In some states, you can use a certain level of force (threatening to use it will likely be enough) to recover your stolen property. Find out all the details with a john doe lawsuit others speak of, and go armed and with company.
You'll at least get the justice of scaring the shit out of them.
of course, corporate exec types may not be thrilled with this approach.
It's not about humiliating them (especially since they have no shame) - it's about stopping them.
Forgive the following tangent....
Oh, they have shame, and they are very much humiliated, and that's a big part of the problem.
Arab culture, from what I understand, is very face/shame based. Intertwine that with Islam, which quite often militant professes it's the one true faith and the Muslims are the chosen among Allah's people or whatever, and you get pretty big problems.
See, it's very humiliating to think you're straight with your God, but be the losers in the world. For the most part, Arab/Muslim economies are underdeveloped or largely subsistent on oil sales or foreign aid. They make little themselves, but they have an insatiable appetite for all the western toys they've been exposed to, but cannot produce.
They consider Jews to be 'apes and pigs', yet for 2 generations and counting they have not been able to purge their little slice of the world of Israel, despite grossly outnumbering them. That's pretty humiliating.
The one thing they do have going for them- oil- they can't even get out of the ground without westerners and their technology.
Muslim Arabs are bested at every turn, and this humiliates them because of their face/shame based culture. Combined with the fact that they embrace a religeon that says 'this is the one true way, all others must submit to dhimmi status or be killed', and you get a bunch of violence.
On top of that access to women is also a huge problem. They keep their women more or less locked up and away from men, where they might have a taming effect as seen in the west. Moreover, the fact that you still see polygamy and honor killings over there means that the supply of women is somewhat short, so there is a good chance some young men will never get a women. Unmarried young men are often the biggest source of trouble in any society, and what better way to get rid of them than to send them off to some sort of war?
Finally, because of their lack of women, they frequently turn to sodomizing boys for their pleasure. No, I am not joking, trolling, or flamebaiting. Homosexuality is a capital crime, yes, but since pre-pubescent boys aren't 'men', a blind eye is turned frequently turned to the practive. Search for 'pedastry', 'pedophilia', 'muslim' or 'arab' if you don't believe me, before you respond.
So, you have the following pool from which to draw terrorists: sexually abused, humiliated, womenless young men. Don't you think anyone could find some suicide bombers among such a group?
Has it? Significant parts of the Bill of Right have been suspended in conflicts before- the Habeus Corpus during the civil war and I think a few in WW1 & 2, though I don't remember specifically.
I'm not advocating any particular policy at the moment, I just want to point out that the US has 'been there' and come back a few times before in history. So, literally or figuratively, for the USA, you fail.
Now, for countries in Europe? Yeah, they get boiled. History has also shown us this.
On "The Muslim Woman Magazine" program, the girl was asked whether she liked Jews; she answered, "no." When asked why she didn't like them, she said that Jews were "apes and pigs." "Who said this?" the moderator asked. The girl answered, "Our God." "Where did He say this?" "In the Koran." At the end of the interview, the pleased moderator said: "No [parents] could wish for Allah to give them a more believing girl than she... May Allah bless her, her father and mother. The next generation of children must be true Muslims. We must educate them now while they are children, so that they will be true Muslims.
Is this not contradictory to values you hold dear? Are you ever going to see this on Sesame street? or "The View"?
Wether or not expierience precedes ideology is moot at this point in history. The ideology is there, and being instilled in kids right from the get go.
Also, please see my other post under the previous response to your comment, about free agency.
But recognizing that experience is the culprit puts the responsibility for the problem squarely back on the shoulders of the US and other nations, and that's just something we can't abide... it would mean we'd have to do something about it instead of shreaking "militant muslim!!!" at the top of our lungs in order to drown out all possible counter-arguments.
One common thread to all the "We must change to make them happy" arguments is that it removes the agency of the Muslims in question. The thought is that we can control their actions by changing our behavior- ie, we are the actors, not they. They can only react to what we do. Their current actions are simply a reaction to past US misdeeds.
The central concept behind such thoughts is that they have no free agency. Folks like me believe that they have free agency, and that they use it to decide to kill us. This is unacceptable to folks like me, and if I believe that this is their choice, not simply a reaction to what we do, then it makes waging war on them much more sensible.
Let me pull the entire scenario back- now, the following may not apply directly to you, but I hope you've traveled internet forums enough to see the pattern.
Often times you can see the left leaning sort on the internet villifying people on the right, saying that they're evil, hate poor people, are racist,stupid, etc, etc. Some folks even occasionally suggest killing certain right wing politicians. We are clearly on the other side of the isle of the left, but there is precious little talk of ceding to our demands, there is no talk of trying to understand us, there is no talk of empowering us righties in the hopes we'll eventually take a left turn. These things, however, are readily offered to Islamic militants who have stated openly they want to kill us.
Think about that- villification of the right, of the sort of people your average lefty internet poster works and talks with every day, and seeking peace and understanding with far off folks who have said they want to kill us. Why the difference?
