Oh yea! If flying over in a chopper makes you an expert then I got him beat!
I toured a nuclear power plant (from the ground) and actually got INSIDE the containment building to look down on the core inside the primary pressure vessel.... Before you call BS, it was under construction and didn't have fuel on site yet. But it was nearly finished and went into low power testing within about 3 months of the tour. I also got a quick tour of a research reactor and got to look down on the then critical core and saw the blue glow caused by the prompt neutrons slowing down. Oh.. And as a kid I toured an operational plant's visitor center..... Either way, I saw more than you see from a chopper.
Truth be told, all he could do was fly over and cheer on the folks who where risking their lives below. He was as powerless as I was to actually *do* something at the time, so I fail to see why it matters... Unless it really was just for political reasons?
I happen to be a software engineer right now, if that matters.
(putting down the Hydrogen Hydroxide container on my desk..) Um... Yea, seems I put that pesky "2" after the wrong element... Can I blame being dyslexic and tired for this?
Searches without warrants or probable cause will taint all the evidence obtained through the search or any information obtained from the illegal search. Such evidence will easily be suppressed during any criminal trial. If any law enforcement official does such a search is an idiot because they can't use any of what they find at criminal trial nor can they use anything they learn to find new information... At least in the USA.
You should be more concerned about theft or perhaps the odd private investigator investigating some civil matter, or in the rare instance of espionage activity (state sponsored or industrial). In these cases you should already know what the risks are and be taking the proper security steps. If not, shame on you.
I suppose you could put on your tin-foil hat and start talking about black choppers or being framed for a crime.....
Oh sure, if you do something stupid you can make a huge mess, but the *worst* mess of this kind in history wasn't as bad as some politician claimed this could be. The operators and engineering at Chernobyl where very stupid and the resulting mess was about as bad as I think this kind of thing can be but even that wasn't as bad as this claim. What you have is some politician trying to get votes, saying stupid stuff that is not really justified technically.
But my point here is that modern designs are much less likely to have issues like Fukushima because many of them do not require active cooling so we would be much better off safety wise to start building some of them. But even Fukushima., one of the worst examples of the worst kind of accident possible isn't nearly this bad. Of curse, there are risks, there are always risks, one just has to manage them.
You know it's a nuclear reactor spewing all sorts of radiation our way right?
Seriously? Solar power? In most countries in Europe, if you could put up solar panels that covered 80% of the land mass, you'd barely have enough power to keep the lights on when the sun was up. Now if you wanted to charge the batteries for after dark, you are going to need a bit more than the 20% that's left...
Here in the states, We might have enough real estate to meet our needs, but I'm not sure where we'd be growing corn for the ethanol we are required to burn in our cars...
You had better be praying we get fusion working soon...
So this is why you should build such nuclear power plants *AWAY* from sensitive areas with high population densities or upstream from critical infrastructure. It is also why you try to be careful about your designs and don't do stupid things like using flammable graphite as a moderator (Chernobyl) or building on fault lines (Fukushima).
Japan will struggle with their economic issues for years, but they will survive. Russia had more issues to start with and are facing a much larger impact from Chernobyl but one could argue they survived at least partially. Three Mile Island was a financial mess, but I dare say we survived that just fine. So I think you are wrong.
The safety of nuclear power *far* exceeds that of coal or gas when you factor in everything from the obtaining of the fuel to the decommissioning and disposal of the plant when it's worn out. And I'm including the accidents from nations that are not so sensitive or caring about their people or environment.
Start letting industry build new ones! There are some excellent modern designs which would be a great improvement on safety and even some that can help us dispose of high level long half life waste by converting it to stuff with shorter a half life. We are simply storing this stuff at the plant that generates it right now and that's CRAZY. We should be using it to generate power with these new reactor designs.
