I've admittedly made certain assumptions based on what I've read in the past.
It's my understanding that while solar, wind and hydro should be our first choices where possible, that we can't build enough of them to meet 100% of our energy demands.
Assuming this to be true, we need to fill the gaps with something or cut back on usage.
If the choice on filling the gaps is between Nuclear, Gas, Coal and Oil, I think Nuclear is the best bet based on the info I have.
While you make a valid point, it's not really relevant to the question of energy production.
I am continually stunned as to why nuclear is so spooky, though. Other things are just as dangerous or more so, and they aren't so feared. Very curious.
I'd rather have soot than have a windmill fall on me and kill me. But who said that was something that would happen?
It seems to me that people are scared of things that haven't been demonstrated to be actual risks, instead of things that are demonstrably toxic if used as directed.
1) There are inherent dangers in coal extraction that are not present in many other mining operations. Particularly, I'm referring to the problems associated with coal dust. The dust becomes airborne, and if proper precautions are not taken, this dust can ignite and cause a mine explosion (particularly if gas is present as well). This risk is not unique to coal, but is much, much higher with coal extraction due to the amount of coal dust it generates. In this way, Coal does have risks to it's mining operations that other materials don't have.
2) Who says kilograms are the right measure to use? What I mean is shouldn't we be thinking in terms of kilowatts? If it takes 100 kg of Uranium ore to generate the same amount of power that 1,000 kg of coal ore is needed for, then I'd say it's not a fair unit of measure to use. However I have no idea what the actual numbers are.
Thanks for the link! I was actually unable to find much info on nuclear fuel mining at all, let alone specific risks in the process.
I wish more of the material was in English, however.
Also, these reports are all quite specific to extraction from Niger. While the conditions are certainly alarming, I have to wonder if Niger is an outlier where simple safety measures taken in the rest of the world are ignored due to economic conditions there, or if this is more pervasive.
In other words, is this a fact of nuclear production, or a byproduct of corruption that doesn't have to be this way and is fairly unique to a poor nation being exploited?
I have looked, and looked. Perhaps I am not looking in the right places, but it is my understanding from the research that I've done THAT "Clean Coal", Carbon Sequestration, and other technologies that are here today or expected to be available soon still emit tons of pollutants into the atmosphere. They reduce or eliminate CO2, and reduce some other hazardous chemicals, but so called zero emissions plants are not online and research on some of them has been pulled due to cost overruns.
You speak as though an environmentally friendly method of coal based energy production is available now and in use. Can you go into more detail about what you're talking about?
Your claim that there is a coal based technology where only "hot water and steam" come out seems to be incorrect.
I have heard of renewable energy, and support it's use as much as practical.
But I am operating under assumptions based on the data I've seen. These assumptions tell me that even if we used solar, wind, and hydro to the limits that we can, we'll still need other sources to fill in the gaps. The question then becomes, what fills the gaps? Gas? Oil? Nuclear? Coal? Something new?
I don't understand what you mean by "adequate insurance". What damage do you think has occurred? Please exclude Chernobyl, as it's an outlier design that's not used elsewhere.
Exactly what insurance do you think three mile island should have had to ensure a better outcome than the one they had in which nobody was hurt? Or are you talking about monetary liability insurances? Because that's a whole other matter.
No, but I do think that the energy source that kills hundreds every year directly, and untold numbers anally, and pollutes the biosphere when things go RIGHT is inferior to the method that has killed perhaps a couple dozen people in half a century of use.
The plant is fucked. But it's been hit by a disaster beyond what was even planned for. And how many have died?
The point isn't that nuclear is perfectly safe. It's that it's better than many of the alternatives out there.
Look at how many people did as a result of coal and oil operations. Then factor in the pollution that those technologies spew into the atmosphere.
Now compare that to Nuclear. Including this disaster. Some people who work in the plant have been exposed and been hurt. I recall reading a week ago about 3 killed in a hydrogen explosion at the plant (I've not seen this confirmed). But what will the eventual impact be? ARe we talking about a 50 mile exclusion zone where a big chunk of Japan will be uninhabitable? Thousands geting sick with radiation poisoning?
