First, that sounds somewhat sensationalized - But like Stormgren said - it was pretty much a worst case scenario for the reactor.
And even if the reactor had been breached - there wsa secondary containment already built, unlike Chernobyl.
As a result, we went back to the drawing board and redesigned with a theme of even more redundancy and failsafe measures. Today the plants are designed not to breach even if the operators are trying to make it breach. They could all walk away and after a while the plant would detect some sort of problem and SCRAM the reactor by itself.
We also spend a whole lot more effort into making sure the operators are trained.
$1.30/watt for a power solution that has 30% power factor is effectivly $3.90/watt when compared to a system with a power factor of 90%
Eliminate the loan guarantees, repeal Price-Anderson and then see if private capital is available to do this kind of thing. From the numbers, it does not look like it makes any kind of economic sense.
Price-Anderson hasn't really cost the government any money, so I don't see it as much of a subsidy. Any industry having a bad enough accident that the government starts paying out under Price-Anderson and the government would be paying out. It pays for far less damaging incidents already. Before you say that other industries couldn't cause that much damage - I suggest taking a cold hard look at our chemical industries.
As for the loan guarentees, are you forgetting that they simply set the levels to the same as for 'green' energies such as wind/solar?
I'd like to see how wind and solar would compete if they didn't have their own subsidies left and right.
Actually the incident referred to had the water temperature of the river being higher at the inlet than what the plant is allowed to discharge it at due to a combination of low river levels and high temperatures.
So it's a combination of all three - due to higher temperatures, the plant would need to flow more water to make up the difference, due to low river levels the river's temperature rose higher than normal for the temperature.
The plant had enough water to cool itself, it just couldn't use it because it was already too hot.
His point still stands though - if you provided more heat for the process via nuclear power generation, it'd be more efficient yet at producing fuel.
For example, most ethanol plants are currently fired by NG or even coal. Sure, if you take the more optimistic estimates you'd be able to burn some of the corn for heating to make the system more 'green', but it'd be even more efficient to use nuclear power to provide the heat - that way you end up with more biofuel, meaning you need to cultivate fewer acres, whether it's corn or switchgrass.
Considering that it was closed by the Italian government on the behest of the Italian people, I think that the cost should be borne by the Italian people who decided to not go with nuclear power.
In the USA, as stated elsewhere, waste disposal and decommisioning costs are paid for through a surtax on nuclear energy. The US Government actually stated 'You WILL pay us to dispose of the nuclear waste YOU produce'. The nuclear industry has been paying the set amount. The fact that the US Government has screwed up so bad that they haven't actually disposed of any nuclear waste is currently the topic of a number of lawsuits. Meanwhile some of the operating nuclear power plants have resorted to storing some of their older 'waste' rods in above ground casks, at their own additional expense. This doesn't cost much, so it isn't too bad. Personally, I'd like for them to build a reprocessing facility - which would stretch the holding capacity of the average waste pool at a nuclear plant into the centuries. Of course, that's forbidden by executive order(More government interference screwing things up, as far as I'm concerned).
Considering that if you opened every nuclear reactor and waste storage facility and spread their contents evenly around the earth you wouldn't even increase the cancer rate by 1%, I do consider a 'future world full of radioactive waste' a bit hyperbolic.
And I predict that as we use more, the price of these materials will rise, leading to more exploration that'll discover more of it much like oil. As the costs increase, sites that are more expensive to be exploited will be exploited.
As costs rise, fuel recycling becomes more economical, and that increases availability as well. At this point we have enough 'waste' to fuel the current reactors for 200 years or so if we recycled it all.
Eventually thorium reactors would make sense, and that'd extend us into millenniums. Worst case, we're almost to the point that we'd be able to extract enough transuranic metals from ocean water and have it be an energy positive procedure.
You're arguing that radioactive materials that degrade over time without any intervention into materials that are less radioactive, last longer than a stable element like mercury that will stay mercury eternally without the intervention of nuclear forces?
Explain why I should take estimated cost decreases seriously for wind power, yet not take estimated costs seriously for nuclear?
The regulatory situation is different today than it was 30 years ago. There have been plenty of nuclear plants built in other countries without massive cost overruns. We have a lot more research on the matter. They are building plant designs that are already approved, and indeed, more reliable and efficient like many modern products.