Start reprocessing all the spent fuel into forms where we can use it again. There is 40 plus years of used fuel assemblies just sitting inside these plants that could be reprocessed and reused with the side benefit of making the physical size of the high level waste much smaller and easier to handle. The waste can be encased in glass or ceramics and made ready for long term storage. Which brings me to the final thing we need to do...
Get one or more high level waste sites completed ASAP so we can start dealing with the *real* problem here. I'm worried more about the thousands of fuel assemblies just sitting in storage pools corroding than the danger from aging power plants springing leaks and melting down. We need to get this really dangerous stuff into more secure locations and stabilized environment where it can be stored in a more permanent way.
No, this was not nuanced... There where two arguments being made. 1. You can't sue me because you don't have a copyright registered on that title and 2. You can't sue me for negligence because I didn't stop my roommate from doing it. The judge agreed with the person who was providing the internet connection on both arguments.
I'm betting that the copyright registration will be corrected and the roommate will be then held accountable, if this hasn't happened already.
But the "issue" here is not Russia who likely has enough missile shots to overwhelm just about any system we could possibly field, but the fringe states who would possibly do something stupid. You see, using your logic, anything less than perfect is worthless. I don't agree. Having a system in place that has a 50/50 chance is better than a zero chance when dealing with the fringe states or one off terrorist group funded well enough to try something on their own. It may not catch everything, but the prospect of having only half a chance to score may cause them pause, knowing that an attempt would bring serious punishment, successful or not. Of course it would be better if you have a 100% system, but simply saying you do helps too. If someone believes they will be caught and punished, they are unlikely to try something.
Typical.... So unless we are 100% successful there is no justification for spending money on this effort? I'm not buying that logic. I see benefit in fielding a system that works 50% of the time plus the side benefit from spending money on research and development. It may not be 100% effective, but half a chance is better than the zero chance of doing nothing. My point here is that we may not be 100%, but this will improve as we continue to research and develop solutions to this problem.
By the way, we already have a HUGE military presence in Europe. This may shuffle the deck chairs some, but apart from providing an additional reason for the US to stay, it's not going to change much. We've been in Europe consistently since WWII and it seems likely we will be there for another 70 years.
The destruction of the power generation and distribution infrastructure would be enough, which is my point. If you do a good job and destroy a 900 mile radius around Chicago, you could expect that the loop would be dark and the L not running for a long long time. So yes, we'd be back to about 1900 with in a few days and we'd stay there for a long time. It would be New Orleans after the storm, only larger and without all the extra water. It would quickly go from bad to worse once the looting finished because there was nothing left. Problem is, there would be no place to go... Nothing within driving distance would be any better.
Hmmm... I think it would actually work if not right away eventually.... Why else would our old adversary in Russia be so opposed to such a system being fielded in Europe?
If you look at their data, they determined that at 25KV/m applied pulse, 3 out of 5 autos would have serious enough issues to stop running. (Note these are autos made before 2005) However, the test is at about 1/2 the expected EMP voltages and I doubt they are really pulsing a car in a full up EMP test range but doing some capacitive discharge pulse looking for upset. Upset testing is just the starting point and if you get upset at these values you will have significant chance of damage at a full pulse.
I think there will be about 8 out of 10 serious issues with an EMP event which max out at about 50KVm. And about half of those will be in need of repair. But what good is a running car if there is no way to put fuel into it?
What? You mean I didn't read the following correctly?
EMP is one of a small number of threats that can hold our society at risk of catastrophic consequences. EMP will cover the wide geographic region within line of sight to the nuclear weapon. It has the capability to produce significant damage to critical infrastructures and thus to the very fabric of US society, as well as to the ability of the United States and Western nations to project influence and military power.
The common element that can produce such an impact from EMP is primarily electronics, so pervasive in all aspects of our society and military, coupled through critical infrastructures. Our vulnerability is increasing daily as our use of and dependence on electronics continues to grow. The impact of EMP is asymmetric in relation to potential protagonists who are not as dependent on modern electronics.
