(Boiling Water Reactos have an) advantage that uncovering fuel rods does not automatically lead to clad failure (in fact a portion is not covered by water during power operation as it turns water into steam); even a fully uncovered core could be steam cooled to prevent meltdown.
Uncovering our fuel doesn't necessarily lead to cladding failure either, though it's something we only encounter in accident scenarios on the simulator. We can get acceptable (non-damaging) core exit thermocouple readings with much of our fuel uncovered.
Obviously it's not our preferred method of cooling the core, but it's not a guaranteed meltdown either.
I'm guessing BWR fuel isn't terribly different from ours, but perhaps you know a bit more. Is it stacks of 3/8" diameter uranium pellets clad in zircaloy?
It also states that this is a Pressurized Water Reactor, so it's probably more about generating by-products (esp. tritium) than it is about generating energy.
I work at a pressurized water reactor so I'm really getting a kick out of these replies....
No, seriously, I'm not an expert on the radionuclide table, but that's hardly why one would choose a pressurized water reactor over a boiling water reactor. (Those are the two big established types. The United States has dozens of both varieties in commercial operation.)
One big reason to pick a pressurized water reactor is that you limit your contamination to the primary reactor coolant loop and it's support systems. The steam plant- the electricity generating side- stays completely radiation free.
This makes servicing the steam-electricity side of the plant much cheaper and simpler.
Most electricity generating power plants in the US operate on steam power.
In a pressurized water reactor, there's a separate reactor coolant loop that passes heat through metal tubes, boiling 'feed water' in the steam generator, and the steam spins the turbine that makes electricity. The primary coolant and the feed water/ steam do not come in contact.
In a boiling water reactor, the reactor directly boils the water that spins the turbine. One big advantage of this is cheaper construction.
Both types 'burn' Uranium to generate the heat that boils the water. Pressurized Water Reactors simply have an additional segregated loop of water.
There are probably a number of advantages to either type that other folks could fill you in on. I assure you though, as an operator of an American Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactor, tritium is nothing more than an occasional annoyance.
When you decide to take an anti-intellectual approach to politics you're going to, surprise, lose the intellectuals.
I regard a man in his area of expertise, and no further. A professor of English literature is the one to talk to about Shakespeare, an oncologist is one to consult with about cancer, and a veteran mechanic is the guy I talk to about why I have to rev my wife's car to 5k rpm to start it after a cold night.
When folks say the right is anti-intellectual, they are really deriding us for not giving collateral credit for being 'smart' to areas outside one's demonstrated expertise.
If you've spent 10 years studying or working in a particular field, and have demonstrated mastery of that field, then you're my guy for all concerns in that field. Outside of that field, their opinion is quite frankly just another opinion.
You'll notice that I repeatedly emphasized demonstrated competence. The reason for this is because we've tended to confuse 'articulate' and 'competent' in the public scene lately. When you have shown, by way of doing, that you can manage something, you are worth listening to on that subject, no matter how rough your speech. When you've never even attempted a particular task, all your grand theories and fine speeches are at best gum-flapping, at worst sophistry.
Sounding intelligent, sounding brilliant, sounding cultured, etc, is a particular set of grammatical patterns and delivery style. It is a skill that is to be regarded in it's own right. Unfortunately, many folks in society think that sounding intelligent is the same as knowing a damn thing.
It's not. Bonafide competence and fantastic delivery occasionally travel together in a person, but quite often not.
When you realize this, you will understand that calling the right 'Anti-intellectual' is merely a cheap seduction. It's along the lines of "Hey, come join us, we've got all the smart people, and you'll get credit for being smart by hanging out with us." Actual thought is optional, the association with 'the intellectuals' is sufficient for the tawdry temptation to be successful.
Libertarians are almost always people who are well off and don't like the idea of helping those who weren't dealt as good a hand as they were.
You can sum up libertarianism as: Fuck everyone else, if you're poor, it's their your fault.
It's an easy and cheap conceit to think that just because some folks think the government ought to refrain from doing something, to think that those people object to it being done at all.
