"Promote the general welfare. Its one of the 6 main goals. Try reading the constitution sometime."
Try looking at things like the Federalist Papers and the like for what the framers of the constitution meant by such things as that phrase. It certainly did NOT mean welfare in the sense that we think of welfare today. It was not their idea to have the government provide things like welfare and other entitlements to the general public.
... and they also didn't mean for black men or white women to be able to vote. Times change and it now makes practical sense for the federal rather than state governments to provide such things. I will agree, though, that the constitution really needs a lot of amendments, but "conservatives" in the US are only willing to amend the constitution to take away rights these days.
I'll even say it makes practical sense for larger international organizations like the EU to pool resources and create an international health care system.
If anything, he managed to increase federal expenditures by millions of dollars, either putting the government into more debt or increasing taxes. That building will be rebuilt, security expenditures will be increased, and victims will be compensated... all at taxpayer expense.
It's because health care is not as black and white as fire rescue and policing services. For the most part, everyone needs the same level of fire and police protection. Individuals are equally likely to need police protection, or to need the fire department to put out a fire.
Congratulations, you've just destroyed the need for actuaries, saving the insurance companies millions of dollars! They'll be happy to know that homes in Malibu canyon are just as safe from fire as those in downtown San Diego. The police departments can now stop focusing their efforts on high crime areas and spend more time sitting around in gated communities near country clubs.
It is also not logical for an individual to hire their own police/fire departments to protect them.
I'm glad we agree here. There are actually a lot of libertarians pushing to re-privatize the fire departments.
The same cannot be said when it comes to health care. The level of health care needed depends on many factors that are within an individuals control (i.e. lifestyle, eating habbits, exercise, etc. etc)
The levels of fire protection and police protection depend on many factors that are within an individual's control (i.e. lifestyle, eating habits, exercise, housing location) as well as many factors that are NOT within an individual's control (i.e. DNA, where their parents choose to live, born socioeconomic status, accidents, victims of crime). The exact same can be said of health care.
It is also reasonable, and logical to have your own personal doctor and pay them as neccesary when you get sick. It has been done like that since the beginning.
How is it reasonable or logical? Because that's how it's been done in the US since the beginning? America has a broken health care system that eats up over 15% of our GDP and adds an undue burden to our businesses. America's health care is demonstrably worse in nearly every empirical measure and demonstrably more expensive in every empirical measure. How can it possibly be reasonable to continue doing things the way we have been when we know damned well it's not working?
You can't (or shouldn't) enact laws that make for impossible situations.
The law may be fair or unfair, that I don't know. However it doesn't result in an impossible situation. It only bans sex offenders from cities. Once you leave a city you can live anywhere; even your nearest neighbor can be a mile away. A school is probably 10 miles away, if not more.
Sounds perfectly reasonable to force someone to move so far away from civilization that they have to drive 60 miles to get to a decent job, if they can get one at all.
Anyone who brings up Chernobyl in the context of nuclear power plant safety quite honestly hasn't the slightest idea why Chernobyl happened or why it's physically impossible for it to happen in any nuclear power plant ever designed or built in any western nation...
I submit to you the Santa Susana Field Laboratory. Granted it was not as large scale as Chernobyl, but multiple meltdowns occurred and were intentionally covered up by the government. It not only could have happened in the US, it did--and the cover-up is ongoing.
With that said I agree with the rest of your points. With properly enforced regulations nuclear power can be adequately safe.
I'm only 6'1", but suffer horrible crushing pain in my knees whenever the person in front of me reclines.
I am 6'1" and weigh 195 pounds, and I call bullshit on that claim...while it is by far from spacious it is not that bad.
Same height doesn't mean same leg length or proportions. A man with a 34" or 36" inseam is going to be absolutely miserable in most coach seats.
A man with a freakishly large torso and short legs could be 6'5" and perfectly comfortable in coach.
A person like me, with a large torso and very broad shoulders, can be absolutely miserable in coach even when he is not overweight. My waist fits just fine in between the armrests, and so does my gut, but my shoulders do not. What can I do? I'd pay a little extra for a slightly larger seat, but I simply can't afford double the price or the cost of business/first class.