The current vulnerability of our critical infrastructures can both invite and reward attack if not corrected. Correction is feasible and well within the Nation's means and resources to accomplish.
I believe you are correct that a higher burst would be better, but the size and type of the bomb is not as important as you seem to indicate.
But my point here is that considering how bound we are to our technology and how unprepared we are for a wide spread disruption of even basic electrical power distribution, an EMP would be a serious problem.
Puts a whole new face on the missile defense systems....
One small nuclear device detonated over the US at about 10,000 feet could make a huge mess of things. Not from the blast damage, not from radiation, but from EMP. Draw some 1,800 mile wide circles on a map and see how large an area can be affected.
The initial effect of an EM pulse would destroy just about everything attached to the power grid. Huge voltage spikes and induced currents would literally overload and destroy both the grid and things attached. Power delivery would most certainly be disrupted because the infrastructure used to deliver power would be seriously damaged. The power lines would exist, but the transformers, relays and controls would have serious problems. Further, power generating plants would likely be seriously damaged, so there would be no power to distribute. Radio communications would be almost totally disrupted for days, and partially disrupted for weeks. Land line phones would surely be seriously damaged and cell phones would not be useable.
Don't think that being disconnected from the grid would not mean you are safe. Anything with even a few feet of wire hanging onto it would be subject to serious damage. Most consumer electronics, including cars, cell phones, radios and TVs would likely be damaged beyond repair. Your solar powered home will be as dark as everybody else and those of you with local generators are unlikely to be in much better shape. You will literally find yourself back in horse and buggy days, only with very few horses to be had. Few cars would be running, mostly old ones with old ignition systems and mechanical fuel pumps.
The real question is how long would it take to repair the grid and get things going? If the east coast storms of last week are any example, one can only conclude that it will be a LONG time. How many people will starve during that time?
Science fiction aside, this EMP thing is real and more dangerous than using nuclear devices to blow stuff up. Even a small device could cause serious long lasting damage for a HUGE part of the US.
I'd tend to believe that the C guys have more experience than the Java guys. Could this possibly have anything to do with their relative capabilities?
Nope.. It's because C is more than 25 years old and Java only half that. Computer Science schools have been truing out mostly Java programmers for the past decade. So the average professional with C training and experience will have more years of experience overall.
Many software engineers don't understand what the issue here really is. It's not about C being better than Java, Perl better than Python or csh better than sh. These are only tools we use to develop our software. It's about using the RIGHT tool for the job.
I've argued with fresh CS graduates about their insistence that Java is a better tool for everything programming. To those who only have one tool in the tool box their arguments make sense. The real issue is having as many tools as you can in your tool box and knowing when and how to use each one. Well stocked tool boxes come with experience.
Writing a device driver? Please don't use Java... A GUI? Dig out the Java SDK. Something in-between? We might need to talk about it.
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, all your problems start looking like nails..."
In flight? No, it's more like repairing a ship while at sea (because the satellite doesn't have to maneuver itself while it is being repaired). Ships are repaired at sea on a fairly regular basis, at least enough for them to limp back to port. If there were no ports available, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to fully repair and resupply them with floating drydocks. It would help if there were humans there, of course.
So all this just begs the question, what kind of efficiency are they expecting to gain? Are we trying to lower launch costs by not having to lift heavy components into space? Well launching the equivalent of a dry dock is *not* going to be cheap.
Building reliable satellites is a long and expensive process, even in the best of situations here on earth. Re purposing an already built and flying one in space is surely going to be even worse, producing really expensive and unreliable satellites in the process.
This is like trying to do an overhaul of a fighter jet avionics while the thing is in flight. Yea, you could possibly do it, but why would you want too try?
Now if they want to start designing into satellites a way to make re-provisioning of satellites while in orbit possible, like adding ways to easily attach more fuel or replace payload modules, I'd find it worthwhile. Perhaps even standardizing a way to build satellites out of modular components that share a base interface so it is possible to just assemble them like tinker toys in space would be workable. But simply trying to rebuild something not designed to be worked on from the mounds of junk already in orbit is not going to have much success, is going to be very expensive, and is likely going to require manned spaceflight (something we don't do here in the USA right now) and the likelihood of success is pretty low.
