No one understands the constitution and what it is for.
While it may be common practice for people to assert their 5th amendment rights, I fail to see how stating that assertion is a requirement. And problems with this ruling are glaringly obvious. What if someone merely doesn't understand the question being asked?!
If I were in the same position and someone asked me if my shotgun would match the bullistics of some-such, I would not answer either. Why? Because the question doesn't make sense!!!! We're talking about a shotgun -- a scatter-gun if you will. That's the awesome thing about those weapons. They don't HAVE ballistics, Shotguns are not rifles. They don't leave marks on their projectiles which could trace a shot back to the shotgun that fired it. The closest they could come to connecting the two is GSR and that's just matching brands of shotgun shells.
What could have been going through this guy's mind when they asked him the question? "Is this a trap? Why would they ask me this stupid question? If I tell them I think the question is stupid, will they become hostile to me? I don't want to provike them! My mom used to say 'If you can't say anything nice, say nothing!' What are these people trying to do?! Oh thank god they moved on to another question..."
The government is now stating that a person much know their rights for their rights to exist. And this same government threatens all manner of trouble for anyone who teaches and explains to people what their rights are. Can we finally all agree that government is fully and generally opposed to people having any rights at all?
Hilarious. Yeah, sounds good at first glance. But check other news stories -- Microsoft shares data and access with government. A 24h license thing is there to encourage people to leave their machines always on and always connected. I wonder what the motivation for that could possibly be? What is the practical rationale behind that if it is something completely unrelated to spying? Freedom to push updates with their constantly changing ToS?
Look, if you're willing to give up so much, could you help a brother out? Throw a bit of what you're throwing out the window in my direction.
I agree. What gets me is that there will still be addicted slobs bitching and complaining about all of this which shelling out money as if their games are a requirement for life.
I got the lecture before about "not everyone's a gaming addict and some people just use it therapeutically"... as a stress reliever. Yup... not an addict... and can quit any time they want to I'll bet. You know what relaxes me? A guitar in my lap and picking out songs I like. Turns out it works on pretty much every human animal... and most animals in general. Also, can't exactly control my access to my guitar remotely either. I just avoid obvious problems like playing too loud or songs like "happy birthday." (Had a neighbor play happy birthday on his guitar once... party van came and took him away.)
Great big business mostly knows what they can get away with. Sure, a few people will fall off, but they will make it up with addicts and higher prices. I saw the way Microsoft managed to sell two licenses for every business installation of Windows. (Sounds ridiculous but it's true -- All Windows workstation licenses are sold as "upgrades" only now meaning you have to have a qualifying product purchased or your install of the volume licensed installation is in violation of your license. What qualifies is Any version of Windows or Mac OSX. Sickening and hilarious at the same time. Business buys a new PC, it sells with an OEM license that's worthless because any smart company reloads the machine, and to do that legally, you have to buy another license because the OEM license only entitles you to have that same OEM installation WITH crapware.) They know what they can get away with it and they are doing it.
We, in the first world, live in a consumerist society. And to profit in a consumerist society, you have to market. Marketing is everything and there is no limit to how far marketing will go to get attention and, ultimately, to sell something. And not merely to get attention, but to draw attention away from the competition. So it doesn't even matter if the dancing naked ladies have nothing to do with the product being sold, so long as no one is looking at the competition. The competition is for your eyes. After they have your eyes, the competition will weaken and on and on and on.
Marketing has evolved to the point that marketing is now a part of our very culture. We expect it, we even crave it. There's as much attention on the super bowl commercials as there is on the game itself!
"Sexism"? Sexism has nothing to do with it. There is no sexism. There is human desire. Humans desire sex and that's what they are using to draw attention. There are other ways, but none quite so powerful as sex. Even [especially] Disney knows this. This sexism thing is just a symptom of a much larger problem.
Firstly, we all KNEW they were doing this. They put in those telco offices and installed all that equipment. The details from that scandal like 3+ years ago was it? Why would we ever imagine they would have limited what they were doing to just that?! Also, as they are collecting ALL data, just as Google's WiFi collecting thing went, they are most certainly collecting more than calls in and out of the country. So seriously. How exactly is this stuff really all that new to anyone? This is more like "hey, you remember that scandal everyone forgot about? Well, it's true."