Massive cost overruns can occur for any large product - and that includes wind and solar. These plants were going up during a time of paranoia and regulatory change. I'll not say that there weren't issues found because of the paranoia - but we're talking about a time when construction could be stopped by a single letter from a 'concerned citizen'.
Wind is the cheapest source of energy in Texas you can buy and it is getting cheaper. This is not going to change until solar comes down further.
Are you sure about that? Sure, it's the cheapest right now if you consider plant costs as sunk costs(that are massivly subsidized) and simply look at the marginal cost for producing another kWh.
Figure in the extra amount and backup in case of calm weather and a 5% capital cost rate and it suddenly doesn't look so good.
Not to sound like an ass or anything, do you happen to have a link quoting that?
This site has comments seeming to esitmate a 35% capacity factor for an off-shore program. Wiki talks about both on-shore and off shore, and for capacity factor mentions 'A well-sited wind generator will have a capacity factor of about 35%.' You'd tend to think that if off-shore had that much better of a capacity factor they'd mention it.
Because they are many plants. A set of windfarms in different locations also can produce in a "mostly demand based" fashion.
They still can't without building three times as many watts of capacity as you would have to for a nuclear plant, and still likely have to build a storage system to level peaks out.
I consider myself a wierd green. If I had my way, I'd be building nuclear plants as quickly as I could in favor of shutting down coal plants, starting with the most polluting per kWh. Yes, I'd do some more research into breeding reactors and reproccessing facilities. It's quite possible to reduce the amount of nuclear waste by an order of magnitude - matter of fact some of our oldest rods are getting cool enough that the measures needed handle the residual radiation are vastly reduced, making reprocessing a much cheaper task.
Sure, build wind and solar farms where it makes sense - it just doesn't make sense in many areas yet.
Another location issue pertains specifically to Texas. Texas wind power has been growing very rapidly and may easily meet anticipated demand. Wind costs about $1.30/Watt to build while the nuclear plant, at this early phase, is anticipated to cost $2.20/Watt without modifications that come up in the licensing process or construction delays that genrally plague large projects.
Don't forget to figure in that Wind generally has a production factor of around 30%, while nuclear has one of over 90% - and that's mostly demand based(IE they can produce power when they want to, and can normally schedule outages for maintenance). A plant with a capacity factor of 100%(IE 100% production for a full year) would produce 8.76 kWh per watt. A nuclear plant would average 7.884 kWh, while a wind turbine would only average 2.628 kWh.
That kicks wind up to $4.33 per sustained watt(IE max/factor), and nuclear to $2.44. That'd leave $1.89 to cover any increased operating costs of the nuclear plant. Heck, at 5% interest, that'd be 9.5 cents per watt in interest alone. That's a penny per kw/h that can go towards operating expenses on the plant - forever.
Also, don't assume that wind turbines are without operating costs - they might not need fuel, but they do need monitoring and maintenance.
I think that a large part of this problem with ever expanding government is the fact that people who run for office generally think in terms of solving problems through government, which leads to more government. For that matter, while in office your tool is government and thus every problem starts looking like a good candidate for a government solution. The government solution generally creates more problems, which leads to more government intervention, leading to massive inefficiency.
Just imagine if we could get redirect of even 10% of the workforce of various levels of government towards more productive careers building stuff. We wouldn't need illegals* to help build our houses.
And yeah, you tend to have nutjobs on both sides of the spectrum. If nothing else, the moderates aren't as motivated to go through the effort of being elected.
*No problem with immigration, unless it's illegal. Both sides of the issue need to be fixed. Legal immigration needs to be made easier, while deterrance and punishment for illegal immigration need to increase.
You speak truth. Of course, I guess it depends on how much you identify with your character.
I've found that I'm generally a step further away than some people - I don't identify the character as myself, or myself as my character. I'm more like the controller types you see in some advanced military movies. You know, where there's a guy sitting in a trailor/room somewhere with a bunch of video and status screens sending directions to the soldier who's actually in the field.
Hmm. If we delve into the gun-lobby links you gave
I hardly think that the US Department of Justice is a gun lobby, nor is the Worldnetdaily(though it does appear to be a conservative news site). Theksa.com, I'll give you. Didn't look closely enough at the marquee. I mostly grabbed the first likely looking sites in google.