Here's my theory: Those on the left respect those of us on the right-hell, you have to respect someone to hate them. They realize, correctly, that those of us have heard of their positions, weighed them, found them wanting, and seek contradictory policies. We, on the right, are using are free agency in contradiction to the values of the left, and they realize that. Since no peace and understanding can be sought with someone who has quite plainly chosen a different ideology, hatred ensues- at least of the internet tough guy variety.
However, militant muslims are not afforded the respect of people who have chosen an opposing path. They are simply reactors to western activity, and can be accomodated... ie controlled- by western activity.
I make no claim that the US has never made a mistep or wronged certain people. However, the line of thinking you're walking down makes Muslims the perpetual victims, unable to do anything but react to the west.
Both want to make you 'right' at the barrel of a gun, or explosion of a bomb.
Not entirely true. Western culture is a very seductive culture- lots of people want to partake in it. We have the coolest gadgets, we have flashy, entertaining movies, we have catchy pop songs, and we even occasionally have decent food. Our popular culture indulges in a good bit of hedonism as well.
This pisses off those who would impose islamic rule to no end- given the choice, most people choose to partake in Western society at some level, and leave the trappings of Islam alone.
The troubles are admittedly all tied in with Oil, but not in the way popularly believed. The west needs oil- no argument. We can find it in the middle east- no argument. Western companies make deals with whoever is in power to extract this oil. The deal? A steady income for those in power. What do they do with it?
Partially at least they buy and import western gadgets and culture. What else would they do with it in the middle east? This culture that they import is at quite often completely at odds with Islamic practices and theology, but it's wanted by the people themselves.
This creates a problem for those who want to impose Islamic rule, and also creates a good deal of Shame for the same people, because they are incapable of producing anything as desirable as the west gladly sells to anyone.
We should be out there like real men, pro-actively fighting the terrorist threat... by educating people, improving their quality of life, allowing them self-determination and treating them fairly - that's how you stop terrorism, by taking away its recruits.
How does any of that change the ideological basis for most of today's current terrorism? IE, Islam, literally, submission.
Your theory might work for gang-banging ghetto thugs, but for murderers who think they're doing Allah's work your view is entirely naive. This is ideological war, make no mistake. I'm not saying every Muslim is a terrorist or even sympathetic to them but you're being willfully blind of the common thread between them all.
Moreover, many US Muslims, despite having everything you wish to give terrorists, sympathize with or outright finance terrorists. The guy who just went on a shooting spree in a Jewish community center was apparently very well employed, and what came of it? Murder.
We are fighting people who think it is the will of Allah to convert you to Islam, make you submit as a Dhimmi, or kill you. If you think American ultra-right religous conservatives are so evil, why is it such a stretch to see that taken much further , 'faith' can lead to murder?
I get the feeling you're confused about something, so let me draw it out for you: We contract out the electricity we make to distributors at around $40 MW/hour (current, going to go up soon). Roughly, over the full course of a year we're online, that equals something along the order of $440,000,000 dollars of revenue. Our operating & capital budget is around $150 million a year. If we have an outage to refuel, that adds maybe $30,000,000 or so to the cost.
Where do you imagine tax dollars come into this equation, besides the government offices that ultimately use some of this electricity we make?
I never hear the site VP and his direct underlings talking about the sweet subsidies we conned the feds out of this year. I do know we pay extra, special taxes on our fuel for disposal, which we already discussed. I know we have the pay the NRC for their 'services.' I know that the plant did cost a tremendous amount of money ($6 billion) to build, way more than projected, but still reasonable amortirized over the life of the plant, given the income it produces. The original cost was borne by the electricity customers of the then-regulated market, who were also coincidentally taxpayers, so is that what you're getting at? The decommisioning fund is already set up, again paid for by the electricity customers (who ultimately pay for all plant construction under any regulatory scheme), so it won't be tax dollars doing that.
I know the NRC wants a bigger budget to completely review new plant designs, but given that Congress demands that, is it not unreasonable that some of the cost be borne by the taxpayers who put congress in power?
So did certain plant in the USSR in 1985 that had a steam explosion in 1986, but things have changed somewhat and perhaps there has not yet been time for corruption to creep back in. We get more anal retentive on a daily basis. You quite clearly have no idea. Some folks CAN learn from history, especially when a billion dollar plant and the jobs of hundreds of people are constantly on the line.
some effort put into a plant design that doesn't cost incredible amounts to build, doesn't cost a lot to run and has fuel that is easy to make.
Ever heard of the saying "cheap, good, and quick: pick any two?" You're listing off incompatible requirements. If you want the highest level of safety we can possibly provide, that will require extensive backups of backup systems. Such redundancy isn't cheap to build and isn't cheap to constantly test for readiness and maintain at the highest levels of operational status. Now, it is true you didn't list safety when I quoted you, but I'll assume it's important to you. We too could run our plant far, far cheaper if we didn't have to consider the absolute safety of the public, but no one wants that.