Or are we talking about a 1% increased risk of cancer for folks who worked and lived in the immediate vicinity during the month after the incident?
Because if the eventual results are the latter, I'd rather have a nuclear plant in my back yard than a coal plant.
Coal WILL pollute the environment. Coal WILL increase my risk of various diseases. Coal often kills people in it's extraction process.
Nuclear MIGHT pollute the environment if something goes very, very wrong. Nuclear MIGHT increase my risk of cancer if something goes very very wrong.
If that's the choice, then it's clear to me which one I support. The question now is will the disaster kill / sicken lots of people, or not?
It's not denial, it's an analysis of the options. It seems to me that the disaster is being sensationalized because nuclear is somehow "spooky". Again, we'll see.
SST did not have a big impact on the deficit. $175 Billion over 30 years of operations. The deficit is $14.262 Trillion. So the Shuttle program in total represents about 1.2% of the current debt. So you're right of course in that it is a non-zero number.
That said, what did it get us? Why do we send people into low earth orbit? To what end? What is the purpose or goal of having people in space?
As far as I can tell there's very little purpose. We have this program, and we make up busy work that's not much benefit. I'm not opposed to a manned space program. (In fact, I love the idea) But I think if we're going to spend the money on one, that it should have clear, defined goals that can't be obtained other ways.
If we can't do that, robots are cheaper and do good science.
Robots first, humans when you have a reason to send them.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I know Lenovo offers non-tablets. But it seems that they only offer IPS displays on tablets. Their non-tablet notebooks appear to all be TN displays.
I used to think that Apple was easy to beat with any competitor too. Then I sat down and did a real analysis. If you just look at these specs:
Processor RAM amount HDD size Screen Resolution
You're right. Apple fairs poorly on these points. But when I did my last analysis, I included factors like:
L2 Cache Screen technology Backlight RAM Type RAM Speed System Bus Graphics chip Networking (Ethernet speed, Wifi bands, etc.) Bluetooth Video outputs
Then the comparison falls apart. My analysis took every model I could find for sale at the time for under $1000. I used what was carried at Best Buy, Staples, Dell.com, and a couple other sources. I built a spreadsheet and put the stats of all the notebooks. The then-current $999.99 Apple was the control. Any stat that was better than the Apple would highlight green. Any stat that was inferior to the Apple would highlight red. No notebook was without red stats. I'll see if I still have the spreadsheet when I get a chance.
Would I recommend a Mac to everyone every time? No, probably not even most of the time. But the lack of value in a Mac is a myth as far as I'm concerned (or at least it was, again, my data may be a bit outdated). Perhaps I should do a modern refresh of the analysis I did before and see if it still holds true.
I've never purchased or owned an apple product in my life. But I've done the comparisons a few years ago. Yes, it's commodity hardware, same as anyone else.
But (at least as of a couple years ago) if you take every feature in a given Mac notebook at it's given price point, it's hard to impossible to meet / beat it with other manufacturers' offerings.
I'm just a techie who's done the research for friends and family from time to time. Perfect example though: If I was in the market for a notebook today, what else besides the entry level Macbook will get me a non-TN screen for $1000 or less? Lenovo and HP as far as I Can tell start a few hundred more. (Lenovo because they're all tablets unless I'm missing something).
Are there some people for whom the $300 basic i3 notebook is fine? Sure! But I still think Apple stuff gives you a decent value for what you pay for. IF that's changed in the past couple years, can you enlighten me?
Yes, I do mean those IPS displays. I am aware that IPS, MVA and PVA displays are available from other vendors. But they're rare, and you certainly can't walk into a Best Buy or Staples and walk out with one.
Apple uses just IPS displays as far as I can tell.
Regarding the FSB / (Northbridge) speeds, perhaps my info is out of date. But last I looked at commodity hardware, there were very few notebooks with the same FSB speed as Apple hardware at the same price point, and none that were faster for cheaper.
As for Bluetooth and Wireless-N, etc. of course they're generally add-in cards. That's irrelevant to the average consumer though. To them a notebook is a sealed box. If box A has bluetooth for $1000, and box b has it for $1100, then box A is a better value if they need that feature. If they don't need it, perhaps box C at $800 is better for them though.