I started into computers before "computer" meant "wintel." In fact, my first real exposure was 6809 assembly language programming under OS-9 where I had to deal with 64K limits. All of my programs needed to be extremely efficient as did the drivers for the devices I used. It was an environment of extremely limited resources and wasting them meant there was less you could do.
Linux has been moving in the direction of bloat and yet still maintains some essence of the need to be efficient and tight -- it shows in its ability to be small when needed.
Every attempt we have seen Microsoft make in trying to adapt to smaller computing devices seem to have failed for a variety of reasons.
Here's the thing though. I don't "hate" Microsoft. I just wished they'd get their heads out of their asses. Their stuff is growing obsolete. And instead of saying "okay... we have a market that may or may not be relevant in 5 - 10 years... let's keep that going while 'starting over' in new directions by devoting our considerable resources into some heavy R&D." They need not to "adapt" their old stuff and instead need to build something new in the spirit of "lessons learned from decades of experience."
At the moment, though, it seems like they haven't learned a damned thing.
Looking back at what I wrote, I see nothing that even comes close to implying anyone shooting a cop. What I am saying is that the fact that the laws and permits and exceptions for LEOs does nothing to make sure they behave safely and sanely. We merely have an expectation that they are defending our rights and our safety, but when you shine light on what they actually do, you see something entirely different.
I have a nephew who is a classic example of the video game addicted kid... only he's not a kid any more. Sure, he's got the boost in hand-eye coordination, but where does it benefit his life? He might have a career in operating drones in the future..."securing our freedom?" But his unending focus on non-productive, non-valuable sense of achievement [unlocked!] had literally interfered with his development as a person. He is/was a truly sharp person but we just can't tear him away from his gaming.
And like it or not (I'll get modded flamebait or troll for this I'm sure) it does the same to many people here. Their choice of PCs and OSes all seem to require support for their gaming needs. Really? ("I'd switch to Linux, but I've got to play my games!") I find it disturbing. I like games too. But I found they used too much of my time and they upset the balance of my life. As I do not live with a parent or anyone else to take care of me, any and all of my focus must be primarily on the basics of life which are work, eating, sleeping, shelter and all of those things.
Citing some ostensibly positive benefit of being immersed in video games does nothing to help the problems associated with how they distract, delay and deter people from real life. And before people say "...just kids..." I suggest they look around. A lot of these "kids" are in their 30s and some in their 40s. We already have a serious maturity and development crisis here in this 1st world nation we call the USA. Where before it was just TV, now it's that and a lot more.
Criminals are determined by whatever the law says. If we didn't know how the law gets written, I might think as you do. But we know how it's written and often at the request of lobbyists. DMCA? Marijuana? There are times when "law" isn't quite right. There are times when law clashes with other law and especially the constitution. I wish it were so simple to determine who the criminals are.
If the point is to reduce the number of guns, then disarming police would seem like a natural push for people who are anti-gun. And if anti-gun people think police SHOULD have guns, then I have to ask why. Can police use guns to defend others? Not usually -- crime is already history by the time they are notified. Can a cop defend himself with a gun? That depends on what you think about "defense." But why should only police be able to defend themselves? And if police carrying guns is a deterrent, and when police aren't around, how is that helpful? It's the guns which are deterrents, so therefore everyone should have a gun to reduce crime instead of no one.
At most, anti-gun people are arguing over details such as safety and anger control issues. Once again, I defer you to two recent stories where cops lost their control and started shooting people. Just because they are a cop doesn't make them "safer" or more trustworthy -- that's pure faith on your part if you believe so. A badge doesn't make them super-human.
I think even anti-gun arguments reveal the need for guns. The only time there would be no need for guns is if no guns existed anywhere in the world. But then we'd be talking about sword control or arrow control wouldn't we?
When you think it through, anti-gun positions hinge on the wish that there should be no guns. Since that wish can NEVER be realized, the position should be realized as impractical.
I'm sorry... but really? "Please, let us tell the truth?!" I can't say precisely when things went "too far" but I can definitely say that things have most certainly, and unquestionably, gone too far.
All those anti-gun people should start realizing that if you want a gun-free society, you should start with disarming police officers first because they seem to be at least as large a threat as civilians... and in my opinion, more of a threat since they seem to have a much more 'entitled' sense of firearm use.
And if you agree we can't disarm the police, why should the remaining population be rendered helpless against the police and others? Sorry, but I just can't get past the natural right to self-defense and self-preservation.