Oh, and some company (it was on fark) recently developed a way to make enriched fuel with 1/3 or so of the current energy requirements, so yes, improvements can be made there.
Further, you seem to lack knowledge of the new designs on the block right now, namely the Westinghouse AP1000 and the Areva EPR. The AP1000 includes a number of passive safety systems and some 60% fewer valves than most current operating plants. This of course will make it cheaper to build & operate. The EPR doesn't rely quite as much on passive systems as it does quadruple redundancy of active safety systems, but even those four safety systems have lost a great deal of the unneccessary complexity of current operating plants- hence, cheaper to build, and one is going up in finland right now. The EPR's built after that one will go smoother still for all the lessons learned. Toshiba also has a design for a 30MW plant that can run with minimal staffing, perfect for remote towns in Alaska. You wouldn't want to scale up such a scheme to the size of continental US powerplants, but it has it's applications.
Take it a step furthur and look at those promoting nuclear power in your country, then think about what they have to gain - in many cases it will be a creative way to get your tax money into their pocket while they build a 1950's white elephant to expensively boil water.
I take it you haven't priced 5% enriched uranium lately vs coal, or compared the relative extractable energy densities of them.
Kilowatt for Kilowatt, Uranium is orders of magnitudes cheaper than coal or any other fossil fuel. That makes up for all of the added expense from the extra security and regulatory expenses that come with nuke plants, and then some. Operating nuke plants in the US are well-loved by investors because they're pretty much a license to print money. As the risks of tree-huggers dragging out your construction period and your legal expenses endlessly are minimized, nuke plant construction will take off.
As for waste, the federal government holds billions of dollars in taxes assessed on nuclear fuel collected specifically for the purpose of disposal, and the utilities are pretty pissed off there's nothing to show for it besides Yucca, which is a decade away from use. In the interim, there's dry cask storage on site. Given the weight and thickness of the casks, they won't be stolen, and they won't be damaged by anything short of a bonafide, purposeful military attack.
so all you can do is ignore both and listen to people who believe in the laws of physics and the poor results from existing plants. Again, here's a law of physics for you: the energy released in a chemical reaction (burning) vs the energy released in a fission event.
As for poor results from existing plants, I don't know which plants you're basing that on, but I know it's not the one I work at. We hold the highest ratings from INPO, WANO, and the NRC. We have pretty much the lowest radiation exposure for workers worldwide. And we make tons of money for our parent company.
That is the entire problem - we don't yet know what the figures are because a decent nuclear power plant design has not yet been developed. We've got plenty of great designs, thank you very much. You will never get a guarantee of "It will never, ever melt down", because no 'absolutely safe' promise can be made about anything. We can, however tell you that the probability of a core damage event that releases radiation to the public is such that it will happen less than once every 100,000 years, and have that based on solid numbers.
You cannot have a perfect solution, as there are trade-offs to every viable source of energy out there. Given that, I'll take the downsides of nuclear energy over coal or other fossil fuels anyday.
There's probably a hundred ways Israel can spend two billion dollars that will save more than thirteen lives over four years.
Yes, two billion dollars would fund a good week or two attack and kill a whole lot of the people that keep fire rockets at them. Oh, wait, they're doing that now, albeit for different reasons. Good for them.
(for everyone who doesn't think Israel launching an all out attack is justified in response to 13 deaths over four years.... how bout we bring your entire extended family down to the firing range and you can all stand at max distance. We'll have someone blindfolded, with a gun, and pointed in your general direction. We'll have him keep firing for quite some time. Oh, by the way, there's a good rifle at your feet and you're not wearing a blindfold. Do you neutralize the threat?)
Israel already has the Tactical High-Energy Laser which has defended Israel against 28 Katyusha Artillery Rockets, 5 artillery shells, and multiple mortar rounds. Yes, the US footed part of the bill.
The fact is this technology is already developed and proven. Northrup just needs to make it portable and widespread.
Furthermore, why shouldn't the US be involved in Israel's defense? They're a western, civilized country in the middle of otherwise the dregs of humanity and the some of the shittiest countries around. We share similar values, and similar enemies. To not help out Israel would be idiotic.
\Cue the more explicit zionist and M-IC conspiricy theories.
I carry a spare tire because I DREADFULLY FEAR A FLAT. I have bandaids in my bathroom because I DREADFULLY FEAR A CUT. I carry money in my wallet when I go out because I DREADFULLY FEAR WANTING TO BUY SOMETHING. I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen because I FEAR FIRE.
Oh, no, wait, I don't fear any of those things. But I am prepared for them. There's a difference, you know.
We prepare for negative possibilities all the time. The fact that this negative possibility would be perpetrated by another human does not turn 'preperation' into 'fear.'
One may discuss the relevent probabilities of a terrorist shooting an RPG at an airliner, or of one getting a flat, or a cut. One may also discuss wether the probability and corresponding cost of an event is enough to warrant preparation.
However, to confuse fear with preparation is folly.