Really? How many non-apple notebooks have a non-TN LCD screen?
What about the system bus? That's not a part that most companies put on the label at Best Buy or Staples. How often is it the same as Apple's?
Apple isn't necessarily the best for everyone. Maybe I don't need built-in bluetooth, or Wireless N.
Maybe I don't intend to use the built-in screen, and want to use an external monitor.
But to say that there's no difference is just ignorance. Apple uses good stuff. It's overkill for some folks, and having the choice of lower grade hardware is a good thing. But Apple tends to stuff their machines with really great stuff. Not all machines are created equal.
They're not stupid when the "sin" has a measurable negative economic impact.
For instance, if you can measure the negative economic impact on lung disease and other smoking elated diseases, you can use a sin tax to attempt to offset that cost through a logical means.
Of course it's a bit more complicated than that, not to mention that nobody does it exactly that way. Still the logic of a sin tax isn't bad per se. It can be justified if applied correctly.
I'm not saying it's a good thing to do, but the logic is sound.
If you look at gas tax as a sort of sin tax to pay for the environmental damage you are causing, it's a perfectly reasonable tax because a Matrix "costs" more to the environment than a Prius does.
But that's not the limit to their cost. A Matrix may cost more to the environment than a Prius, but they're a similar size and weight, and so their "cost" to the roads they travel on is very similar.
So you charge for both. In this way, it makes sense to have two separate taxes rather than just raising the existing tax.
I think it's premature, though. Right now, we should be taxing gas more to encourage it's abandonment. Only after there is an overwhelming majority of hybrid and/or electric vehicles on the road should we be considering something like this, because once you're not using gas any more, you still need to fund roads...
Web apps don't see the device hardware (GPS, accelerometers, etc.)
But let's leave that aside, for a moment. How is this not worse than Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows? In Microsoft's case, lots of people just defaulted to IE, but anyone who knew better and wanted to could install whatever browser they desire.
In Apple's case, you have no choice but using whatever Apple approves of. They're not bundling a browser, or an email application, or a task manager, or some other one-off program (wait, they do that too, but that's besides the point) - they're bundling the gateway in which you get any and all software for the device. How is this not a worse abuse of control?
I understand lots of potentially good reasons for exercising this level of control But they don't seem worth it to me. I want the ability to write or acquire my own executables.
Some people care about open source. I don't in particular (though I understand and sympathize with those who do care), but I do care about open access to run unsigned code.
To use a bad car analogy: I don't need GM to provide the blueprints to the engine in my car. But I *do* require that they not lock the hood and only allow a GM approved mechanic with a special key work on it.
Regarding the monopoly bit, I think you should re-read what I posted. You seem to be under the impression I was saying that they were a monopoly. I wasn't, I was questioning if they were.
They ARE the only place you can purchase software for with an iOS device.
You can not download from the web, you can not use a competing app store, and you can't sync apps from your PC or Mac after using an installer from the web or from physical media.
The one and only source for apps on an iOS device is the official Apple App Store. I don't know if that makes them a monopoly in the legal sense, since iOS is still just around 20% of the smartphone market. But if they're not a legal monopoly, they're certainly the only game in town if you have an iOS device.
Restaurants and other businesses will often have a fish bowl or box where you drop your business card in and they randomly select a winner periodically for a free lunch or other prize.
Obviously the trade off is they get to add everyone's contact info to their mailing list.
Some of the safest nations in the world have the governments with the most expansive, controlling presence. You also wouldn't want to live there. North Korea's low low crime rate isn't much of a draw when you look at what else you get.
The U.S. government is hardly the most expansive intrusive government in the world. It does a lot, and it is huge. but we are also a huge country.
As far as crime rates going up in the U.S. correlating to government expansion: What makes you think there is correlation? Or even if you do think that, how do you know that the correlation isn't just in the greater reporting of crimes?