The data doesn't seem that clear-cut, indeed it seems rates are the same. I'm not sure how to interpret this data though (there's not much of it). I'm not sure either one of us should draw any strong conclusions from it.
It's simple enough: In 1995, 30.9% of those surveyed in England reported being the victim of a crime in the last year. In the USA, the figure was 24.2%, which would make the papers as 'Crime is 25% lower in the United States!'. It probably isn't a straight percentage actually, people who were victims of multiple crimes probably were counted in the survey. IE if 1% of the population reported being assaulted twice, the results would end up being 2,0.
Overall, you were much less likely to have property stolen or damaged in the USA, a little less likely to be assaulted, more likely to suffer 'sexual offense'. Digging deeper into the methodology - sexual offense includes 'offencive behaviour', which seems a little vague to me - a wolf whistle could count for a particularly sensitive individual.
Air-rifles: Yes, I did note in another comment they can be lethal. As the article notes though, over half the recorded "firearms" incidents were of 'minor wounds' (i.e. kids/teens shooting each other with pellet guns quite likely).
I might be a 2nd amendment advocate - but at the same time I consider myself tough on crime and very much for gun safety. I don't care whether it's a.50BMG sniper rifle or a BB gun, it should be treated with respect and handled in a safe manner. If you really want to shoot each other, that's what paintball markers, combined with the proper safety equipment, are for.
Never went that extreme, though I did lose my temper and go after a classmate in front of the teacher once. Of course, he was stupid and spit on me in front of said teacher and witnesses. Took the teacher and three kids to pull me off.
Being a midwest school, he got into more trouble than me. I got in school suspension for two days. Got caught up on my homework.
That's part of the problem I see happening in inner cities - you have groups of supposed adults who end up forming into gangs and becoming group bullies. As adults their violence level is much higher than a kid can generally manage.
Personally, I tended to get into a fight about once a year. It generally dropped the bullying level tremendously afterwards.
Bullies are bullies because they go after targets of opportunity; people that they see as weak. Make yourself not weak; or at least not worth it and they'll leave you alone.
Not to be a downer, but a professionally pressed(not burned) CD should have longevity closer to that of vinyl - most burned CD's are only rated for a few decades, a pressed CD should last your children's lives if taken care of properly. And it'll stand much more in the way of playing than the LP.
The 4k figure in that article includes over 2k 'minor' injuries from air rifles / pellet guns. Hardly violent crime - though dangerous and irresponsible - but a shot from a pellet gun usually only stings a bit.
While pellet guns are indeed generally near the bottom of the force chart - fatalities can and have occured from being shot with them. I have been shot with a spring type pellet handgun as a teenager - about the slowest you'll find. It left a good bruise, more than 'stings a bit'(the friend who shot me suffered worse). While at the time it was later laughed off - today I probably could have pressed assault charges and won.
Today I have a air powered pellet rifle - fully capable of penetrating the skin, even through clothing, as well as consistently killing small animals - even cats(haven't killed anything with it, but I know it can be done). It put a quarter inch dent into a heavy aluminum pizza pan through a cardboard box and styrofoam- took a hammer to flatten back out.
Still, remember what I said - I care about crime, divided roughly into classes by injury caused, not how the crime was commited - a murder commited with a knife is just as bad as one commited with a gun. A robbery commited with a gun is as bad as one commited with a gun, so on and so forth.
Consider the permanent, crippling harm that can be done with your average hammer - would it really be any worse than being shot?
The UK btw has gotten pretty weird about crime statistics, cause of changes in how they reward police officers (bonuses depend on the number of crime 'detections', etc..) over the course of the labour government.
I've also heard that they're a bit wierd how they count murder - if the murderer plea-bargains it down to a manslaughter charge(or less), it's removed from the murder rate. I've heard this several times.
Please note that the rates in quoted in the first link I gave include victimization surveys for stuff other than murder(a bit difficult to survey murder victims).
The rest of Europe can be a bit different - in some areas silencers are considered good manners while hunting, here in the USA they're illegal for hunting, just plain illegal in others, and require a $200 tax stamp where they are legal. Gun laws are different - as is the culture.
The point is that most other countries (e.g. like the UK) have a/far/ lower gun crime rate than the US.
Our point is that crime has to be looked at as a whole. We look at crime, not gun crime.