Anyway... off-topic right? But when I hear "NJ Cop" this story comes to mind. As for searching phones at the scene? Sorry. The best they should be able to do is request the phone number of their device and let them subpoena the phone company for activity on the phone "on or about the time of the accident." Should be perfectly acceptable and will yield far more accurate reporting.
Oh yes, that makes me feel MUCH better. It concerns me that in the event I ever dialed a wrong number that I could end up on a terrorist watch list somewhere.
True this and as of today, I learned of even more issues with SCE decision making. Turns out there are some real problems on the SCE side which have nothing at all to do with their suppliers. Once again, once certain issues are closed, I will be happy to provide full disclosure and dirty laundry. And from what I hear, it won't be long.
The problem is, as you pointed out, what it is. But also, there's another problem with using the judiciary -- a case has to be filed *AND* it has to be accepted. We need more than the SCOTUS offers. We need a constitutional review system which handles matters in a way not unlike the patent system. Sure, there might be rulings which might be questionable or otherwise contested, but perhaps THEN the SCOTUS would do its job.
There should be no (D) or (R) associated with the names of those serving in any judiciary role. I would go so far as to mark associations with a political party as a disqualification from holding judicial office. The system is out of hand.
(0) is more important than (1) therefore the interests of (0) overrides the interests of (1).
After all, if (1) were more important than (0), then it should be perfectly okay to carpet bomb a whole city in order to kill suspected terrorists... right?
Let's not talk about what constitutes "harm" or even "acceptable harm." The notion of the government ignoring the very laws which are intended to limit what the government can do is a HUGE issue.
What is "constitutional law"? How is it different from regular law? Why does constitutional law focus so much on what the powers of the people are and what they government is not allowed to infringe upon? Frankly, it is not quite for the government to decide when the constitution is not relevant or that other interests are "more important."
If more government is the answer to the problem, then I say we need a branch of government whose sole responsibility is "constitutional oversight." Because we really need it.
Contractor use is how they get around other aspects of US and [especially] Constitutional legal restrictions and limitations.
Problem with the military code, rules or laws? No problem -- hire contractors. Got a problem with accountability and being tracked or with requirements of reporting your activities? Just use contractors. Easy to blame and easy to fire.
Not shocking, but quite disgusting. We put these government controls into place to prevent all sorts of government abuse and they just route around it. And no one is called to the floor for these practices.
This is the other side of the "just following orders" coin. When people don't just follow orders, and instead choose to do what they feel is right, we have the weight of huge global government coming down on individuals.
I think you're missing the point. Desktop Linux has existed and will continue to exist. Desktop Windows will too. But "PCs for the average consumer" is in decline.
The supplier is not throwing the tantrum. Take my word on that for now.
The government, the NRC, is doing the right thing in all of this. As I have been exposed to this industry and have been learning what's what and what goes on, I have learned a great respect for at least THIS government agency. Every NRC person has also had direct experience in nuclear technologies. And the thing about people who know and understand the tech, know what can happen when things go wrong and NO amount of bribery or being told to look the other way will cause them to compromise what they know very well is a potentially global disaster event.
I could go on and on about this. But I do know there are forces opposed to the NRC... to its very existence. It was preciselu the lack of an effective "NRC" in Russia that allowed Chernobyl to happen and even though their regulators weren't quite what the NRC is, the people who caused the disaster had to shop their idea for drill/demonstration around quite a bit before they could find someone stupid enough to take the risks they did.
For the moment, please understand that you don't understand quite what's going on over there. From what I know, the suppliers are acting properly and appropriately. I've already said too much. But I have to say it's a common problem where business cares more about their bottom line than about other, larger issues. I'm not saying that other parties are not at fault -- the reports are public and I invite you to read through them for further insight. There's plenty of blame to spread around. But this thing about shutting down two plants which are otherwise capable of being repaired and restored to a good, safe and reliable operation? Based on everything I know, it's not merely "nuclear economics." There's a lot more.
Personally, I believe as the next steps proceed, they might well be forced to change their idea about shutting those down. And the article makes it pretty clear that the "shutting down and packing up" is a far cry from destroying the things and clearing the land.
Slashdot Mirror
No one understands the constitution and what it is for.
While it may be common practice for people to assert their 5th amendment rights, I fail to see how stating that assertion is a requirement. And problems with this ruling are glaringly obvious. What if someone merely doesn't understand the question being asked?!