I once sat in the middle seat between a morbidly obese woman and a safety for the NY Jets--on a full flight. Southwest's policy would have helped there.
no it isn't. he's implying that China doesn't have any interest in any citizens but their own, as does america.
... and he's dead wrong because China has every interest in spying on US citizens, like Google. Or did you forget that corporations are now [above] equal citizens in the US?
Exactly. At age 57, time doesn't "pass faster" for me than it did when I was 23 or 24, but each day adds a lower percentage of new experiences and memories than it did back then. This should be obvious to most people over age 10 who have decent memories.
Should be really easy to test with a simple study of amnesia sufferers.
"If they grab onto you with the octopus-death-grip, duck under the water and they will let go quickly."
Now I know that if the lifeguard trying to save me starts to drown/sink... they're just faking. Better to hang on tight, knowing they will soon surface for air.
If you're thinking clearly enough to remember that, you're not panicking.
No, you twat, she never said what she would do if there *wasn't* a rope available.
Yes, she did, you twat:
It's like when you've got a person who's gone overboard and they're struggling to stay afloat -- the one thing you never ever ever do is jump in after them.
I've never seen a solid challenge to this. The DEA and all the drug control laws are legally based on the fact that we have to do it to honor a treaty... which we wrote and proposed. Otherwise you'd need some sort of constitutional amendment to prohibit citizens from imbibing popular drugs, wouldn't you?
I'll second this, I made the same conscious decision about seven years ago. I still watch some TV shows, but either in DVD form or downloads.
The most interesting part for me, though, is to watch new memes and ideas spread throughout society. I feel like an independent observer. It seems that, nearly overnight, every conservative I knew was saying the same things about Obama... then I watched Fox News at a friends' house and saw where they were getting all of their lines.
The average torrent junkie doesn't buy 8TB of disk and upgraded bandwidth plans because they really like sharing Linux ISOs...Please.
At 8TB I think it's fairly obvious that they're collecting/hoarding.
If the original ripper only bought his copy so that he could crack it and share it with the scene, and nobody who got access to it would have bought it otherwise, doesn't that mean the software manufacturer is UP one sale?
Forward compatibility isn't the only carrot, of course... they could just call the jetpack extensions "add-ons" and call the existing XUL add-ons "core modifications" or some similar terminology, scaring people away from them... Especially if they can guarantee that "all jetpacks compatible with 4.0.0 will be compatible for 4.x"
OK, it's late at night and this post probably makes little sense, but I'm sure you get the point. There are many ways of incentivizing it that aren't evil.
I think we should just go after them for collusion. They all have the same ridiculous pricing schemes, and not a single one has thought of under-cutting the competition with a "the price is the price" advertising blitz.
Welcome to price fixing in the New America. You can only convict them of collusion if you have actual videotaped conversations between executives where they expressly agree to set prices.
On the other hand, it would have been hilarious to see what would have happened had McCain/Palin made the cut. Can figures for popularity actually go into the negative?
So let's be realistic for...oh...30 seconds or so. . . . Sure, an oil rig isn't ideal for your romantic sunset on the beach but if it's that have gas up at $10/gallon maybe we should give it some though (sic).
I thought you said you were going to be realistic? Not a lot of offshore oil left to drill in the US, anyways, especially not compared to current usage levels. This is about the difference between $4.050/gallon and $4.0499/gallon. It will make the oil companies a little more profitable, so they're going to keep pushing for it, but it won't come close to 1% of our domestic oil usage... it's as insignificant as can be. So is ANWR. It's not like we have a buried Saudi Arabia off the California coast that those damned evil hippies won't let us get at! But please, continue...
Sure the teary case of a child with lead poisoning hits all kinds of sore points but would you rather shut down the smelting plants and stop construction on anything containing steel or aluminium?