It allows folks like you to think that they're kinder and better than those they oppose. It's a cheap ego trick you play on yourself.
Folks that believe government ought to stay out of charity think this: There are fundamental, critical problems associated with governments carrying out charity work, problems that private charities do not suffer from.
When you say folks like me think 'fuck the poor', you're showing a certain lack of depth, you're implying you cannot fathom that we think there are very important reasons that the work is best done by folks other than the government. (We do put our money where our mouth is, as you'll find if you search for political association and charitable giving.)
Now I'm not a libertarian, but I certainly share some beliefs with them, and this particular conceit of yours is worth addressing.
Imagine there's no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for, And no religion too. Imagine all the people, Living life in peace.
I can't be the only who has heard that entire song and thought....
How utterly boring.
Some folks may be fine being cows nonchalantly grazing in the meadows, but as for me, I prefer the challenges and conflicts in life, in overcoming them, and advancing.
A neutered, tepid world is all Lennon offers us in that song. It's a secular version of some cloudy heaven with lame harps and all those dead relatives you didn't like in life. I don't have to love war to think the vision sucks.
Oh God, I hope you're not referring to Reagan in that phrase. If you really think Reagan is one of the finest men we saw last century, I see no point in continuing the discussion.
This particular disagreement is of course fundamental to the issue of the 'hero.' A 'Hero' essentially by definition, will overturn established orders and interests, will do something out of the ordinary. This will result in some people despising him while others praise him. The heroic soldier on the battlefield must have his enemy, Reagan had communists to stare down, and Che Guearva had bougeouis to murder.
Ultimately I might be on the wrong side of history, or you might be. Either way it's important to recognize why certain people are adored by some and despised by others. An inability to understand an alternative view, though you may disagree, certainly won't do one any good.
In concerning oneself with athletes as potential heros, we pare down the field to those who do impressive feats with no lasting significance. You're right to be dissatisfied with what passes for a hero.
Ha Ha you made me your foe. That's even richer. You're a cheap partisan hack who imagines socialism or democrats delivers some kind of 'social justice' (the Utopian theory), instead of a boot stomping on humanity's face (the demonstrated actual result.)
You don't want your purity of thought pierced by a murderous history, do you?
The Gini coefficient is a measure of statistical dispersion most prominently used as a measure of inequality of income distribution or inequality of wealth distribution. It is defined as a ratio with values between 0 and 1: A low Gini coefficient indicates more equal income or wealth distribution, while a high Gini coefficient indicates more unequal distribution. 0 corresponds to perfect equality (everyone having exactly the same income) and 1 corresponds to perfect inequality (where one person has all the income, while everyone else has zero income).
I'm sure the Old Soviet Union had a fantastic Gini Index.
They only had to murder millions of their own people to get it.
I'm guessing Cuba has a great Gini index too.
Their people make boats out of 50 year old Chevy trucks and try to sail these to America.
The Democrats can no longer cry about the budget. Now that they're in control, it's three or four times as bad.
Given that your other graph is about how 'unfair' the United States is (What do you think life is, Kindergarten?), I'm pretty sure you're fine with any government spending, as long it's of the redistributionist variety.
They're almost done spending their million dollars on me. 3 Years as an Nuclear System Operator (aka Auxiliary Operator) My NRC license exam is in June.
How can you look at a report that counts multiple crimes against multiple people in a year only once, and not immediately see that it's a ploy to reduce embarrassingly high crime statistics?
The FBI report consists of discrete criminal events.
The UK report consists of essentially one tick for any number of crimes committed against any number of people in a household.
In the US, if a person's house got robbed 12 times, and they called the police each time, then that is twelve burglary events recorded for the year.
In the UK, if a person's house is robbed 12 times in a year, than that person is noted as a victim of burglary, and that's that.
Not to mention the UK figures are for households, not individuals. Another example of "look what I can prove with badly used statistics".
And still it's modded up, so it must fool some people.
Have you considered why the UK might pick a different method of reporting crime statistics, and what implications that might have for international comparison?