Efforts like the refurbishment of Hubble aside, this effort seems doomed for failure, unless the components they are trying to use are designed for reuse and happen to be in the correct orbit.
Interesting quote but it doesn't say why Sonic is doing this. With the current rash of ISP's now fighting subpenas in court and winning based on current case law, this IS about costs. Why have ISP's been rolling over and turning in their clients? It was cheaper that trying to fight the issue knowing they would loose and I agree with Sonic in this reguard. But this statement is not explaining why Sonic is now taking this approach.
The legal dynamic is now changing. We see a rash of ISP's fighting copyright shakedown attempts by doing what Sonic is now doing, limiting logs and fighting the subpoenas (mostly the latter). If they are successful in blocking the copyright shakedown though the court, such activity will stop and ISP's everywhere will save money on legal fees and labor. What makes Sonic unique is their choice to 1. limit log retention to two weeks, and 2. make a public announcement about it.
Sonic is not opposed to trying to generate positive PR from this and if speculating about other ISP's reasons for doing what they do helps, so be it. However, it is still about costs. Sonic just thinks they've hit upon a quick and cheep way to deal with this issue. Hope it works for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yea! If flying over in a chopper makes you an expert then I got him beat!
I toured a nuclear power plant (from the ground) and actually got INSIDE the containment building to look down on the core inside the primary pressure vessel.... Before you call BS, it was under construction and didn't have fuel on site yet. But it was nearly finished and went into low power testing within about 3 months of the tour. I also got a quick tour of a research reactor and got to look down on the then critical core and saw the blue glow caused by the prompt neutrons slowing down. Oh.. And as a kid I toured an operational plant's visitor center..... Either way, I saw more than you see from a chopper.
Truth be told, all he could do was fly over and cheer on the folks who where risking their lives below. He was as powerless as I was to actually *do* something at the time, so I fail to see why it matters... Unless it really was just for political reasons?
I happen to be a software engineer right now, if that matters.
(putting down the Hydrogen Hydroxide container on my desk..) Um... Yea, seems I put that pesky "2" after the wrong element... Can I blame being dyslexic and tired for this?
Withdraw symptoms? Yea, that can be bad I suppose, but I was thinking inhaling this stuff can kill you pretty dead in pretty short order.
(Face palm!) Indeed... Boy do I look stupid... But that's normal...
How about banning hydrogen dioxide too? It is extremely dangerous when in liquid form and kills a lot more people (kids and adults) when inhaled.
We should ban Hydrogen Dioxide. You know it KILLS many people every year! (usually in the summer time)
Searches without warrants or probable cause will taint all the evidence obtained through the search or any information obtained from the illegal search. Such evidence will easily be suppressed during any criminal trial. If any law enforcement official does such a search is an idiot because they can't use any of what they find at criminal trial nor can they use anything they learn to find new information... At least in the USA.
You should be more concerned about theft or perhaps the odd private investigator investigating some civil matter, or in the rare instance of espionage activity (state sponsored or industrial). In these cases you should already know what the risks are and be taking the proper security steps. If not, shame on you.
I suppose you could put on your tin-foil hat and start talking about black choppers or being framed for a crime.....
Oh sure, if you do something stupid you can make a huge mess, but the *worst* mess of this kind in history wasn't as bad as some politician claimed this could be. The operators and engineering at Chernobyl where very stupid and the resulting mess was about as bad as I think this kind of thing can be but even that wasn't as bad as this claim. What you have is some politician trying to get votes, saying stupid stuff that is not really justified technically.
But my point here is that modern designs are much less likely to have issues like Fukushima because many of them do not require active cooling so we would be much better off safety wise to start building some of them. But even Fukushima., one of the worst examples of the worst kind of accident possible isn't nearly this bad. Of curse, there are risks, there are always risks, one just has to manage them.