YAY! I WON THE FALSE DICHOTOMY JACKPOT! Twice in one article, too, what a surprise! It's not a choice between "let one child get lead poisoning or stop all smelting in the US", it's a choice between "Let 5-10,000 people get lead poisoning or decrease corporate profits for smelter operators 5%". Seriously, it's not THAT hard to avoid massive environmental contamination with modern technology... people just like to cut corners to increase their profits.
So...give us some technology that's available today and is even reasonably cost competitive and "clean"
Wind is relatively clean and cost competitive. In fact, it's cheaper than nuclear power even with the serious liability shielding for nuclear power plant operators. Solar thermal is relatively clean and cost competitive. In fact, it's cheaper than nuclear power in many markets, and already has private investment. Photovoltaics are relatively clean and cost competitive. In fact, it's pretty damned cheap in some markets and can reduce the load on the grid AND supplement peak power usage. Reduced energy consumption is relatively clean and cost competitive. In fact, it's really damned easy, cheap, and tends to save money in the long run.
Most of the American old reactors are NOT of a horribly bad design like that. Is there a risk? kinda. but if all we have are 3 mile island incidents that the worst was undetectable by most instruments then I'm all for it. Honestly the damned NIMBY and green idiots that kept us from chasing the nuke power option for the past 40 years are the ones to blame. we would have been mostly nuclear plants now all operating profitably. I guess that is what you get with a very undereducated populace. They get easily scared of technology.
Lochbaum’s bounding estimated release fraction of 30% would equal approximately 13,000 curies of iodine-131 and 2600 curies of cesium-137, based on the inventories and power history asserted by Atomics International. (A curie is that amount of radioactivity that emits 37 billion disintegrations per second.) His best estimate of 15% release would thus mean 6500 curies of iodine-131 and 1300 curies of cesium-137 were released. By contrast, the official estimate for the Three Mile Island accident is 17 curies of I-131 and no cesium released.
Approximately a million gallons of TCE, a toxic solvent, were used to wash off rocket test stands, with roughly half that amount estimated to have entered the soil and groundwater. Dozens of toxic chemicals have been found in soil, groundwater, or surface water at the site.
And one last one in case you haven't crapped yourself yet:
typical clean-up procedures executed by Field Lab employees in the past. Workers would dispose of barrels filled with highly toxic waste by shooting the barrels with rifles so that they would explode and release their contents into the air.
How much more evidence do you need that we can't trust the government OR the industries they're in bed with to protect us from this crap? BTW, no containment on these reactors because they were experimental.
So Entergy's got little reason to concern itself with whether Yankee will work as advertised after relicensing.
That's not really true. It's not the way the legal system works in this country, and you probably know that. Look, if there is an incident under the new ownership, you can bet your bottom dollar that they'll do everything they can to shift liability, at least partially, back to the original owner. That's the way it works, and odds are that they'll be able to do it too, especially if they can show that they performed their own due diligence after the acquisition. It would take years, enrich more than a few trial attorneys, but Entergy would be unlikely to get away unscathed. Consequently, it would behoove the new operators to keep their noses clean.
Highly arguable and the outcome would depend largely on politicians in office at the moment. Legally, they can pass most of the buck by blaming the federal agencies that regulate them. As long as they can say they complied with all regulations, they're in the clear... so what's happening with the regulations right now? Politicians are slashing the regulatory "red tape" because it's political suicide to do otherwise.
Of course I am not a nuclear regulator, so I can't say whether or not they've gone too far in relaxing restrictions.
It seems evident, though, that they have shifted at least some of the liability (fiscal and legal) with this move. Reduced liability almost always means increased risk taking, and we're in a political period where increased risk taking is going to be encouraged. The smart thing to do now would be to watch them carefully.
Slashdot Mirror
"Promote the general welfare. Its one of the 6 main goals. Try reading the constitution sometime."
Try looking at things like the Federalist Papers and the like for what the framers of the constitution meant by such things as that phrase. It certainly did NOT mean welfare in the sense that we think of welfare today. It was not their idea to have the government provide things like welfare and other entitlements to the general public.