If you are unwilling to consider why methods are picked, what implications those methods have, and what institutional goals are supported by those methods and implications, then you are the essentially the most likely to be bullshitted by statistics.
If you have a report that is more appropriate for direct comparison, please share it.
If you do not, then you must attempt to extrapolate the differences yourself, if you wish to say one country has more crime than the other.
It's my impression that's the point- obfuscation of embarrassingly high numbers.
If you have a better method of comparing criminal statistics, then please share it.
If you do not, and you maintain that you can't compare the statistics, then there's no way you can say crimes are higher in the US either.
There is an objective reality. There are a certain number of crimes that occur in both countries each year. One country is more crime ridden than the other, even if only by a fraction of a percent.
You assert we can't tell the difference.
If one accepts your assertion, then it follows that one may not brag about how safe the UK is or how violent the US is, compared to the other.
If, instead, one states that we can compare crime statistics and adjust for differences in record keeping, then the answer is still clear: The US has less crime than the UK.
So which is it? Are the UK patriots going to shut their mouths about how dangerous the US is, because there is no basis to compare, or are the UK patriots going to accept that their country is more dangerous, because there is a basis of comparison?
Again, if you can find a different report that you find suitable for comparison from either country, please post it and I'll read it. We can then discuss it.
Take a look at page 115 of the home office report. Chapter 7.4. Let's use the Rural numbers, just for fun. They're lower.
Percentage victims once or more All burglary: 2% All Vehicle Theft: 4% All Violence: 2%
Now compare it to the United States FBI report: 2005, violent crime rate: 469.2 per 100,000 people (equivalent to less than or equal to 0.462%, per UK standards) Burglary: 726.7 per 100,000 (equivalent or = 0.7267 %) Motor Vehicle Theft: 416.7 per 100,000 ( = 0.4167%)
Notice also that the FBI counts discrete events of crimes, where as the Home Office will only count you once if you get robbed, beat up, or stolen from multiple times per year. In essence, the Home Office method is a clear attempt to reduce crime statistics by any defendable method.
You are at least 4 times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in the UK. You are at about ten times more likely to have your car stolen in the UK. You are about three times more likely to have your home robbed in the UK.
I invite you to poke around the official numbers for both the US and the UK and make a counter argument.
My argument is this: Offering violence to criminals reduces their numbers.
...and if someone is trying to steal your stuff (but has no intention of physically harming you) and you KILL them, that is definately murder. The standing statutes in many states disagrees with your assessment.
They show they have no intention of harming you by robbing your house when it's empty.
If they determine that you are present, and DON'T immediately leave, then they have a plan to deal with you.
I don't care to find out what that plan is. If you don't run when I rouse, or surrender immediately, then you are a threat to me and my family, and will be treated as such.
That's the way the law works in the vast majority of the United States, and for good reason.
A criminal who robs your house, with you in it, is prepared to deal with you. He has decided your stuff is worth more than your safety or your life.
It is the burglar's decision to make. The homeowner who shoots him is abiding by that same decision, in a manner unfavorable to the robber.
'Taking a stand' would be tarring and feathering their local district attorney equivalent and their MP's until their right to shoot burglars dead is once again respected by English law.
Burglaries will be sorted out after a few burglars end up dead for their efforts.
Take a stand and kill a crook. Take a stand and slap around your local DA to de facto respect the notion that a man's home is his castle. Take a stand and slap around your politicians until they recognize what nature teaches: That every living thing has a right to defend themselves, their friends, their family, and their home.
Being a crook isn't a legitimate career choice. It should carry a great deal more risk than it currently does in jolly ol' Britain.
Ah, the catch--22 of the patent--being forced to reveal your hand in order to protect it while underpaid workers at Baidu figure out how to integrate your ideas into their hardware.
That's not a catch-22, that's the point. In exchange for everyone learning from what you've done, you get society's protection for a limited number of years.
Also, the workers at Baidu are not underpaid- if they where, they'd leave for better oppurtunities. The workers in question have obviously decided they're better off making stuff for google- they don't need your 'superior' judgement to tell them they should go back to subsistenance farming or melting hazardous materials for precious metals in their homes.