Nowadays I only take care of my and my fiancee's computer, and we're both smart enough to avoid these kinds of internet social diseases.
That being said, are there ways without special software to lock down a windows xp machine so your kid or niece or whoever couldn't inflict this kind of damage on it?
I'm really just curious, this isn't a pressing issue for me.
They're working on it actually. I don't have a link for you, but I have seen articles about developing skin tight suits exactly as you describe.
IIRC, some of the first high-altitude/space suit prototypes where the skin-tight 'squeezing' sort. At the time, though, rubber was the only decent material they had for this, and it was found wanting.
60 years later, I'm willing to bet we have far more suitable materials, and will probably see a 'squeezing' suit if/when space travel develops further.
The A380 is not a me-too project. Americans only even know that name because it is a real threat to Boeing, who chose not to build a plane of that capacity. It's not someone else's plane, only slightly bigger, either. It's the continuation of Airbus engineering, which is very different from Boeing's.
If the A380 was a real threat to boeing, they'd be makin a similar sized aircraft too. From what I've read though, Boeing is doing just fine, especially since they have a better history of delivering.
Some fun stuff about the A380!
Airbus has asked the British government for a subsidy of almost $700 million to make the A350 wings in Wales, and it wanted an answer by the Paris Show, according to The Sunday Times of London. Airbus was threatening to make the wings elsewhere if it didn't get the money.
Gee, I'm sure Boeing has had some tax breaks, but that's a pretty audacious demand, huh? $700 million dollars in direct subsidies?
Airbus is in trouble, big trouble
The much vaunted A380 is being plagued by engineering problems, is 5 to 10 tons over promised delivery weight, the break even point is now well over 250 units and may well reach 300.
That was over a year ago, but that's pretty bad.
Airbus' parent company lost more than a quarter of its market value as investors reacted swiftly and harshly to the news that the European jetmaker will pare back the delivery schedule for the superjumbo jet A-380.
and
There are signs of extreme discontent among the major customers for the A 380. Emirates of Dubai, which has by far the largest order, 45, has announced it will seek unspecified discussions with Airbus. If Emirates demands late-delivery penalties, these could run to hundreds of millions of dollars, as it cannot fly routes anticipated, or has to line up alternative capacity at higher costs. Such late delivery penalties are commonplace in contracts for new model airliners.
That was three weeks ago
Now, there have been a few snags with the production set up for the Boeing 787 dreamliner, but they could just be normal teething problems for a new product. They don't have the weight of the 380's problems... hehe 5-10 ton weight.
But your pride in the A380.... could be misplaced.
SO that would mean a cost savings of around $400-$500 an hour, or something like 6,000 hours operating with a sail to pay for the system and then begin to profit.
Seems like if it's sturdy enough to last a good decade or so, the savings would be quite handsome
The other effect is 'risk homeostasis'- that one increases the amount of risky behavior they perform in an unconcious response to a mechanical increase in safety- ie, the same level of risk is always maintained.
Personally, i've already had a bike crash and my helmet probably saved me some hurt past my broken arm, so i'll keep wearing it. but i've got no disagreement with anything you wrote.
It's a matter of treating the citizens of a state as adults who make, and are responsible for their own decisions, vs being simply wards of the state that the government must look after and parent.
I always wear my seatbelt, always wear my bicycle helmet, and I would always were a motorcycle helmet. Any wise person would. I do not however feel compelled to tell my neighbors what to do and how to live their lives. It's their business.
As for fireworks, here's what you do to avoid injury: put them on the ground, point in a safe direction, light, get away. Stay clear of flammable surroundings. New Hampshire people have free access to several grades of fireworks that are a felony in Massachusetts. We manage to avoid routine headlines of maiming, thank you very much.
Are you telling me that people in Massachusetts are that much dumber than folks in NH, that MA residents would get mangled daily doing things NH residents do safely?
New Hampshire residents are treated as the responsible adults they are when it comes to seatbelts, helmets, guns, fireworks, and several other issues.
Considering that New Hampshire's population is rising as Massachusetts is falling and we're considered one of the best places to live, that tact seems to be working quite well for us.
Massachusetts makes a point of not respecting its citizens at all. Why should their treatment of kids be any different?
Consider: MA safety belt & motorcycle helmet laws (You're too stupid and irresponsible to make your own decisions about safety) MA makes possession of consumer grade fireworks a felony (The message from the legislature to the voters: You're too goddamn stupid to handle things NH residents safely use all day)
I could probably find a few more examples if I tried, but here's the point: Massachusetts is a paternalistic Nanny state were government knows best. This shows in the schools as well.
By your logic I should be able to carry a gun around downtown, after all I want to, and it doesn't disrupt anybody, and it's "nobody else's goddamned business"
Maybe you already know this, but hey, I'll point it out to be sure.
You can do that in 2/3 of the United States.
Bloodshed does not ensue.