Ever bought anything at Best Buy with a credit or debit card? Go in and ask for a reciept. They'll probably want a reason, and if they like the one that you gave them, (usually warranty claims) they can look up anything you purchased via the credit card number. I doubt most retailers have the same capability (Why does 7-11 need this?) but I doubt they are unique either.
It's probably just a hash that's stored in the database, but this is a distinction that only guarantees your card number can't be looked up and then retrieved without knowing the number. It can still be used to track purchases if one were so inclined.
Basically the rule says that if the shuttle is going to an orbit where it can rendezvous with ISS, that a backup has to be able to reach ISS within 28 days. During that time, the astronauts can stay there, but beyond 28 days, ISS can't really handle the extra crew.
If the shuttle mission is to an orbit where rendezvous is NOT possible, a vessel has to be ready to go more or less immediately (7 days if I recall).
Since the Columbia disaster, I believe only one mission was to a non-ISS orbit. (The final Hubble Space Telescope upgrade mission) This is the only time that two shuttles were on the pad simultaneously.
Now for the specific situation going on now:
The next flight will be Endeavour, and Atlantis will be the designated rescue shuttle.
Atlantis will fly the final mission of the shuttle program, (if the funding is approved) and there will be no space shuttle available as a backup. Because of this, Atlantis will only be carrying a crew of 4 so if something goes wrong with it, they can recover the crew via Russian capsule(s) while the four stay at ISS.
Slashdot Mirror
I've admittedly made certain assumptions based on what I've read in the past.
It's my understanding that while solar, wind and hydro should be our first choices where possible, that we can't build enough of them to meet 100% of our energy demands.
Assuming this to be true, we need to fill the gaps with something or cut back on usage.
If the choice on filling the gaps is between Nuclear, Gas, Coal and Oil, I think Nuclear is the best bet based on the info I have.
While you make a valid point, it's not really relevant to the question of energy production.
I am continually stunned as to why nuclear is so spooky, though. Other things are just as dangerous or more so, and they aren't so feared. Very curious.
Yes! Excellent summary.
I'd expand that though. Nuclear doesn't even necessarily kill when it goes wrong (although clearly, it can). Who's died at Fukashima so far?
Citation needed!
Who got "fried nads"? When did this happen?
I'd rather have soot than have a windmill fall on me and kill me. But who said that was something that would happen?
It seems to me that people are scared of things that haven't been demonstrated to be actual risks, instead of things that are demonstrably toxic if used as directed.
Two points:
1) There are inherent dangers in coal extraction that are not present in many other mining operations. Particularly, I'm referring to the problems associated with coal dust. The dust becomes airborne, and if proper precautions are not taken, this dust can ignite and cause a mine explosion (particularly if gas is present as well). This risk is not unique to coal, but is much, much higher with coal extraction due to the amount of coal dust it generates. In this way, Coal does have risks to it's mining operations that other materials don't have.
2) Who says kilograms are the right measure to use? What I mean is shouldn't we be thinking in terms of kilowatts? If it takes 100 kg of Uranium ore to generate the same amount of power that 1,000 kg of coal ore is needed for, then I'd say it's not a fair unit of measure to use. However I have no idea what the actual numbers are.
Anyone have this data?
Thanks for the link! I was actually unable to find much info on nuclear fuel mining at all, let alone specific risks in the process.
I wish more of the material was in English, however.
Also, these reports are all quite specific to extraction from Niger. While the conditions are certainly alarming, I have to wonder if Niger is an outlier where simple safety measures taken in the rest of the world are ignored due to economic conditions there, or if this is more pervasive.
In other words, is this a fact of nuclear production, or a byproduct of corruption that doesn't have to be this way and is fairly unique to a poor nation being exploited?
I have looked, and looked. Perhaps I am not looking in the right places, but it is my understanding from the research that I've done THAT "Clean Coal", Carbon Sequestration, and other technologies that are here today or expected to be available soon still emit tons of pollutants into the atmosphere. They reduce or eliminate CO2, and reduce some other hazardous chemicals, but so called zero emissions plants are not online and research on some of them has been pulled due to cost overruns.
You speak as though an environmentally friendly method of coal based energy production is available now and in use. Can you go into more detail about what you're talking about?