If I were in the same position and someone asked me if my shotgun would match the bullistics of some-such, I would not answer either. Why? Because the question doesn't make sense!!!! We're talking about a shotgun -- a scatter-gun if you will. That's the awesome thing about those weapons. They don't HAVE ballistics, Shotguns are not rifles. They don't leave marks on their projectiles which could trace a shot back to the shotgun that fired it. The closest they could come to connecting the two is GSR and that's just matching brands of shotgun shells.
What could have been going through this guy's mind when they asked him the question? "Is this a trap? Why would they ask me this stupid question? If I tell them I think the question is stupid, will they become hostile to me? I don't want to provike them! My mom used to say 'If you can't say anything nice, say nothing!' What are these people trying to do?! Oh thank god they moved on to another question..."
The government is now stating that a person much know their rights for their rights to exist. And this same government threatens all manner of trouble for anyone who teaches and explains to people what their rights are. Can we finally all agree that government is fully and generally opposed to people having any rights at all?
You're almost there.
None of them can be trusted. It's beyond time to look for something else to do with your time.
Hilarious. Yeah, sounds good at first glance. But check other news stories -- Microsoft shares data and access with government. A 24h license thing is there to encourage people to leave their machines always on and always connected. I wonder what the motivation for that could possibly be? What is the practical rationale behind that if it is something completely unrelated to spying? Freedom to push updates with their constantly changing ToS?
Look, if you're willing to give up so much, could you help a brother out? Throw a bit of what you're throwing out the window in my direction.
I agree. What gets me is that there will still be addicted slobs bitching and complaining about all of this which shelling out money as if their games are a requirement for life.
I got the lecture before about "not everyone's a gaming addict and some people just use it therapeutically" ... as a stress reliever. Yup... not an addict... and can quit any time they want to I'll bet. You know what relaxes me? A guitar in my lap and picking out songs I like. Turns out it works on pretty much every human animal... and most animals in general. Also, can't exactly control my access to my guitar remotely either. I just avoid obvious problems like playing too loud or songs like "happy birthday." (Had a neighbor play happy birthday on his guitar once... party van came and took him away.)
Great big business mostly knows what they can get away with. Sure, a few people will fall off, but they will make it up with addicts and higher prices. I saw the way Microsoft managed to sell two licenses for every business installation of Windows. (Sounds ridiculous but it's true -- All Windows workstation licenses are sold as "upgrades" only now meaning you have to have a qualifying product purchased or your install of the volume licensed installation is in violation of your license. What qualifies is Any version of Windows or Mac OSX. Sickening and hilarious at the same time. Business buys a new PC, it sells with an OEM license that's worthless because any smart company reloads the machine, and to do that legally, you have to buy another license because the OEM license only entitles you to have that same OEM installation WITH crapware.) They know what they can get away with it and they are doing it.
I don't know if you just coined it or someone else did way before. But it's the first time I've seen it called "XBone." I think the name will stick.
People are not just skeptical of this thing, they are outright afraid of it.
Microsoft... wow... just wow.
We, in the first world, live in a consumerist society. And to profit in a consumerist society, you have to market. Marketing is everything and there is no limit to how far marketing will go to get attention and, ultimately, to sell something. And not merely to get attention, but to draw attention away from the competition. So it doesn't even matter if the dancing naked ladies have nothing to do with the product being sold, so long as no one is looking at the competition. The competition is for your eyes. After they have your eyes, the competition will weaken and on and on and on.
Marketing has evolved to the point that marketing is now a part of our very culture. We expect it, we even crave it. There's as much attention on the super bowl commercials as there is on the game itself!
"Sexism"? Sexism has nothing to do with it. There is no sexism. There is human desire. Humans desire sex and that's what they are using to draw attention. There are other ways, but none quite so powerful as sex. Even [especially] Disney knows this. This sexism thing is just a symptom of a much larger problem.
You don't need "malware" when you've got Windows.
Oh for god's sake.
Firstly, we all KNEW they were doing this. They put in those telco offices and installed all that equipment. The details from that scandal like 3+ years ago was it? Why would we ever imagine they would have limited what they were doing to just that?! Also, as they are collecting ALL data, just as Google's WiFi collecting thing went, they are most certainly collecting more than calls in and out of the country. So seriously. How exactly is this stuff really all that new to anyone? This is more like "hey, you remember that scandal everyone forgot about? Well, it's true."