... and they also didn't mean for black men or white women to be able to vote. Times change and it now makes practical sense for the federal rather than state governments to provide such things. I will agree, though, that the constitution really needs a lot of amendments, but "conservatives" in the US are only willing to amend the constitution to take away rights these days.
I'll even say it makes practical sense for larger international organizations like the EU to pool resources and create an international health care system.
If anything, he managed to increase federal expenditures by millions of dollars, either putting the government into more debt or increasing taxes. That building will be rebuilt, security expenditures will be increased, and victims will be compensated... all at taxpayer expense.
It's because health care is not as black and white as fire rescue and policing services. For the most part, everyone needs the same level of fire and police protection. Individuals are equally likely to need police protection, or to need the fire department to put out a fire.
Congratulations, you've just destroyed the need for actuaries, saving the insurance companies millions of dollars! They'll be happy to know that homes in Malibu canyon are just as safe from fire as those in downtown San Diego. The police departments can now stop focusing their efforts on high crime areas and spend more time sitting around in gated communities near country clubs.
It is also not logical for an individual to hire their own police/fire departments to protect them.
I'm glad we agree here. There are actually a lot of libertarians pushing to re-privatize the fire departments.
The same cannot be said when it comes to health care. The level of health care needed depends on many factors that are within an individuals control (i.e. lifestyle, eating habbits, exercise, etc. etc)
The levels of fire protection and police protection depend on many factors that are within an individual's control (i.e. lifestyle, eating habits, exercise, housing location) as well as many factors that are NOT within an individual's control (i.e. DNA, where their parents choose to live, born socioeconomic status, accidents, victims of crime). The exact same can be said of health care.
It is also reasonable, and logical to have your own personal doctor and pay them as neccesary when you get sick. It has been done like that since the beginning.
How is it reasonable or logical? Because that's how it's been done in the US since the beginning? America has a broken health care system that eats up over 15% of our GDP and adds an undue burden to our businesses. America's health care is demonstrably worse in nearly every empirical measure and demonstrably more expensive in every empirical measure. How can it possibly be reasonable to continue doing things the way we have been when we know damned well it's not working?
You can't (or shouldn't) enact laws that make for impossible situations.
The law may be fair or unfair, that I don't know. However it doesn't result in an impossible situation. It only bans sex offenders from cities. Once you leave a city you can live anywhere; even your nearest neighbor can be a mile away. A school is probably 10 miles away, if not more.
Sounds perfectly reasonable to force someone to move so far away from civilization that they have to drive 60 miles to get to a decent job, if they can get one at all.
Anyone who brings up Chernobyl in the context of nuclear power plant safety quite honestly hasn't the slightest idea why Chernobyl happened or why it's physically impossible for it to happen in any nuclear power plant ever designed or built in any western nation...
I submit to you the Santa Susana Field Laboratory. Granted it was not as large scale as Chernobyl, but multiple meltdowns occurred and were intentionally covered up by the government. It not only could have happened in the US, it did--and the cover-up is ongoing.
With that said I agree with the rest of your points. With properly enforced regulations nuclear power can be adequately safe.
I'm only 6'1", but suffer horrible crushing pain in my knees whenever the person in front of me reclines.
I am 6'1" and weigh 195 pounds, and I call bullshit on that claim...while it is by far from spacious it is not that bad.
Same height doesn't mean same leg length or proportions. A man with a 34" or 36" inseam is going to be absolutely miserable in most coach seats.
A man with a freakishly large torso and short legs could be 6'5" and perfectly comfortable in coach.
A person like me, with a large torso and very broad shoulders, can be absolutely miserable in coach even when he is not overweight. My waist fits just fine in between the armrests, and so does my gut, but my shoulders do not. What can I do? I'd pay a little extra for a slightly larger seat, but I simply can't afford double the price or the cost of business/first class.
I once sat in the middle seat between a morbidly obese woman and a safety for the NY Jets--on a full flight. Southwest's policy would have helped there.
no it isn't. he's implying that China doesn't have any interest in any citizens but their own, as does america.