Why are you take issue with inanimate objects? Wether it's a gun or a cell phone or a car or a baseball bat, the object does nothing on it's own. He or she that posseses and uses it- makes all the difference in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
In some states, you can use a certain level of force (threatening to use it will likely be enough) to recover your stolen property. Find out all the details with a john doe lawsuit others speak of, and go armed and with company.
You'll at least get the justice of scaring the shit out of them.
of course, corporate exec types may not be thrilled with this approach.
Ever catch one of your old favorites replaying on TV?
They're crap. What we watched was crap then, and what kids watch nowadays is crap as well.
It's just that we were kids and couldn't tell it was crap, so we developed fond memories of it.
It's not about humiliating them (especially since they have no shame) - it's about stopping them.
Forgive the following tangent....
Oh, they have shame, and they are very much humiliated, and that's a big part of the problem.
Arab culture, from what I understand, is very face/shame based. Intertwine that with Islam, which quite often militant professes it's the one true faith and the Muslims are the chosen among Allah's people or whatever, and you get pretty big problems.
See, it's very humiliating to think you're straight with your God, but be the losers in the world. For the most part, Arab/Muslim economies are underdeveloped or largely subsistent on oil sales or foreign aid. They make little themselves, but they have an insatiable appetite for all the western toys they've been exposed to, but cannot produce.
They consider Jews to be 'apes and pigs', yet for 2 generations and counting they have not been able to purge their little slice of the world of Israel, despite grossly outnumbering them. That's pretty humiliating.
The one thing they do have going for them- oil- they can't even get out of the ground without westerners and their technology.
Muslim Arabs are bested at every turn, and this humiliates them because of their face/shame based culture. Combined with the fact that they embrace a religeon that says 'this is the one true way, all others must submit to dhimmi status or be killed', and you get a bunch of violence.
On top of that access to women is also a huge problem. They keep their women more or less locked up and away from men, where they might have a taming effect as seen in the west. Moreover, the fact that you still see polygamy and honor killings over there means that the supply of women is somewhat short, so there is a good chance some young men will never get a women. Unmarried young men are often the biggest source of trouble in any society, and what better way to get rid of them than to send them off to some sort of war?
Finally, because of their lack of women, they frequently turn to sodomizing boys for their pleasure. No, I am not joking, trolling, or flamebaiting. Homosexuality is a capital crime, yes, but since pre-pubescent boys aren't 'men', a blind eye is turned frequently turned to the practive. Search for 'pedastry', 'pedophilia', 'muslim' or 'arab' if you don't believe me, before you respond.
So, you have the following pool from which to draw terrorists: sexually abused, humiliated, womenless young men. Don't you think anyone could find some suicide bombers among such a group?
Has it? Significant parts of the Bill of Right have been suspended in conflicts before- the Habeus Corpus during the civil war and I think a few in WW1 & 2, though I don't remember specifically.
I'm not advocating any particular policy at the moment, I just want to point out that the US has 'been there' and come back a few times before in history. So, literally or figuratively, for the USA, you fail.
Now, for countries in Europe? Yeah, they get boiled. History has also shown us this.
Frogs do jump out before the water boils and they die.
Here
Experience precedes ideology.
Ideology is taught from age zero.
From MEMRI
On "The Muslim Woman Magazine" program, the girl was asked whether she liked Jews; she answered, "no." When asked why she didn't like them, she said that Jews were "apes and pigs." "Who said this?" the moderator asked. The girl answered, "Our God." "Where did He say this?" "In the Koran." At the end of the interview, the pleased moderator said: "No [parents] could wish for Allah to give them a more believing girl than she... May Allah bless her, her father and mother. The next generation of children must be true Muslims. We must educate them now while they are children, so that they will be true Muslims.
Is this not contradictory to values you hold dear? Are you ever going to see this on Sesame street? or "The View"?
Wether or not expierience precedes ideology is moot at this point in history. The ideology is there, and being instilled in kids right from the get go.
Also, please see my other post under the previous response to your comment, about free agency.
But recognizing that experience is the culprit puts the responsibility for the problem squarely back on the shoulders of the US and other nations, and that's just something we can't abide... it would mean we'd have to do something about it instead of shreaking "militant muslim!!!" at the top of our lungs in order to drown out all possible counter-arguments.
One common thread to all the "We must change to make them happy" arguments is that it removes the agency of the Muslims in question. The thought is that we can control their actions by changing our behavior- ie, we are the actors, not they. They can only react to what we do. Their current actions are simply a reaction to past US misdeeds.
The central concept behind such thoughts is that they have no free agency. Folks like me believe that they have free agency, and that they use it to decide to kill us. This is unacceptable to folks like me, and if I believe that this is their choice, not simply a reaction to what we do, then it makes waging war on them much more sensible.
Let me pull the entire scenario back- now, the following may not apply directly to you, but I hope you've traveled internet forums enough to see the pattern.