IE you look at murders commited by a gun. By that standard, Rwanda looked good. I look at the murder rate, to include all means. By that standard, the USA looks pretty bad against most european countries, but we've looked bad throughout our history when good stats were kept.
We do look a lot better in plain violent crime.
Still, a big part of our problem is extremely localized not only in 'big cities', but in localized sections of them. And cities are traditionally bastions of gun control in the USA. You look at Washington DC, murder capital of the USA - guns have effectivly been banned since the 70s. You look at the timeline, and crime was dropping(though still high) up until they banned guns - then it skyrocketed. Chicago - same deal.
History has shown in the USA that banning guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens increases the crime rate. Allowing them reduces the rate.
I'd like for them to at least offer a 'classic' theme for office like you have in windows.
I might like some of the advanced functionality 2007 has over 2003, but the interface changes are a pain in the butt at this time. I got a copy of 2007 through the HUP for cheap, but use 2003 at work.
My mother, who recently got a new computer with office 2007, had the hardest time figuring out how to print.
If you're being sued in the first place, you should have a lawyer. Given the correct details, there are many lawyers willing to work on contingency in these cases as a reward is very likely given even a little work, as filing a SLAPP countersuit would be a standard legal maneuver.
Personally, I think part of the 'you're out of legal fees' is a deterent to needing to use the court system, as everybody loses if they have to go there.
Unfortuantly, we have a sue-happy culture here, many other countries can afford to be much nicer as their citizens are indoctrinated not to pursue suits unless absolutely necessary. This is present on both sides - the violating company or individual pays voluntarily because they know they're at fault.
Still, award of legal fees is often part of any settlement where the defendent was particularly bad.
Slashdot Mirror
First, that sounds somewhat sensationalized - But like Stormgren said - it was pretty much a worst case scenario for the reactor.
And even if the reactor had been breached - there wsa secondary containment already built, unlike Chernobyl.
As a result, we went back to the drawing board and redesigned with a theme of even more redundancy and failsafe measures. Today the plants are designed not to breach even if the operators are trying to make it breach. They could all walk away and after a while the plant would detect some sort of problem and SCRAM the reactor by itself.
We also spend a whole lot more effort into making sure the operators are trained.
$1.30/watt for a power solution that has 30% power factor is effectivly $3.90/watt when compared to a system with a power factor of 90%
Eliminate the loan guarantees, repeal Price-Anderson and then see if private capital is available to do this kind of thing. From the numbers, it does not look like it makes any kind of economic sense.
Price-Anderson hasn't really cost the government any money, so I don't see it as much of a subsidy. Any industry having a bad enough accident that the government starts paying out under Price-Anderson and the government would be paying out. It pays for far less damaging incidents already. Before you say that other industries couldn't cause that much damage - I suggest taking a cold hard look at our chemical industries.
As for the loan guarentees, are you forgetting that they simply set the levels to the same as for 'green' energies such as wind/solar?
I'd like to see how wind and solar would compete if they didn't have their own subsidies left and right.
Actually the incident referred to had the water temperature of the river being higher at the inlet than what the plant is allowed to discharge it at due to a combination of low river levels and high temperatures.
So it's a combination of all three - due to higher temperatures, the plant would need to flow more water to make up the difference, due to low river levels the river's temperature rose higher than normal for the temperature.
The plant had enough water to cool itself, it just couldn't use it because it was already too hot.
His point still stands though - if you provided more heat for the process via nuclear power generation, it'd be more efficient yet at producing fuel.
For example, most ethanol plants are currently fired by NG or even coal. Sure, if you take the more optimistic estimates you'd be able to burn some of the corn for heating to make the system more 'green', but it'd be even more efficient to use nuclear power to provide the heat - that way you end up with more biofuel, meaning you need to cultivate fewer acres, whether it's corn or switchgrass.
Considering that it was closed by the Italian government on the behest of the Italian people, I think that the cost should be borne by the Italian people who decided to not go with nuclear power.