... and he's dead wrong because China has every interest in spying on US citizens, like Google. Or did you forget that corporations are now [above] equal citizens in the US?
Exactly. At age 57, time doesn't "pass faster" for me than it did when I was 23 or 24, but each day adds a lower percentage of new experiences and memories than it did back then. This should be obvious to most people over age 10 who have decent memories.
Should be really easy to test with a simple study of amnesia sufferers.
"If they grab onto you with the octopus-death-grip, duck under the water and they will let go quickly."
Now I know that if the lifeguard trying to save me starts to drown/sink... they're just faking. Better to hang on tight, knowing they will soon surface for air.
If you're thinking clearly enough to remember that, you're not panicking.
No, you twat, she never said what she would do if there *wasn't* a rope available.
Yes, she did, you twat:
It's like when you've got a person who's gone overboard and they're struggling to stay afloat -- the one thing you never ever ever do is jump in after them.
I've never seen a solid challenge to this. The DEA and all the drug control laws are legally based on the fact that we have to do it to honor a treaty... which we wrote and proposed. Otherwise you'd need some sort of constitutional amendment to prohibit citizens from imbibing popular drugs, wouldn't you?
I'll second this, I made the same conscious decision about seven years ago. I still watch some TV shows, but either in DVD form or downloads.
The most interesting part for me, though, is to watch new memes and ideas spread throughout society. I feel like an independent observer. It seems that, nearly overnight, every conservative I knew was saying the same things about Obama... then I watched Fox News at a friends' house and saw where they were getting all of their lines.
or extremely good in bed!
The average torrent junkie doesn't buy 8TB of disk and upgraded bandwidth plans because they really like sharing Linux ISOs...Please.
At 8TB I think it's fairly obvious that they're collecting/hoarding.
If the original ripper only bought his copy so that he could crack it and share it with the scene, and nobody who got access to it would have bought it otherwise, doesn't that mean the software manufacturer is UP one sale?
Don't worry, I'm quite confident it won't be based on the books... at all.
Forward compatibility isn't the only carrot, of course... they could just call the jetpack extensions "add-ons" and call the existing XUL add-ons "core modifications" or some similar terminology, scaring people away from them... Especially if they can guarantee that "all jetpacks compatible with 4.0.0 will be compatible for 4.x"
OK, it's late at night and this post probably makes little sense, but I'm sure you get the point. There are many ways of incentivizing it that aren't evil.
I really thought you were a transgender... Your name no longer makes sense to me! >_>
If a girl has a 12" rubber uncut black cock, would she consider you a freak for having a flesh light?
What if, instead of a flesh light, the guy had the 12" rubber uncut black cock? Would she consider him a freak then?
Is she Jewish?
Don't worry, a Republican friend assured me that plants need sunlight so more sunlight = more plants and more food. Also, CO2 is always good.
I think we should just go after them for collusion. They all have the same ridiculous pricing schemes, and not a single one has thought of under-cutting the competition with a "the price is the price" advertising blitz.
Welcome to price fixing in the New America. You can only convict them of collusion if you have actual videotaped conversations between executives where they expressly agree to set prices.
I thought periodic problems led to hardon collisions.
Maybe in your house! Over here, periodic problems lead to hardons not being able to touch anything for a while.
On the other hand, it would have been hilarious to see what would have happened had McCain/Palin made the cut. Can figures for popularity actually go into the negative?
You betcha!
So let's be realistic for...oh...30 seconds or so. . . . Sure, an oil rig isn't ideal for your romantic sunset on the beach but if it's that have gas up at $10/gallon maybe we should give it some though (sic).
I thought you said you were going to be realistic? Not a lot of offshore oil left to drill in the US, anyways, especially not compared to current usage levels. This is about the difference between $4.050/gallon and $4.0499/gallon. It will make the oil companies a little more profitable, so they're going to keep pushing for it, but it won't come close to 1% of our domestic oil usage... it's as insignificant as can be. So is ANWR. It's not like we have a buried Saudi Arabia off the California coast that those damned evil hippies won't let us get at! But please, continue...