A decision to work, or not to work, and to hire, or not to hire, are based on realistic alternatives, not what some westerner sitting at a keyboard 9,000 miles away thinks is best.
Better a joke than stupid hero worship (I'm looking at you, Reagan International Airport). At least a joke name indicates that there is some thought going on.
In trying to best tailor a response to you, I clicked on your name and saw your journal. What do I see near the top, but a short discussion of heroes?
You wished then for heroic values, in addition to heroic actions(Michael Phelps dissapointed you). By many measures, Reagan did both.
It's pretty clear that despite your yearning for genuine heroes, you adhere to a political ideology that eschews heroes. You talk up a sneering comedian, and you disregard one of the finest men seen last century.
I'm guessing there are some substantial incongruencies in your beliefs, but I won't go off venturing guesses about them. Perhaps you hold heroes in highest esteem when they hold heroic values, but don't accomplishing anything of greater importance then an evening's entertainment?
By all means, let's spend millions of dollars of taxpayer money on part of a Space Station, and then name it after some smarmy partisan hack on a comedy show.
It's a perfect reflection on how our public policy isn't serious about anything, and the government certainly isn't run by adults. Everything's a big f*cking joke. Power-mad politicians are grabbing authority over everything in sight. Everything that's good and decent is mocked by articulate moral infants with cocked eyebrows (Such as Colbert and Stewart).
Why should the ISS be any different? Screw it. It's all a joke, a sick joke, and a nation as feckless and emotional as ours deserves nothing better than a goddamn joke on one of our finer accomplishments.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to end in a sales pitch for the Nike Free as well.
Quite frankly that's okay. If they're trying to sell me something based on sound information, I'll read the pitch and consider it.
Quite frankly that all comes off as a lefty paranoid rant fit for Daily Kos. I don't suppose you can substantiate any of it, can you?
Uncovering our fuel doesn't necessarily lead to cladding failure either, though it's something we only encounter in accident scenarios on the simulator. We can get acceptable (non-damaging) core exit thermocouple readings with much of our fuel uncovered.
Obviously it's not our preferred method of cooling the core, but it's not a guaranteed meltdown either.
I'm guessing BWR fuel isn't terribly different from ours, but perhaps you know a bit more. Is it stacks of 3/8" diameter uranium pellets clad in zircaloy?
Aside from that, thank for the additional info.
I work at a pressurized water reactor so I'm really getting a kick out of these replies....
No, seriously, I'm not an expert on the radionuclide table, but that's hardly why one would choose a pressurized water reactor over a boiling water reactor. (Those are the two big established types. The United States has dozens of both varieties in commercial operation.)
One big reason to pick a pressurized water reactor is that you limit your contamination to the primary reactor coolant loop and it's support systems. The steam plant- the electricity generating side- stays completely radiation free.
This makes servicing the steam-electricity side of the plant much cheaper and simpler.
Most electricity generating power plants in the US operate on steam power.
In a pressurized water reactor, there's a separate reactor coolant loop that passes heat through metal tubes, boiling 'feed water' in the steam generator, and the steam spins the turbine that makes electricity. The primary coolant and the feed water/ steam do not come in contact.
In a boiling water reactor, the reactor directly boils the water that spins the turbine. One big advantage of this is cheaper construction.
Both types 'burn' Uranium to generate the heat that boils the water. Pressurized Water Reactors simply have an additional segregated loop of water.
There are probably a number of advantages to either type that other folks could fill you in on. I assure you though, as an operator of an American Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactor, tritium is nothing more than an occasional annoyance.
When you decide to take an anti-intellectual approach to politics you're going to, surprise, lose the intellectuals.
I regard a man in his area of expertise, and no further. A professor of English literature is the one to talk to about Shakespeare, an oncologist is one to consult with about cancer, and a veteran mechanic is the guy I talk to about why I have to rev my wife's car to 5k rpm to start it after a cold night.