In the USA, as stated elsewhere, waste disposal and decommisioning costs are paid for through a surtax on nuclear energy. The US Government actually stated 'You WILL pay us to dispose of the nuclear waste YOU produce'. The nuclear industry has been paying the set amount. The fact that the US Government has screwed up so bad that they haven't actually disposed of any nuclear waste is currently the topic of a number of lawsuits. Meanwhile some of the operating nuclear power plants have resorted to storing some of their older 'waste' rods in above ground casks, at their own additional expense. This doesn't cost much, so it isn't too bad. Personally, I'd like for them to build a reprocessing facility - which would stretch the holding capacity of the average waste pool at a nuclear plant into the centuries. Of course, that's forbidden by executive order(More government interference screwing things up, as far as I'm concerned).
Considering that if you opened every nuclear reactor and waste storage facility and spread their contents evenly around the earth you wouldn't even increase the cancer rate by 1%, I do consider a 'future world full of radioactive waste' a bit hyperbolic.
This requires breeder reactors. Which are illegal in the US.
That's simply an executive order though, so the POTUS could change that at pretty much any time. Or congress could, by passing a law authorizing it.
And I predict that as we use more, the price of these materials will rise, leading to more exploration that'll discover more of it much like oil. As the costs increase, sites that are more expensive to be exploited will be exploited.
As costs rise, fuel recycling becomes more economical, and that increases availability as well. At this point we have enough 'waste' to fuel the current reactors for 200 years or so if we recycled it all.
Eventually thorium reactors would make sense, and that'd extend us into millenniums. Worst case, we're almost to the point that we'd be able to extract enough transuranic metals from ocean water and have it be an energy positive procedure.
So, let me get this straight:
You're arguing that radioactive materials that degrade over time without any intervention into materials that are less radioactive, last longer than a stable element like mercury that will stay mercury eternally without the intervention of nuclear forces?
What does wind cost in 2013? About $0.70/Watt.
Then build them in 2013, not when it's a $1.30/watt.
About 5.6 times the original estimate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Texas_Nuclear_Generating_Station.
Explain why I should take estimated cost decreases seriously for wind power, yet not take estimated costs seriously for nuclear?
The regulatory situation is different today than it was 30 years ago. There have been plenty of nuclear plants built in other countries without massive cost overruns. We have a lot more research on the matter. They are building plant designs that are already approved, and indeed, more reliable and efficient like many modern products.
Massive cost overruns can occur for any large product - and that includes wind and solar. These plants were going up during a time of paranoia and regulatory change. I'll not say that there weren't issues found because of the paranoia - but we're talking about a time when construction could be stopped by a single letter from a 'concerned citizen'.
Wind is the cheapest source of energy in Texas you can buy and it is getting cheaper. This is not going to change until solar comes down further.
Are you sure about that? Sure, it's the cheapest right now if you consider plant costs as sunk costs(that are massivly subsidized) and simply look at the marginal cost for producing another kWh.
Figure in the extra amount and backup in case of calm weather and a 5% capital cost rate and it suddenly doesn't look so good.
Not to sound like an ass or anything, do you happen to have a link quoting that?
This site has comments seeming to esitmate a 35% capacity factor for an off-shore program.
Wiki talks about both on-shore and off shore, and for capacity factor mentions 'A well-sited wind generator will have a capacity factor of about 35%.' You'd tend to think that if off-shore had that much better of a capacity factor they'd mention it.
Offshore wind assessment for California: This project alone could produce 9.7 TWh annually (39% capacity factor),
Because they are many plants. A set of windfarms in different locations also can produce in a "mostly demand based" fashion.
They still can't without building three times as many watts of capacity as you would have to for a nuclear plant, and still likely have to build a storage system to level peaks out.
I consider myself a wierd green. If I had my way, I'd be building nuclear plants as quickly as I could in favor of shutting down coal plants, starting with the most polluting per kWh. Yes, I'd do some more research into breeding reactors and reproccessing facilities. It's quite possible to reduce the amount of nuclear waste by an order of magnitude - matter of fact some of our oldest rods are getting cool enough that the measures needed handle the residual radiation are vastly reduced, making reprocessing a much cheaper task.
Sure, build wind and solar farms where it makes sense - it just doesn't make sense in many areas yet.
Another location issue pertains specifically to Texas. Texas wind power has been growing very rapidly and may easily meet anticipated demand. Wind costs about $1.30/Watt to build while the nuclear plant, at this early phase, is anticipated to cost $2.20/Watt without modifications that come up in the licensing process or construction delays that genrally plague large projects.