Your claim that there is a coal based technology where only "hot water and steam" come out seems to be incorrect.
I have heard of renewable energy, and support it's use as much as practical.
But I am operating under assumptions based on the data I've seen. These assumptions tell me that even if we used solar, wind, and hydro to the limits that we can, we'll still need other sources to fill in the gaps. The question then becomes, what fills the gaps? Gas? Oil? Nuclear? Coal? Something new?
I don't understand what you mean by "adequate insurance". What damage do you think has occurred? Please exclude Chernobyl, as it's an outlier design that's not used elsewhere.
Exactly what insurance do you think three mile island should have had to ensure a better outcome than the one they had in which nobody was hurt? Or are you talking about monetary liability insurances? Because that's a whole other matter.
No, but I do think that the energy source that kills hundreds every year directly, and untold numbers anally, and pollutes the biosphere when things go RIGHT is inferior to the method that has killed perhaps a couple dozen people in half a century of use.
Do you not agree? Why or why not?
The plant is fucked. But it's been hit by a disaster beyond what was even planned for. And how many have died?
The point isn't that nuclear is perfectly safe. It's that it's better than many of the alternatives out there.
Look at how many people did as a result of coal and oil operations. Then factor in the pollution that those technologies spew into the atmosphere.
Now compare that to Nuclear. Including this disaster. Some people who work in the plant have been exposed and been hurt. I recall reading a week ago about 3 killed in a hydrogen explosion at the plant (I've not seen this confirmed). But what will the eventual impact be? ARe we talking about a 50 mile exclusion zone where a big chunk of Japan will be uninhabitable? Thousands geting sick with radiation poisoning?
Or are we talking about a 1% increased risk of cancer for folks who worked and lived in the immediate vicinity during the month after the incident?
Because if the eventual results are the latter, I'd rather have a nuclear plant in my back yard than a coal plant.
Coal WILL pollute the environment.
Coal WILL increase my risk of various diseases.
Coal often kills people in it's extraction process.
Nuclear MIGHT pollute the environment if something goes very, very wrong.
Nuclear MIGHT increase my risk of cancer if something goes very very wrong.
If that's the choice, then it's clear to me which one I support. The question now is will the disaster kill / sicken lots of people, or not?
It's not denial, it's an analysis of the options. It seems to me that the disaster is being sensationalized because nuclear is somehow "spooky". Again, we'll see.
I'd say you're both wrong.
SST did not have a big impact on the deficit. $175 Billion over 30 years of operations. The deficit is $14.262 Trillion. So the Shuttle program in total represents about 1.2% of the current debt. So you're right of course in that it is a non-zero number.
That said, what did it get us? Why do we send people into low earth orbit? To what end? What is the purpose or goal of having people in space?
As far as I can tell there's very little purpose. We have this program, and we make up busy work that's not much benefit. I'm not opposed to a manned space program. (In fact, I love the idea) But I think if we're going to spend the money on one, that it should have clear, defined goals that can't be obtained other ways.
If we can't do that, robots are cheaper and do good science.
Robots first, humans when you have a reason to send them.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I know Lenovo offers non-tablets. But it seems that they only offer IPS displays on tablets. Their non-tablet notebooks appear to all be TN displays.
I used to think that Apple was easy to beat with any competitor too. Then I sat down and did a real analysis. If you just look at these specs:
Processor
RAM amount
HDD size
Screen Resolution
You're right. Apple fairs poorly on these points. But when I did my last analysis, I included factors like:
L2 Cache
Screen technology
Backlight
RAM Type
RAM Speed
System Bus
Graphics chip
Networking (Ethernet speed, Wifi bands, etc.)
Bluetooth
Video outputs
Then the comparison falls apart. My analysis took every model I could find for sale at the time for under $1000. I used what was carried at Best Buy, Staples, Dell.com, and a couple other sources. I built a spreadsheet and put the stats of all the notebooks. The then-current $999.99 Apple was the control. Any stat that was better than the Apple would highlight green. Any stat that was inferior to the Apple would highlight red. No notebook was without red stats. I'll see if I still have the spreadsheet when I get a chance.
