. They aren't residential stop signs that grow like weeds. They aren't speed limits that bear no resemblance to reality.
"Technical problems: They're usually too small to safely take at speed so they slow everything down even with perfect drivers."
Technical solution: Fix the tires and suspension on your vehicle. :)
"My understanding is that these AT-PZEV requirements need some work -- part of the standard requires an immediate warm-up of the engine even if you have a PHEV, and that part is a holdover from pre-hybrid days where there was no such thing as a car (other than pure EV) that might make short trips on battery alone."
They MIGHT need some work. Just because the car can take short trips on the battery alone does not mean that the other potential emissions go away. The IC engine catalytic converter still needs to be warmed if the engine is used to operate effectively and fuel can still evaporate from the car. The real question is the lack of emissions from running on battery power sufficient to balance out the emissions that are put out when the engines are used or the fuel is evaporating.
"Good intentions, but obsolete policy now."
If the point was low emissions then the policy is hardly obsolete.
"If the "decent, competent cops" was anything more than a myth then they are extinct by now."
Unfortunately while the corpse is rotting, the myth of the good cop continues to live on in the courtroom and in popular public opinion.
"I think that it would probably help the majority of decent, competent cops to do their jobs if the bad ones (and their superiors) were fired and punished when they pulled this sort of crap, but whenever anybody calls for bad cops to be held accountable, police unions raise a stink."
I'm sorry, but there is actually little or no evidence that the majority of cops are decent and competent or to put it another way, that most cops are "good". Because if they were, they would be held accountable. And this sort of thing wouldn't happen. Officers that say nothing, do nothing and otherwise support actions that are illegal or against policy are not good cops. They are bad cops by definition.
"Who should they arrest then?"
Why do they need to arrest anyone?
"Take a domestic violence case. Who should the officer side with?"
And here is the problem. They aren't there to take sides. If a crime is committed, they need to arrest someone. And self defense isn't a crime. I don't care if it is hard to tell the difference. Being arrested is a real burden. Police don't seem to realize that.
"....thats a large part of the police officers job. To make people feel safe in a very unsafe world."
Bullshit. That is a complete waste of time and money. Just like the TSA. If the feeling is a consequence of the actual work they do, great. I don't want to pay taxes to feel safe. If they can't actually deliver safety, then get rid of them.
"I agree but as the need for police rises the pay must also rise or the quality must decrease."
Bullshit. Police make a great deal of money. They receive a great deal of training. What they lack is real oversight. Corrupt and unethical police are the norm. Because reporting corrupt and illegal behavior is not acceptable behavior within the police force. Which means that there are essentially no good cops. Because the system doesn't allow it.
"Have you ever actually read the constitution?
I'm not even a fucking American and I can tell you it's right at the top."
If you aren't an American, you do tend to have an advantage over most of us. You seem to have actually read our governing documents. Probably because many Americans have gone to schools in places like Louisiana. Sorry about that.
"Tell it to the federal Dept. of Education, or any number of federal laws like No Child Left Behind."
Of course their real power is in the form of money. The Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction recently stated his intention of adopting federal standards (subject to legislative approval, of course) despite not knowing all the details because it made schools eligible for a large amount of money. It didn't seem to matter whether or not the current standards were working or the costs involved. Just didn't want to miss out on that money.
Probably the one thing the founders never really considered when they wrote the Constitution.
"Why should we have classes on religions?"
It's probably the best way to make them non believers. How can anyone take the bible seriously after reading it? Not just portions of it but ALL of it. The same for other other religions. Most people have an extremely shallow understanding of their religion. They have no idea that what they are taught in church bears little resemblence to what the academics learn and the priests are taught.
"The majority of intelligent people are just being polite and trying to not to hurt religious peoples' feelings at this point."
Based on the polls, the majority of intelligent people are religious at this point. Atheist equals discrimination in society.
"You cannot disprove the existence of God therefore he isn't science."
If this is typical of the reasoning supporting science, no wonder science literacy is so low.
Science is a method for explaining how the universe works. Most religions claim their god operates on the universe. If a god operates on the universe science can test that claim. Science has found no evidence and has found evidence to the contrary. Those gods have been disproven.
"Run the numbers for the last several decades, let the math speak for itself."
Yes, why don't we. Ever hear of WPPS? AKA Whoops? (http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&File_Id=5482). They started construction of five nuclear power plants in Washington State in 1971. They managed to complete one reactor in 1984. They defaulted on 2.25 billion in bonds in 1982. The court case was settled in 1995. From the link:
"Several factors combined to ruin construction schedules and to drive costs to three and four times the original estimates. Inflation and design changes constantly plagued all the projects. Builders often got ahead of designers who modified their drawings to conform to what had been built. Safety changes imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission increased costs too, but the biggest cause of delays and overruns was mismanagement of the process by the WPPSS. The directors and the managers of the system had no experience in nuclear engineering or in projects of this scale. System managers were unable to develop a unified and comprehensive means of choosing, directing, and supervising contractors. One contractor, already shown to be incompetent, was retained for more work. In a well-publicized example, a pipe hanger was built and rebuilt 17 times. Quality control inspectors complained of inadequate work that went unaddressed."
Greenpeace didn't kill the nuclear industry. The nuclear industry didn't need any help. People in Washington are still paying for this disaster. And anyone who wants to build new reactors in the state has to prove to the ratepayers why the same thing won't and can't happen again before they even start to address any other issues.
"...once this happens more people will use mail (USPS or otherwise) because the inefficiency will be gone because it will either be deliver or go broke."
This is just plain stupid. I'm not going to start sending more letters because there are more options to send them. Even if they happen to be slightly cheaper. I send things through the mail because there is no other option (email, online). Things like government correspondence, contracts and the like. It happens to be cheap, reliable and recognized as reliable by all parties.
"The company that gets my shipping money just needs to do a few things:
* Track the package(s), the more accurately the better
* Deliver the materials when they said they would
* Pay quickly and reliably upon loss
USPS fails miserably on the first and third of these. If they want my shipping business, they'll have to do all three."
Why exactly is one and three important if two is reliably done? For a business customer, possibly. But for most people, not important. I have never had a letter or package lost or damaged to an extent that needed insurance payout by USPS, FedEx or UPS. Any problems happened before or after shipping.