Don't forget to figure in that Wind generally has a production factor of around 30%, while nuclear has one of over 90% - and that's mostly demand based(IE they can produce power when they want to, and can normally schedule outages for maintenance). A plant with a capacity factor of 100%(IE 100% production for a full year) would produce 8.76 kWh per watt. A nuclear plant would average 7.884 kWh, while a wind turbine would only average 2.628 kWh.
That kicks wind up to $4.33 per sustained watt(IE max/factor), and nuclear to $2.44. That'd leave $1.89 to cover any increased operating costs of the nuclear plant. Heck, at 5% interest, that'd be 9.5 cents per watt in interest alone. That's a penny per kw/h that can go towards operating expenses on the plant - forever.
Also, don't assume that wind turbines are without operating costs - they might not need fuel, but they do need monitoring and maintenance.
I think that a large part of this problem with ever expanding government is the fact that people who run for office generally think in terms of solving problems through government, which leads to more government. For that matter, while in office your tool is government and thus every problem starts looking like a good candidate for a government solution. The government solution generally creates more problems, which leads to more government intervention, leading to massive inefficiency.
Just imagine if we could get redirect of even 10% of the workforce of various levels of government towards more productive careers building stuff. We wouldn't need illegals* to help build our houses.
And yeah, you tend to have nutjobs on both sides of the spectrum. If nothing else, the moderates aren't as motivated to go through the effort of being elected.
*No problem with immigration, unless it's illegal. Both sides of the issue need to be fixed. Legal immigration needs to be made easier, while deterrance and punishment for illegal immigration need to increase.
You speak truth. Of course, I guess it depends on how much you identify with your character.
I've found that I'm generally a step further away than some people - I don't identify the character as myself, or myself as my character. I'm more like the controller types you see in some advanced military movies. You know, where there's a guy sitting in a trailor/room somewhere with a bunch of video and status screens sending directions to the soldier who's actually in the field.
Hmm. If we delve into the gun-lobby links you gave
.50BMG sniper rifle or a BB gun, it should be treated with respect and handled in a safe manner. If you really want to shoot each other, that's what paintball markers, combined with the proper safety equipment, are for.
I hardly think that the US Department of Justice is a gun lobby, nor is the Worldnetdaily(though it does appear to be a conservative news site). Theksa.com, I'll give you. Didn't look closely enough at the marquee. I mostly grabbed the first likely looking sites in google.
The data doesn't seem that clear-cut, indeed it seems rates are the same. I'm not sure how to interpret this data though (there's not much of it). I'm not sure either one of us should draw any strong conclusions from it.
It's simple enough:
In 1995, 30.9% of those surveyed in England reported being the victim of a crime in the last year. In the USA, the figure was 24.2%, which would make the papers as 'Crime is 25% lower in the United States!'. It probably isn't a straight percentage actually, people who were victims of multiple crimes probably were counted in the survey. IE if 1% of the population reported being assaulted twice, the results would end up being 2,0.
Overall, you were much less likely to have property stolen or damaged in the USA, a little less likely to be assaulted, more likely to suffer 'sexual offense'. Digging deeper into the methodology - sexual offense includes 'offencive behaviour', which seems a little vague to me - a wolf whistle could count for a particularly sensitive individual.
Air-rifles: Yes, I did note in another comment they can be lethal. As the article notes though, over half the recorded "firearms" incidents were of 'minor wounds' (i.e. kids/teens shooting each other with pellet guns quite likely).
I might be a 2nd amendment advocate - but at the same time I consider myself tough on crime and very much for gun safety. I don't care whether it's a
Never went that extreme, though I did lose my temper and go after a classmate in front of the teacher once. Of course, he was stupid and spit on me in front of said teacher and witnesses. Took the teacher and three kids to pull me off.
Being a midwest school, he got into more trouble than me. I got in school suspension for two days. Got caught up on my homework.
That's part of the problem I see happening in inner cities - you have groups of supposed adults who end up forming into gangs and becoming group bullies. As adults their violence level is much higher than a kid can generally manage.
Personally, I tended to get into a fight about once a year. It generally dropped the bullying level tremendously afterwards.
Bullies are bullies because they go after targets of opportunity; people that they see as weak. Make yourself not weak; or at least not worth it and they'll leave you alone.