I started into computers before "computer" meant "wintel." In fact, my first real exposure was 6809 assembly language programming under OS-9 where I had to deal with 64K limits. All of my programs needed to be extremely efficient as did the drivers for the devices I used. It was an environment of extremely limited resources and wasting them meant there was less you could do.
Linux has been moving in the direction of bloat and yet still maintains some essence of the need to be efficient and tight -- it shows in its ability to be small when needed.
Every attempt we have seen Microsoft make in trying to adapt to smaller computing devices seem to have failed for a variety of reasons.
Here's the thing though. I don't "hate" Microsoft. I just wished they'd get their heads out of their asses. Their stuff is growing obsolete. And instead of saying "okay... we have a market that may or may not be relevant in 5 - 10 years... let's keep that going while 'starting over' in new directions by devoting our considerable resources into some heavy R&D." They need not to "adapt" their old stuff and instead need to build something new in the spirit of "lessons learned from decades of experience."
At the moment, though, it seems like they haven't learned a damned thing.
Looking back at what I wrote, I see nothing that even comes close to implying anyone shooting a cop. What I am saying is that the fact that the laws and permits and exceptions for LEOs does nothing to make sure they behave safely and sanely. We merely have an expectation that they are defending our rights and our safety, but when you shine light on what they actually do, you see something entirely different.
Care to elaborate?
I have a nephew who is a classic example of the video game addicted kid... only he's not a kid any more. Sure, he's got the boost in hand-eye coordination, but where does it benefit his life? He might have a career in operating drones in the future..."securing our freedom?" But his unending focus on non-productive, non-valuable sense of achievement [unlocked!] had literally interfered with his development as a person. He is/was a truly sharp person but we just can't tear him away from his gaming.
And like it or not (I'll get modded flamebait or troll for this I'm sure) it does the same to many people here. Their choice of PCs and OSes all seem to require support for their gaming needs. Really? ("I'd switch to Linux, but I've got to play my games!") I find it disturbing. I like games too. But I found they used too much of my time and they upset the balance of my life. As I do not live with a parent or anyone else to take care of me, any and all of my focus must be primarily on the basics of life which are work, eating, sleeping, shelter and all of those things.
Citing some ostensibly positive benefit of being immersed in video games does nothing to help the problems associated with how they distract, delay and deter people from real life. And before people say "...just kids..." I suggest they look around. A lot of these "kids" are in their 30s and some in their 40s. We already have a serious maturity and development crisis here in this 1st world nation we call the USA. Where before it was just TV, now it's that and a lot more.
Criminals are determined by whatever the law says. If we didn't know how the law gets written, I might think as you do. But we know how it's written and often at the request of lobbyists. DMCA? Marijuana? There are times when "law" isn't quite right. There are times when law clashes with other law and especially the constitution. I wish it were so simple to determine who the criminals are.
If the point is to reduce the number of guns, then disarming police would seem like a natural push for people who are anti-gun. And if anti-gun people think police SHOULD have guns, then I have to ask why. Can police use guns to defend others? Not usually -- crime is already history by the time they are notified. Can a cop defend himself with a gun? That depends on what you think about "defense." But why should only police be able to defend themselves? And if police carrying guns is a deterrent, and when police aren't around, how is that helpful? It's the guns which are deterrents, so therefore everyone should have a gun to reduce crime instead of no one.
At most, anti-gun people are arguing over details such as safety and anger control issues. Once again, I defer you to two recent stories where cops lost their control and started shooting people. Just because they are a cop doesn't make them "safer" or more trustworthy -- that's pure faith on your part if you believe so. A badge doesn't make them super-human.
I think even anti-gun arguments reveal the need for guns. The only time there would be no need for guns is if no guns existed anywhere in the world. But then we'd be talking about sword control or arrow control wouldn't we?
When you think it through, anti-gun positions hinge on the wish that there should be no guns. Since that wish can NEVER be realized, the position should be realized as impractical.
They apparently have a box in every telco office. They can completely trace any call back to its origin.
I'm sorry... but really? "Please, let us tell the truth?!" I can't say precisely when things went "too far" but I can definitely say that things have most certainly, and unquestionably, gone too far.
All those anti-gun people should start realizing that if you want a gun-free society, you should start with disarming police officers first because they seem to be at least as large a threat as civilians... and in my opinion, more of a threat since they seem to have a much more 'entitled' sense of firearm use.