You know it's a nuclear reactor spewing all sorts of radiation our way right?
Seriously? Solar power? In most countries in Europe, if you could put up solar panels that covered 80% of the land mass, you'd barely have enough power to keep the lights on when the sun was up. Now if you wanted to charge the batteries for after dark, you are going to need a bit more than the 20% that's left...
Here in the states, We might have enough real estate to meet our needs, but I'm not sure where we'd be growing corn for the ethanol we are required to burn in our cars...
You had better be praying we get fusion working soon...
So this is why you should build such nuclear power plants *AWAY* from sensitive areas with high population densities or upstream from critical infrastructure. It is also why you try to be careful about your designs and don't do stupid things like using flammable graphite as a moderator (Chernobyl) or building on fault lines (Fukushima).
Japan will struggle with their economic issues for years, but they will survive. Russia had more issues to start with and are facing a much larger impact from Chernobyl but one could argue they survived at least partially. Three Mile Island was a financial mess, but I dare say we survived that just fine. So I think you are wrong.
The safety of nuclear power *far* exceeds that of coal or gas when you factor in everything from the obtaining of the fuel to the decommissioning and disposal of the plant when it's worn out. And I'm including the accidents from nations that are not so sensitive or caring about their people or environment.
Start letting industry build new ones! There are some excellent modern designs which would be a great improvement on safety and even some that can help us dispose of high level long half life waste by converting it to stuff with shorter a half life. We are simply storing this stuff at the plant that generates it right now and that's CRAZY. We should be using it to generate power with these new reactor designs.
Start reprocessing all the spent fuel into forms where we can use it again. There is 40 plus years of used fuel assemblies just sitting inside these plants that could be reprocessed and reused with the side benefit of making the physical size of the high level waste much smaller and easier to handle. The waste can be encased in glass or ceramics and made ready for long term storage. Which brings me to the final thing we need to do...
Get one or more high level waste sites completed ASAP so we can start dealing with the *real* problem here. I'm worried more about the thousands of fuel assemblies just sitting in storage pools corroding than the danger from aging power plants springing leaks and melting down. We need to get this really dangerous stuff into more secure locations and stabilized environment where it can be stored in a more permanent way.
No, this was not nuanced... There where two arguments being made. 1. You can't sue me because you don't have a copyright registered on that title and 2. You can't sue me for negligence because I didn't stop my roommate from doing it. The judge agreed with the person who was providing the internet connection on both arguments.
I'm betting that the copyright registration will be corrected and the roommate will be then held accountable, if this hasn't happened already.
But the "issue" here is not Russia who likely has enough missile shots to overwhelm just about any system we could possibly field, but the fringe states who would possibly do something stupid. You see, using your logic, anything less than perfect is worthless. I don't agree. Having a system in place that has a 50/50 chance is better than a zero chance when dealing with the fringe states or one off terrorist group funded well enough to try something on their own. It may not catch everything, but the prospect of having only half a chance to score may cause them pause, knowing that an attempt would bring serious punishment, successful or not. Of course it would be better if you have a 100% system, but simply saying you do helps too. If someone believes they will be caught and punished, they are unlikely to try something.
Typical.... So unless we are 100% successful there is no justification for spending money on this effort? I'm not buying that logic. I see benefit in fielding a system that works 50% of the time plus the side benefit from spending money on research and development. It may not be 100% effective, but half a chance is better than the zero chance of doing nothing. My point here is that we may not be 100%, but this will improve as we continue to research and develop solutions to this problem.
By the way, we already have a HUGE military presence in Europe. This may shuffle the deck chairs some, but apart from providing an additional reason for the US to stay, it's not going to change much. We've been in Europe consistently since WWII and it seems likely we will be there for another 70 years.