Not to be a downer, but a professionally pressed(not burned) CD should have longevity closer to that of vinyl - most burned CD's are only rated for a few decades, a pressed CD should last your children's lives if taken care of properly. And it'll stand much more in the way of playing than the LP.
Got any figures on that, out of curiosity?
Sure, the UK started exceeding US violent crime rates around 1991.
The 4k figure in that article includes over 2k 'minor' injuries from air rifles / pellet guns. Hardly violent crime - though dangerous and irresponsible - but a shot from a pellet gun usually only stings a bit.
While pellet guns are indeed generally near the bottom of the force chart - fatalities can and have occured from being shot with them. I have been shot with a spring type pellet handgun as a teenager - about the slowest you'll find. It left a good bruise, more than 'stings a bit'(the friend who shot me suffered worse). While at the time it was later laughed off - today I probably could have pressed assault charges and won.
Today I have a air powered pellet rifle - fully capable of penetrating the skin, even through clothing, as well as consistently killing small animals - even cats(haven't killed anything with it, but I know it can be done). It put a quarter inch dent into a heavy aluminum pizza pan through a cardboard box and styrofoam- took a hammer to flatten back out.
Still, remember what I said - I care about crime, divided roughly into classes by injury caused, not how the crime was commited - a murder commited with a knife is just as bad as one commited with a gun. A robbery commited with a gun is as bad as one commited with a gun, so on and so forth.
Consider the permanent, crippling harm that can be done with your average hammer - would it really be any worse than being shot?
The UK btw has gotten pretty weird about crime statistics, cause of changes in how they reward police officers (bonuses depend on the number of crime 'detections', etc..) over the course of the labour government.
I've also heard that they're a bit wierd how they count murder - if the murderer plea-bargains it down to a manslaughter charge(or less), it's removed from the murder rate. I've heard this several times.
Please note that the rates in quoted in the first link I gave include victimization surveys for stuff other than murder(a bit difficult to survey murder victims).
The rest of Europe can be a bit different - in some areas silencers are considered good manners while hunting, here in the USA they're illegal for hunting, just plain illegal in others, and require a $200 tax stamp where they are legal. Gun laws are different - as is the culture.
The point is that most other countries (e.g. like the UK) have a /far/ lower gun crime rate than the US.
Our point is that crime has to be looked at as a whole. We look at crime, not gun crime.
IE you look at murders commited by a gun. By that standard, Rwanda looked good.
I look at the murder rate, to include all means. By that standard, the USA looks pretty bad against most european countries, but we've looked bad throughout our history when good stats were kept.
We do look a lot better in plain violent crime.
Still, a big part of our problem is extremely localized not only in 'big cities', but in localized sections of them. And cities are traditionally bastions of gun control in the USA. You look at Washington DC, murder capital of the USA - guns have effectivly been banned since the 70s. You look at the timeline, and crime was dropping(though still high) up until they banned guns - then it skyrocketed. Chicago - same deal.
History has shown in the USA that banning guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens increases the crime rate. Allowing them reduces the rate.
I'd like for them to at least offer a 'classic' theme for office like you have in windows.
I might like some of the advanced functionality 2007 has over 2003, but the interface changes are a pain in the butt at this time. I got a copy of 2007 through the HUP for cheap, but use 2003 at work.
My mother, who recently got a new computer with office 2007, had the hardest time figuring out how to print.
Besides plague's movies, for home users I wouldn't underestimate the demand for games.
Which calls for much more than a p300 at this point.
But I will note that both my parents and grandparent's machines are vastly more powerful than they need to be for what they use them for.
If you're being sued in the first place, you should have a lawyer. Given the correct details, there are many lawyers willing to work on contingency in these cases as a reward is very likely given even a little work, as filing a SLAPP countersuit would be a standard legal maneuver.
Personally, I think part of the 'you're out of legal fees' is a deterent to needing to use the court system, as everybody loses if they have to go there.
Unfortuantly, we have a sue-happy culture here, many other countries can afford to be much nicer as their citizens are indoctrinated not to pursue suits unless absolutely necessary. This is present on both sides - the violating company or individual pays voluntarily because they know they're at fault.
Still, award of legal fees is often part of any settlement where the defendent was particularly bad.
Considering that they're suing over bad reviews, it certainly sounds like SLAPP applies.