When folks say the right is anti-intellectual, they are really deriding us for not giving collateral credit for being 'smart' to areas outside one's demonstrated expertise.
If you've spent 10 years studying or working in a particular field, and have demonstrated mastery of that field, then you're my guy for all concerns in that field. Outside of that field, their opinion is quite frankly just another opinion.
You'll notice that I repeatedly emphasized demonstrated competence. The reason for this is because we've tended to confuse 'articulate' and 'competent' in the public scene lately. When you have shown, by way of doing, that you can manage something, you are worth listening to on that subject, no matter how rough your speech. When you've never even attempted a particular task, all your grand theories and fine speeches are at best gum-flapping, at worst sophistry.
Sounding intelligent, sounding brilliant, sounding cultured, etc, is a particular set of grammatical patterns and delivery style. It is a skill that is to be regarded in it's own right. Unfortunately, many folks in society think that sounding intelligent is the same as knowing a damn thing.
It's not. Bonafide competence and fantastic delivery occasionally travel together in a person, but quite often not.
When you realize this, you will understand that calling the right 'Anti-intellectual' is merely a cheap seduction. It's along the lines of "Hey, come join us, we've got all the smart people, and you'll get credit for being smart by hanging out with us." Actual thought is optional, the association with 'the intellectuals' is sufficient for the tawdry temptation to be successful.
Libertarians are almost always people who are well off and don't like the idea of helping those who weren't dealt as good a hand as they were.
You can sum up libertarianism as: Fuck everyone else, if you're poor, it's their your fault.
It's an easy and cheap conceit to think that just because some folks think the government ought to refrain from doing something, to think that those people object to it being done at all.
It allows folks like you to think that they're kinder and better than those they oppose. It's a cheap ego trick you play on yourself.
Folks that believe government ought to stay out of charity think this: There are fundamental, critical problems associated with governments carrying out charity work, problems that private charities do not suffer from.
When you say folks like me think 'fuck the poor', you're showing a certain lack of depth, you're implying you cannot fathom that we think there are very important reasons that the work is best done by folks other than the government. (We do put our money where our mouth is, as you'll find if you search for political association and charitable giving.)
Now I'm not a libertarian, but I certainly share some beliefs with them, and this particular conceit of yours is worth addressing.
I can't be the only who has heard that entire song and thought....
How utterly boring.
Some folks may be fine being cows nonchalantly grazing in the meadows, but as for me, I prefer the challenges and conflicts in life, in overcoming them, and advancing.
A neutered, tepid world is all Lennon offers us in that song. It's a secular version of some cloudy heaven with lame harps and all those dead relatives you didn't like in life. I don't have to love war to think the vision sucks.
This particular disagreement is of course fundamental to the issue of the 'hero.' A 'Hero' essentially by definition, will overturn established orders and interests, will do something out of the ordinary. This will result in some people despising him while others praise him. The heroic soldier on the battlefield must have his enemy, Reagan had communists to stare down, and Che Guearva had bougeouis to murder.
Ultimately I might be on the wrong side of history, or you might be. Either way it's important to recognize why certain people are adored by some and despised by others. An inability to understand an alternative view, though you may disagree, certainly won't do one any good.
In concerning oneself with athletes as potential heros, we pare down the field to those who do impressive feats with no lasting significance. You're right to be dissatisfied with what passes for a hero.
Ha Ha you made me your foe. That's even richer.
You're a cheap partisan hack who imagines socialism or democrats delivers some kind of 'social justice' (the Utopian theory), instead of a boot stomping on humanity's face (the demonstrated actual result.)
You don't want your purity of thought pierced by a murderous history, do you?
You seem to think 'income inequality' in and of itself is a problem.
I disagree.
If 'income inequality' is in and of itself a problem, then you validate 'envy' as an emotion to base public policy on.
Are you asserting that envy is a valid basis for public policy? There can be no other conclusion if 'inequality' is the only metric.
If the budget they proposed and passed showed any sort of restraint in expenditures, you might have a point.