The destruction of the power generation and distribution infrastructure would be enough, which is my point. If you do a good job and destroy a 900 mile radius around Chicago, you could expect that the loop would be dark and the L not running for a long long time. So yes, we'd be back to about 1900 with in a few days and we'd stay there for a long time. It would be New Orleans after the storm, only larger and without all the extra water. It would quickly go from bad to worse once the looting finished because there was nothing left. Problem is, there would be no place to go... Nothing within driving distance would be any better.
Hmmm... I think it would actually work if not right away eventually.... Why else would our old adversary in Russia be so opposed to such a system being fielded in Europe?
If you look at their data, they determined that at 25KV/m applied pulse, 3 out of 5 autos would have serious enough issues to stop running. (Note these are autos made before 2005) However, the test is at about 1/2 the expected EMP voltages and I doubt they are really pulsing a car in a full up EMP test range but doing some capacitive discharge pulse looking for upset. Upset testing is just the starting point and if you get upset at these values you will have significant chance of damage at a full pulse.
I think there will be about 8 out of 10 serious issues with an EMP event which max out at about 50KVm. And about half of those will be in need of repair. But what good is a running car if there is no way to put fuel into it?
Good news is that trucks fair much better..
As Mr Nimzicki once said "Uh Mr. President. Thats not entirely accurate"
Please read the EMP commission report. http://www.empcommission.org/
What? You mean I didn't read the following correctly?
EMP is one of a small number of threats that can hold our society at risk of catastrophic consequences. EMP will cover the wide geographic region within line of sight to the nuclear weapon. It has the capability to produce significant damage to critical infrastructures and thus to the very fabric of US society, as well as to the ability of the United States and Western nations to project influence and military power.
The common element that can produce such an impact from EMP is primarily electronics, so pervasive in all aspects of our society and military, coupled through critical infrastructures. Our vulnerability is increasing daily as our use of and dependence on electronics continues to grow. The impact of EMP is asymmetric in relation to potential protagonists who are not as dependent on modern electronics.
The current vulnerability of our critical infrastructures can both invite and reward attack if not corrected. Correction is feasible and well within the Nation's means and resources to accomplish.
From the Executive report Abstract
If you come to visit, you'll be bored to tears
We haven't even payed the phone bill in 300 years
But we ain't really quaint, so please don't point and stare
We're just technologically impaired
There's no phone, no lights, no motorcars, not a single luxury
Like Robonson Crusoe, it's as primitive as can be
We've been spending most our lives living in an Amish paradise
We're just plain and simple guys, living in an Amish paradise
There's no time for sin and vice, living in an Amish paradise
We don't fight, we all play nice, living in an Amish paradise
I believe you are correct that a higher burst would be better, but the size and type of the bomb is not as important as you seem to indicate.
But my point here is that considering how bound we are to our technology and how unprepared we are for a wide spread disruption of even basic electrical power distribution, an EMP would be a serious problem.
Puts a whole new face on the missile defense systems....
One small nuclear device detonated over the US at about 10,000 feet could make a huge mess of things. Not from the blast damage, not from radiation, but from EMP. Draw some 1,800 mile wide circles on a map and see how large an area can be affected.
The initial effect of an EM pulse would destroy just about everything attached to the power grid. Huge voltage spikes and induced currents would literally overload and destroy both the grid and things attached. Power delivery would most certainly be disrupted because the infrastructure used to deliver power would be seriously damaged. The power lines would exist, but the transformers, relays and controls would have serious problems. Further, power generating plants would likely be seriously damaged, so there would be no power to distribute. Radio communications would be almost totally disrupted for days, and partially disrupted for weeks. Land line phones would surely be seriously damaged and cell phones would not be useable.
Don't think that being disconnected from the grid would not mean you are safe. Anything with even a few feet of wire hanging onto it would be subject to serious damage. Most consumer electronics, including cars, cell phones, radios and TVs would likely be damaged beyond repair. Your solar powered home will be as dark as everybody else and those of you with local generators are unlikely to be in much better shape. You will literally find yourself back in horse and buggy days, only with very few horses to be had. Few cars would be running, mostly old ones with old ignition systems and mechanical fuel pumps.