Often times you can see the left leaning sort on the internet villifying people on the right, saying that they're evil, hate poor people, are racist,stupid, etc, etc. Some folks even occasionally suggest killing certain right wing politicians. We are clearly on the other side of the isle of the left, but there is precious little talk of ceding to our demands, there is no talk of trying to understand us, there is no talk of empowering us righties in the hopes we'll eventually take a left turn. These things, however, are readily offered to Islamic militants who have stated openly they want to kill us.
Think about that- villification of the right, of the sort of people your average lefty internet poster works and talks with every day, and seeking peace and understanding with far off folks who have said they want to kill us. Why the difference?
Here's my theory: Those on the left respect those of us on the right-hell, you have to respect someone to hate them. They realize, correctly, that those of us have heard of their positions, weighed them, found them wanting, and seek contradictory policies. We, on the right, are using are free agency in contradiction to the values of the left, and they realize that. Since no peace and understanding can be sought with someone who has quite plainly chosen a different ideology, hatred ensues- at least of the internet tough guy variety.
However, militant muslims are not afforded the respect of people who have chosen an opposing path. They are simply reactors to western activity, and can be accomodated... ie controlled- by western activity.
I make no claim that the US has never made a mistep or wronged certain people. However, the line of thinking you're walking down makes Muslims the perpetual victims, unable to do anything but react to the west.
Both want to make you 'right' at the barrel of a gun, or explosion of a bomb.
Not entirely true. Western culture is a very seductive culture- lots of people want to partake in it. We have the coolest gadgets, we have flashy, entertaining movies, we have catchy pop songs, and we even occasionally have decent food. Our popular culture indulges in a good bit of hedonism as well.
This pisses off those who would impose islamic rule to no end- given the choice, most people choose to partake in Western society at some level, and leave the trappings of Islam alone.
The troubles are admittedly all tied in with Oil, but not in the way popularly believed. The west needs oil- no argument. We can find it in the middle east- no argument. Western companies make deals with whoever is in power to extract this oil. The deal? A steady income for those in power. What do they do with it?
Partially at least they buy and import western gadgets and culture. What else would they do with it in the middle east? This culture that they import is at quite often completely at odds with Islamic practices and theology, but it's wanted by the people themselves.
This creates a problem for those who want to impose Islamic rule, and also creates a good deal of Shame for the same people, because they are incapable of producing anything as desirable as the west gladly sells to anyone.
We should be out there like real men, pro-actively fighting the terrorist threat... by educating people, improving their quality of life, allowing them self-determination and treating them fairly - that's how you stop terrorism, by taking away its recruits.
How does any of that change the ideological basis for most of today's current terrorism? IE, Islam, literally, submission.
Your theory might work for gang-banging ghetto thugs, but for murderers who think they're doing Allah's work your view is entirely naive. This is ideological war, make no mistake. I'm not saying every Muslim is a terrorist or even sympathetic to them but you're being willfully blind of the common thread between them all.
Moreover, many US Muslims, despite having everything you wish to give terrorists, sympathize with or outright finance terrorists. The guy who just went on a shooting spree in a Jewish community center was apparently very well employed, and what came of it? Murder.
We are fighting people who think it is the will of Allah to convert you to Islam, make you submit as a Dhimmi, or kill you. If you think American ultra-right religous conservatives are so evil, why is it such a stretch to see that taken much further , 'faith' can lead to murder?
Tax dollars at work
I get the feeling you're confused about something, so let me draw it out for you: We contract out the electricity we make to distributors at around $40 MW/hour (current, going to go up soon). Roughly, over the full course of a year we're online, that equals something along the order of $440,000,000 dollars of revenue. Our operating & capital budget is around $150 million a year. If we have an outage to refuel, that adds maybe $30,000,000 or so to the cost.
Where do you imagine tax dollars come into this equation, besides the government offices that ultimately use some of this electricity we make?
I never hear the site VP and his direct underlings talking about the sweet subsidies we conned the feds out of this year. I do know we pay extra, special taxes on our fuel for disposal, which we already discussed. I know we have the pay the NRC for their 'services.' I know that the plant did cost a tremendous amount of money ($6 billion) to build, way more than projected, but still reasonable amortirized over the life of the plant, given the income it produces. The original cost was borne by the electricity customers of the then-regulated market, who were also coincidentally taxpayers, so is that what you're getting at? The decommisioning fund is already set up, again paid for by the electricity customers (who ultimately pay for all plant construction under any regulatory scheme), so it won't be tax dollars doing that.
I know the NRC wants a bigger budget to completely review new plant designs, but given that Congress demands that, is it not unreasonable that some of the cost be borne by the taxpayers who put congress in power?
So did certain plant in the USSR in 1985 that had a steam explosion in 1986, but things have changed somewhat and perhaps there has not yet been time for corruption to creep back in.
We get more anal retentive on a daily basis. You quite clearly have no idea. Some folks CAN learn from history, especially when a billion dollar plant and the jobs of hundreds of people are constantly on the line.
some effort put into a plant design that doesn't cost incredible amounts to build, doesn't cost a lot to run and has fuel that is easy to make.