It doesn't. It's a drunken orgy of outlays, and there is no one to blame that on except the people who wrote and passed it.
Ah, yes, the Gini index.
I'm sure the Old Soviet Union had a fantastic Gini Index.
They only had to murder millions of their own people to get it.
I'm guessing Cuba has a great Gini index too.
Their people make boats out of 50 year old Chevy trucks and try to sail these to America.
That's really rich that you'd post that, considering the Democratically controlled Congress just passed this travesty:
Full Report
Summary Graph
In dollar amounts instead of GDP Percent
The Democrats can no longer cry about the budget. Now that they're in control, it's three or four times as bad.
Given that your other graph is about how 'unfair' the United States is (What do you think life is, Kindergarten?), I'm pretty sure you're fine with any government spending, as long it's of the redistributionist variety.
Well said.
They're almost done spending their million dollars on me.
3 Years as an Nuclear System Operator (aka Auxiliary Operator)
My NRC license exam is in June.
(BS in Mechanical Engineering.)
How can you look at a report that counts multiple crimes against multiple people in a year only once, and not immediately see that it's a ploy to reduce embarrassingly high crime statistics?
The FBI report consists of discrete criminal events.
The UK report consists of essentially one tick for any number of crimes committed against any number of people in a household.
In the US, if a person's house got robbed 12 times, and they called the police each time, then that is twelve burglary events recorded for the year.
In the UK, if a person's house is robbed 12 times in a year, than that person is noted as a victim of burglary, and that's that.
Not to mention the UK figures are for households, not individuals. Another example of "look what I can prove with badly used statistics".
And still it's modded up, so it must fool some people.
Have you considered why the UK might pick a different method of reporting crime statistics, and what implications that might have for international comparison?
If you are unwilling to consider why methods are picked, what implications those methods have, and what institutional goals are supported by those methods and implications, then you are the essentially the most likely to be bullshitted by statistics.
If you have a report that is more appropriate for direct comparison, please share it.
If you do not, then you must attempt to extrapolate the differences yourself, if you wish to say one country has more crime than the other.
and cannot be meaningfully compared.
It's my impression that's the point- obfuscation of embarrassingly high numbers.
If you have a better method of comparing criminal statistics, then please share it.
If you do not, and you maintain that you can't compare the statistics, then there's no way you can say crimes are higher in the US either.
There is an objective reality. There are a certain number of crimes that occur in both countries each year. One country is more crime ridden than the other, even if only by a fraction of a percent.
You assert we can't tell the difference.
If one accepts your assertion, then it follows that one may not brag about how safe the UK is or how violent the US is, compared to the other.
If, instead, one states that we can compare crime statistics and adjust for differences in record keeping, then the answer is still clear: The US has less crime than the UK.
So which is it? Are the UK patriots going to shut their mouths about how dangerous the US is, because there is no basis to compare, or are the UK patriots going to accept that their country is more dangerous, because there is a basis of comparison?
Again, if you can find a different report that you find suitable for comparison from either country, please post it and I'll read it. We can then discuss it.
Please see my other Slashdot comment .
So I take it you have burglaries all sorted in the US?
Comparatively speaking, Yes.
FBI Crime Statistics
Home Office Crime Report for 2005/2006
Take a look at page 115 of the home office report. Chapter 7.4.
Let's use the Rural numbers, just for fun. They're lower.
Percentage victims once or more
All burglary: 2%
All Vehicle Theft: 4%
All Violence: 2%
Now compare it to the United States FBI report:
2005, violent crime rate: 469.2 per 100,000 people (equivalent to less than or equal to 0.462%, per UK standards)
Burglary: 726.7 per 100,000 (equivalent or = 0.7267 %)
Motor Vehicle Theft: 416.7 per 100,000 ( = 0.4167%)
Notice also that the FBI counts discrete events of crimes, where as the Home Office will only count you once if you get robbed, beat up, or stolen from multiple times per year. In essence, the Home Office method is a clear attempt to reduce crime statistics by any defendable method.
You are at least 4 times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in the UK.