The real question is how long would it take to repair the grid and get things going? If the east coast storms of last week are any example, one can only conclude that it will be a LONG time. How many people will starve during that time?
Science fiction aside, this EMP thing is real and more dangerous than using nuclear devices to blow stuff up. Even a small device could cause serious long lasting damage for a HUGE part of the US.
I'd tend to believe that the C guys have more experience than the Java guys. Could this possibly have anything to do with their relative capabilities?
Nope.. It's because C is more than 25 years old and Java only half that. Computer Science schools have been truing out mostly Java programmers for the past decade. So the average professional with C training and experience will have more years of experience overall.
Many software engineers don't understand what the issue here really is. It's not about C being better than Java, Perl better than Python or csh better than sh. These are only tools we use to develop our software. It's about using the RIGHT tool for the job.
I've argued with fresh CS graduates about their insistence that Java is a better tool for everything programming. To those who only have one tool in the tool box their arguments make sense. The real issue is having as many tools as you can in your tool box and knowing when and how to use each one. Well stocked tool boxes come with experience.
Writing a device driver? Please don't use Java... A GUI? Dig out the Java SDK. Something in-between? We might need to talk about it.
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, all your problems start looking like nails..."
In flight? No, it's more like repairing a ship while at sea (because the satellite doesn't have to maneuver itself while it is being repaired). Ships are repaired at sea on a fairly regular basis, at least enough for them to limp back to port. If there were no ports available, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to fully repair and resupply them with floating drydocks. It would help if there were humans there, of course.
So all this just begs the question, what kind of efficiency are they expecting to gain? Are we trying to lower launch costs by not having to lift heavy components into space? Well launching the equivalent of a dry dock is *not* going to be cheap.
Building reliable satellites is a long and expensive process, even in the best of situations here on earth. Re purposing an already built and flying one in space is surely going to be even worse, producing really expensive and unreliable satellites in the process.
This is like trying to do an overhaul of a fighter jet avionics while the thing is in flight. Yea, you could possibly do it, but why would you want too try?
Now if they want to start designing into satellites a way to make re-provisioning of satellites while in orbit possible, like adding ways to easily attach more fuel or replace payload modules, I'd find it worthwhile. Perhaps even standardizing a way to build satellites out of modular components that share a base interface so it is possible to just assemble them like tinker toys in space would be workable. But simply trying to rebuild something not designed to be worked on from the mounds of junk already in orbit is not going to have much success, is going to be very expensive, and is likely going to require manned spaceflight (something we don't do here in the USA right now) and the likelihood of success is pretty low.
Efforts like the refurbishment of Hubble aside, this effort seems doomed for failure, unless the components they are trying to use are designed for reuse and happen to be in the correct orbit.
Interesting quote but it doesn't say why Sonic is doing this. With the current rash of ISP's now fighting subpenas in court and winning based on current case law, this IS about costs. Why have ISP's been rolling over and turning in their clients? It was cheaper that trying to fight the issue knowing they would loose and I agree with Sonic in this reguard. But this statement is not explaining why Sonic is now taking this approach.
The legal dynamic is now changing. We see a rash of ISP's fighting copyright shakedown attempts by doing what Sonic is now doing, limiting logs and fighting the subpoenas (mostly the latter). If they are successful in blocking the copyright shakedown though the court, such activity will stop and ISP's everywhere will save money on legal fees and labor. What makes Sonic unique is their choice to 1. limit log retention to two weeks, and 2. make a public announcement about it.
Sonic is not opposed to trying to generate positive PR from this and if speculating about other ISP's reasons for doing what they do helps, so be it. However, it is still about costs. Sonic just thinks they've hit upon a quick and cheep way to deal with this issue. Hope it works for them.