Ever heard of the saying "cheap, good, and quick: pick any two?" You're listing off incompatible requirements. If you want the highest level of safety we can possibly provide, that will require extensive backups of backup systems. Such redundancy isn't cheap to build and isn't cheap to constantly test for readiness and maintain at the highest levels of operational status. Now, it is true you didn't list safety when I quoted you, but I'll assume it's important to you. We too could run our plant far, far cheaper if we didn't have to consider the absolute safety of the public, but no one wants that.
Oh, and some company (it was on fark) recently developed a way to make enriched fuel with 1/3 or so of the current energy requirements, so yes, improvements can be made there.
Further, you seem to lack knowledge of the new designs on the block right now, namely the Westinghouse AP1000 and the Areva EPR. The AP1000 includes a number of passive safety systems and some 60% fewer valves than most current operating plants. This of course will make it cheaper to build & operate. The EPR doesn't rely quite as much on passive systems as it does quadruple redundancy of active safety systems, but even those four safety systems have lost a great deal of the unneccessary complexity of current operating plants- hence, cheaper to build, and one is going up in finland right now. The EPR's built after that one will go smoother still for all the lessons learned. Toshiba also has a design for a 30MW plant that can run with minimal staffing, perfect for remote towns in Alaska. You wouldn't want to scale up such a scheme to the size of continental US powerplants, but it has it's applications.
Take it a step furthur and look at those promoting nuclear power in your country, then think about what they have to gain - in many cases it will be a creative way to get your tax money into their pocket while they build a 1950's white elephant to expensively boil water.
I take it you haven't priced 5% enriched uranium lately vs coal, or compared the relative extractable energy densities of them.
Kilowatt for Kilowatt, Uranium is orders of magnitudes cheaper than coal or any other fossil fuel. That makes up for all of the added expense from the extra security and regulatory expenses that come with nuke plants, and then some. Operating nuke plants in the US are well-loved by investors because they're pretty much a license to print money. As the risks of tree-huggers dragging out your construction period and your legal expenses endlessly are minimized, nuke plant construction will take off.
As for waste, the federal government holds billions of dollars in taxes assessed on nuclear fuel collected specifically for the purpose of disposal, and the utilities are pretty pissed off there's nothing to show for it besides Yucca, which is a decade away from use. In the interim, there's dry cask storage on site. Given the weight and thickness of the casks, they won't be stolen, and they won't be damaged by anything short of a bonafide, purposeful military attack.
so all you can do is ignore both and listen to people who believe in the laws of physics and the poor results from existing plants.
Again, here's a law of physics for you: the energy released in a chemical reaction (burning) vs the energy released in a fission event.
As for poor results from existing plants, I don't know which plants you're basing that on, but I know it's not the one I work at. We hold the highest ratings from INPO, WANO, and the NRC. We have pretty much the lowest radiation exposure for workers worldwide. And we make tons of money for our parent company.
That is the entire problem - we don't yet know what the figures are because a decent nuclear power plant design has not yet been developed.
We've got plenty of great designs, thank you very much. You will never get a guarantee of "It will never, ever melt down", because no 'absolutely safe' promise can be made about anything. We can, however tell you that the probability of a core damage event that releases radiation to the public is such that it will happen less than once every 100,000 years, and have that based on solid numbers.
You cannot have a perfect solution, as there are trade-offs to every viable source of energy out there. Given that, I'll take the downsides of nuclear energy over coal or other fossil fuels anyday.
Put down the crack pipe and act like a responsible grown up.
What to prepare for is open to debate. That we should prepare for some negative events is obvious to anyone over the age of 12.
Keep 'living for today' and see where that gets you in a few years. The rest of us will make plans for not dying tommorow.
Keep in mind the people near him often stand in front of him, and permit and/or encourage him to randomly fire at your family.
Now what are their lives worth, if your mission is to stop the threat?
There's probably a hundred ways Israel can spend two billion dollars that will save more than thirteen lives over four years.
Yes, two billion dollars would fund a good week or two attack and kill a whole lot of the people that keep fire rockets at them. Oh, wait, they're doing that now, albeit for different reasons. Good for them.
(for everyone who doesn't think Israel launching an all out attack is justified in response to 13 deaths over four years.... how bout we bring your entire extended family down to the firing range and you can all stand at max distance. We'll have someone blindfolded, with a gun, and pointed in your general direction. We'll have him keep firing for quite some time. Oh, by the way, there's a good rifle at your feet and you're not wearing a blindfold. Do you neutralize the threat?)
Israel already has the Tactical High-Energy Laser which has defended Israel against 28 Katyusha Artillery Rockets, 5 artillery shells, and multiple mortar rounds. Yes, the US footed part of the bill.
The fact is this technology is already developed and proven. Northrup just needs to make it portable and widespread.
Furthermore, why shouldn't the US be involved in Israel's defense? They're a western, civilized country in the middle of otherwise the dregs of humanity and the some of the shittiest countries around. We share similar values, and similar enemies. To not help out Israel would be idiotic.