And if you agree we can't disarm the police, why should the remaining population be rendered helpless against the police and others? Sorry, but I just can't get past the natural right to self-defense and self-preservation.
Anyway... off-topic right? But when I hear "NJ Cop" this story comes to mind. As for searching phones at the scene? Sorry. The best they should be able to do is request the phone number of their device and let them subpoena the phone company for activity on the phone "on or about the time of the accident." Should be perfectly acceptable and will yield far more accurate reporting.
I'm guessing you know why that is.
Oh yes, that makes me feel MUCH better. It concerns me that in the event I ever dialed a wrong number that I could end up on a terrorist watch list somewhere.
True this and as of today, I learned of even more issues with SCE decision making. Turns out there are some real problems on the SCE side which have nothing at all to do with their suppliers. Once again, once certain issues are closed, I will be happy to provide full disclosure and dirty laundry. And from what I hear, it won't be long.
The problem is, as you pointed out, what it is. But also, there's another problem with using the judiciary -- a case has to be filed *AND* it has to be accepted. We need more than the SCOTUS offers. We need a constitutional review system which handles matters in a way not unlike the patent system. Sure, there might be rulings which might be questionable or otherwise contested, but perhaps THEN the SCOTUS would do its job.
There should be no (D) or (R) associated with the names of those serving in any judiciary role. I would go so far as to mark associations with a political party as a disqualification from holding judicial office. The system is out of hand.
(0) is more important than (1) therefore the interests of (0) overrides the interests of (1).
After all, if (1) were more important than (0), then it should be perfectly okay to carpet bomb a whole city in order to kill suspected terrorists... right?
Let's not talk about what constitutes "harm" or even "acceptable harm." The notion of the government ignoring the very laws which are intended to limit what the government can do is a HUGE issue.
What is "constitutional law"? How is it different from regular law? Why does constitutional law focus so much on what the powers of the people are and what they government is not allowed to infringe upon? Frankly, it is not quite for the government to decide when the constitution is not relevant or that other interests are "more important."
If more government is the answer to the problem, then I say we need a branch of government whose sole responsibility is "constitutional oversight." Because we really need it.
Contractor use is how they get around other aspects of US and [especially] Constitutional legal restrictions and limitations.
Problem with the military code, rules or laws? No problem -- hire contractors. Got a problem with accountability and being tracked or with requirements of reporting your activities? Just use contractors. Easy to blame and easy to fire.
Not shocking, but quite disgusting. We put these government controls into place to prevent all sorts of government abuse and they just route around it. And no one is called to the floor for these practices.
This is the other side of the "just following orders" coin. When people don't just follow orders, and instead choose to do what they feel is right, we have the weight of huge global government coming down on individuals.
I think you're missing the point. Desktop Linux has existed and will continue to exist. Desktop Windows will too. But "PCs for the average consumer" is in decline.
The supplier is not throwing the tantrum. Take my word on that for now.
The government, the NRC, is doing the right thing in all of this. As I have been exposed to this industry and have been learning what's what and what goes on, I have learned a great respect for at least THIS government agency. Every NRC person has also had direct experience in nuclear technologies. And the thing about people who know and understand the tech, know what can happen when things go wrong and NO amount of bribery or being told to look the other way will cause them to compromise what they know very well is a potentially global disaster event.
I could go on and on about this. But I do know there are forces opposed to the NRC... to its very existence. It was preciselu the lack of an effective "NRC" in Russia that allowed Chernobyl to happen and even though their regulators weren't quite what the NRC is, the people who caused the disaster had to shop their idea for drill/demonstration around quite a bit before they could find someone stupid enough to take the risks they did.
For the moment, please understand that you don't understand quite what's going on over there. From what I know, the suppliers are acting properly and appropriately. I've already said too much. But I have to say it's a common problem where business cares more about their bottom line than about other, larger issues. I'm not saying that other parties are not at fault -- the reports are public and I invite you to read through them for further insight. There's plenty of blame to spread around. But this thing about shutting down two plants which are otherwise capable of being repaired and restored to a good, safe and reliable operation? Based on everything I know, it's not merely "nuclear economics." There's a lot more.
Personally, I believe as the next steps proceed, they might well be forced to change their idea about shutting those down. And the article makes it pretty clear that the "shutting down and packing up" is a far cry from destroying the things and clearing the land.