Sure the teary case of a child with lead poisoning hits all kinds of sore points but would you rather shut down the smelting plants and stop construction on anything containing steel or aluminium?
YAY! I WON THE FALSE DICHOTOMY JACKPOT! Twice in one article, too, what a surprise! It's not a choice between "let one child get lead poisoning or stop all smelting in the US", it's a choice between "Let 5-10,000 people get lead poisoning or decrease corporate profits for smelter operators 5%". Seriously, it's not THAT hard to avoid massive environmental contamination with modern technology... people just like to cut corners to increase their profits.
So...give us some technology that's available today and is even reasonably cost competitive and "clean"
Wind is relatively clean and cost competitive. In fact, it's cheaper than nuclear power even with the serious liability shielding for nuclear power plant operators.
Solar thermal is relatively clean and cost competitive. In fact, it's cheaper than nuclear power in many markets, and already has private investment.
Photovoltaics are relatively clean and cost competitive. In fact, it's pretty damned cheap in some markets and can reduce the load on the grid AND supplement peak power usage.
Reduced energy consumption is relatively clean and cost competitive. In fact, it's really damned easy, cheap, and tends to save money in the long run.
Most of the American old reactors are NOT of a horribly bad design like that. Is there a risk? kinda. but if all we have are 3 mile island incidents that the worst was undetectable by most instruments then I'm all for it. Honestly the damned NIMBY and green idiots that kept us from chasing the nuke power option for the past 40 years are the ones to blame. we would have been mostly nuclear plants now all operating profitably. I guess that is what you get with a very undereducated populace. They get easily scared of technology.
We've already had worse. I submit to you: The Santa Susana Field Laboratory
Let's see some nice quotes from the report:
Lochbaum’s bounding estimated release fraction of 30% would equal approximately 13,000 curies of iodine-131 and 2600 curies of cesium-137, based on the inventories and power history asserted by Atomics International. (A curie is that amount of radioactivity that emits 37 billion disintegrations per second.) His best estimate of 15% release would thus mean 6500 curies of iodine-131 and 1300 curies of cesium-137 were released. By contrast, the official estimate for the Three Mile Island accident is 17 curies of I-131 and no cesium released.
Approximately a million gallons of TCE, a toxic solvent, were used to wash off rocket test stands, with roughly half that amount estimated to have entered the soil and groundwater. Dozens of toxic chemicals have been found in soil, groundwater, or surface water at the site.
And one last one in case you haven't crapped yourself yet:
typical clean-up procedures executed by Field Lab employees in the past. Workers would dispose of barrels filled with highly toxic waste by shooting the barrels with rifles so that they would explode and release their contents into the air.
How much more evidence do you need that we can't trust the government OR the industries they're in bed with to protect us from this crap? BTW, no containment on these reactors because they were experimental.
So Entergy's got little reason to concern itself with whether Yankee will work as advertised after relicensing.
That's not really true. It's not the way the legal system works in this country, and you probably know that. Look, if there is an incident under the new ownership, you can bet your bottom dollar that they'll do everything they can to shift liability, at least partially, back to the original owner. That's the way it works, and odds are that they'll be able to do it too, especially if they can show that they performed their own due diligence after the acquisition. It would take years, enrich more than a few trial attorneys, but Entergy would be unlikely to get away unscathed. Consequently, it would behoove the new operators to keep their noses clean.
Highly arguable and the outcome would depend largely on politicians in office at the moment. Legally, they can pass most of the buck by blaming the federal agencies that regulate them. As long as they can say they complied with all regulations, they're in the clear... so what's happening with the regulations right now? Politicians are slashing the regulatory "red tape" because it's political suicide to do otherwise.
Of course I am not a nuclear regulator, so I can't say whether or not they've gone too far in relaxing restrictions.
It seems evident, though, that they have shifted at least some of the liability (fiscal and legal) with this move. Reduced liability almost always means increased risk taking, and we're in a political period where increased risk taking is going to be encouraged. The smart thing to do now would be to watch them carefully.