\Cue the more explicit zionist and M-IC conspiricy theories.
Does fear run your life?
yes, yes it does.
I carry a spare tire because I DREADFULLY FEAR A FLAT.
I have bandaids in my bathroom because I DREADFULLY FEAR A CUT.
I carry money in my wallet when I go out because I DREADFULLY FEAR WANTING TO BUY SOMETHING.
I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen because I FEAR FIRE.
Oh, no, wait, I don't fear any of those things.
But I am prepared for them. There's a difference, you know.
We prepare for negative possibilities all the time. The fact that this negative possibility would be perpetrated by another human does not turn 'preperation' into 'fear.'
One may discuss the relevent probabilities of a terrorist shooting an RPG at an airliner, or of one getting a flat, or a cut. One may also discuss wether the probability and corresponding cost of an event is enough to warrant preparation.
However, to confuse fear with preparation is folly.
Occasionally I'll see folks quoting Einstien on political matters- to be brief, I agree with very little, if anything, Einstien said on politics.
So I always point out to these folks that Einstein was a well-known physicists-not so much a politician.
They usually have no response.
Heh
Nowadays I only take care of my and my fiancee's computer, and we're both smart enough to avoid these kinds of internet social diseases.
That being said, are there ways without special software to lock down a windows xp machine so your kid or niece or whoever couldn't inflict this kind of damage on it?
I'm really just curious, this isn't a pressing issue for me.
They're working on it actually. I don't have a link for you, but I have seen articles about developing skin tight suits exactly as you describe.
IIRC, some of the first high-altitude/space suit prototypes where the skin-tight 'squeezing' sort. At the time, though, rubber was the only decent material they had for this, and it was found wanting.
60 years later, I'm willing to bet we have far more suitable materials, and will probably see a 'squeezing' suit if/when space travel develops further.
If the A380 was a real threat to boeing, they'd be makin a similar sized aircraft too.
From what I've read though, Boeing is doing just fine, especially since they have a better history of delivering.
Some fun stuff about the A380!
Gee, I'm sure Boeing has had some tax breaks, but that's a pretty audacious demand, huh? $700 million dollars in direct subsidies?
That was over a year ago, but that's pretty bad.
and
That was three weeks ago
Now, there have been a few snags with the production set up for the Boeing 787 dreamliner, but they could just be normal teething problems for a new product. They don't have the weight of the 380's problems... hehe 5-10 ton weight.
But your pride in the A380.... could be misplaced.
SO that would mean a cost savings of around $400-$500 an hour, or something like 6,000 hours operating with a sail to pay for the system and then begin to profit.
Seems like if it's sturdy enough to last a good decade or so, the savings would be quite handsome
The other effect is 'risk homeostasis'- that one increases the amount of risky behavior they perform in an unconcious response to a mechanical increase in safety- ie, the same level of risk is always maintained.
Personally, i've already had a bike crash and my helmet probably saved me some hurt past my broken arm, so i'll keep wearing it. but i've got no disagreement with anything you wrote.
It's a matter of treating the citizens of a state as adults who make, and are responsible for their own decisions, vs being simply wards of the state that the government must look after and parent.
I always wear my seatbelt, always wear my bicycle helmet, and I would always were a motorcycle helmet. Any wise person would. I do not however feel compelled to tell my neighbors what to do and how to live their lives. It's their business.
As for fireworks, here's what you do to avoid injury: put them on the ground, point in a safe direction, light, get away. Stay clear of flammable surroundings. New Hampshire people have free access to several grades of fireworks that are a felony in Massachusetts. We manage to avoid routine headlines of maiming, thank you very much.
Are you telling me that people in Massachusetts are that much dumber than folks in NH, that MA residents would get mangled daily doing things NH residents do safely?
New Hampshire residents are treated as the responsible adults they are when it comes to seatbelts, helmets, guns, fireworks, and several other issues.
Considering that New Hampshire's population is rising as Massachusetts is falling and we're considered one of the best places to live, that tact seems to be working quite well for us.
Massachusetts makes a point of not respecting its citizens at all. Why should their treatment of kids be any different?
Consider:
MA safety belt & motorcycle helmet laws (You're too stupid and irresponsible to make your own decisions about safety)
MA makes possession of consumer grade fireworks a felony (The message from the legislature to the voters: You're too goddamn stupid to handle things NH residents safely use all day)
I could probably find a few more examples if I tried, but here's the point:
Massachusetts is a paternalistic Nanny state were government knows best. This shows in the schools as well.
By your logic I should be able to carry a gun around downtown, after all I want to, and it doesn't disrupt anybody, and it's "nobody else's goddamned business"
Maybe you already know this, but hey, I'll point it out to be sure.
You can do that in 2/3 of the United States.
Bloodshed does not ensue.
Why are you take issue with inanimate objects? Wether it's a gun or a cell phone or a car or a baseball bat, the object does nothing on it's own. He or she that posseses and uses it- makes all the difference in the world.