You are at about ten times more likely to have your car stolen in the UK.
You are about three times more likely to have your home robbed in the UK.
I invite you to poke around the official numbers for both the US and the UK and make a counter argument.
My argument is this: Offering violence to criminals reduces their numbers.
Why don't you go do a comparison of types of crimes, crime rates, and methods of counting crimes?
Certain crimes are higher in the US, most crimes are significantly higher in the UK- including several categories of violent crimes.
After that, you can re-evaluate your cock-sure sarcasm.
Clayton Cramer's Civilian Defense Blog.
It's not written for internet wimps such as yourself.
...and if someone is trying to steal your stuff (but has no intention of physically harming you) and you KILL them, that is definately murder.
The standing statutes in many states disagrees with your assessment.
They show they have no intention of harming you by robbing your house when it's empty.
If they determine that you are present, and DON'T immediately leave, then they have a plan to deal with you.
I don't care to find out what that plan is. If you don't run when I rouse, or surrender immediately, then you are a threat to me and my family, and will be treated as such.
That's the way the law works in the vast majority of the United States, and for good reason.
A criminal who robs your house, with you in it, is prepared to deal with you. He has decided your stuff is worth more than your safety or your life.
It is the burglar's decision to make. The homeowner who shoots him is abiding by that same decision, in a manner unfavorable to the robber.
They took a stand and 'Called the police.'
That's hardly a 'stand.'
'Taking a stand' would be tarring and feathering their local district attorney equivalent and their MP's until their right to
shoot burglars dead is once again respected by English law.
Burglaries will be sorted out after a few burglars end up dead for their efforts.
Take a stand and kill a crook. Take a stand and slap around your local DA to de facto respect the notion that a man's home is his castle. Take a stand and slap around your politicians until they recognize what nature teaches: That every living thing has a right to defend themselves, their friends, their family, and their home.
Being a crook isn't a legitimate career choice. It should carry a great deal more risk than it currently does in jolly ol' Britain.
Ah, the catch--22 of the patent--being forced to reveal your hand in order to protect it while underpaid workers at Baidu figure out how to integrate your ideas into their hardware.
That's not a catch-22, that's the point. In exchange for everyone learning from what you've done, you get society's protection for a limited number of years.
Also, the workers at Baidu are not underpaid- if they where, they'd leave for better oppurtunities. The workers in question have obviously decided they're better off making stuff for google- they don't need your 'superior' judgement to tell them they should go back to subsistenance farming or melting hazardous materials for precious metals in their homes.
A decision to work, or not to work, and to hire, or not to hire, are based on realistic alternatives, not what some westerner sitting at a keyboard 9,000 miles away thinks is best.
Better a joke than stupid hero worship (I'm looking at you, Reagan International Airport). At least a joke name indicates that there is some thought going on.
In trying to best tailor a response to you, I clicked on your name and saw your journal. What do I see near the top, but a short discussion of heroes?
You wished then for heroic values, in addition to heroic actions(Michael Phelps dissapointed you). By many measures, Reagan did both.
It's pretty clear that despite your yearning for genuine heroes, you adhere to a political ideology that eschews heroes. You talk up a sneering comedian, and you disregard one of the finest men seen last century.
I'm guessing there are some substantial incongruencies in your beliefs, but I won't go off venturing guesses about them. Perhaps you hold heroes in highest esteem when they hold heroic values, but don't accomplishing anything of greater importance then an evening's entertainment?
By all means, let's spend millions of dollars of taxpayer money on part of a Space Station, and then name it after some smarmy partisan hack on a comedy show.
It's a perfect reflection on how our public policy isn't serious about anything, and the government certainly isn't run by adults. Everything's a big f*cking joke. Power-mad politicians are grabbing authority over everything in sight. Everything that's good and decent is mocked by articulate moral infants with cocked eyebrows (Such as Colbert and Stewart).
Why should the ISS be any different? Screw it. It's all a joke, a sick joke, and a nation as feckless and emotional as ours deserves nothing better than a goddamn joke on one of our finer accomplishments.