Would I recommend a Mac to everyone every time? No, probably not even most of the time. But the lack of value in a Mac is a myth as far as I'm concerned (or at least it was, again, my data may be a bit outdated). Perhaps I should do a modern refresh of the analysis I did before and see if it still holds true.
I've never purchased or owned an apple product in my life. But I've done the comparisons a few years ago. Yes, it's commodity hardware, same as anyone else.
But (at least as of a couple years ago) if you take every feature in a given Mac notebook at it's given price point, it's hard to impossible to meet / beat it with other manufacturers' offerings.
I'm just a techie who's done the research for friends and family from time to time. Perfect example though: If I was in the market for a notebook today, what else besides the entry level Macbook will get me a non-TN screen for $1000 or less? Lenovo and HP as far as I Can tell start a few hundred more. (Lenovo because they're all tablets unless I'm missing something).
Are there some people for whom the $300 basic i3 notebook is fine? Sure! But I still think Apple stuff gives you a decent value for what you pay for. IF that's changed in the past couple years, can you enlighten me?
Yes, I do mean those IPS displays. I am aware that IPS, MVA and PVA displays are available from other vendors. But they're rare, and you certainly can't walk into a Best Buy or Staples and walk out with one.
Apple uses just IPS displays as far as I can tell.
Regarding the FSB / (Northbridge) speeds, perhaps my info is out of date. But last I looked at commodity hardware, there were very few notebooks with the same FSB speed as Apple hardware at the same price point, and none that were faster for cheaper.
As for Bluetooth and Wireless-N, etc. of course they're generally add-in cards. That's irrelevant to the average consumer though. To them a notebook is a sealed box. If box A has bluetooth for $1000, and box b has it for $1100, then box A is a better value if they need that feature. If they don't need it, perhaps box C at $800 is better for them though.
Really? How many non-apple notebooks have a non-TN LCD screen?
What about the system bus? That's not a part that most companies put on the label at Best Buy or Staples. How often is it the same as Apple's?
Apple isn't necessarily the best for everyone. Maybe I don't need built-in bluetooth, or Wireless N.
Maybe I don't intend to use the built-in screen, and want to use an external monitor.
But to say that there's no difference is just ignorance. Apple uses good stuff. It's overkill for some folks, and having the choice of lower grade hardware is a good thing. But Apple tends to stuff their machines with really great stuff. Not all machines are created equal.
They're not stupid when the "sin" has a measurable negative economic impact.
For instance, if you can measure the negative economic impact on lung disease and other smoking elated diseases, you can use a sin tax to attempt to offset that cost through a logical means.
Of course it's a bit more complicated than that, not to mention that nobody does it exactly that way. Still the logic of a sin tax isn't bad per se. It can be justified if applied correctly.
I'm not saying it's a good thing to do, but the logic is sound.
If you look at gas tax as a sort of sin tax to pay for the environmental damage you are causing, it's a perfectly reasonable tax because a Matrix "costs" more to the environment than a Prius does.
But that's not the limit to their cost. A Matrix may cost more to the environment than a Prius, but they're a similar size and weight, and so their "cost" to the roads they travel on is very similar.
So you charge for both. In this way, it makes sense to have two separate taxes rather than just raising the existing tax.
I think it's premature, though. Right now, we should be taxing gas more to encourage it's abandonment. Only after there is an overwhelming majority of hybrid and/or electric vehicles on the road should we be considering something like this, because once you're not using gas any more, you still need to fund roads...
Web apps don't see the device hardware (GPS, accelerometers, etc.)
But let's leave that aside, for a moment. How is this not worse than Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows? In Microsoft's case, lots of people just defaulted to IE, but anyone who knew better and wanted to could install whatever browser they desire.
In Apple's case, you have no choice but using whatever Apple approves of. They're not bundling a browser, or an email application, or a task manager, or some other one-off program (wait, they do that too, but that's besides the point) - they're bundling the gateway in which you get any and all software for the device. How is this not a worse abuse of control?
I understand lots of potentially good reasons for exercising this level of control But they don't seem worth it to me. I want the ability to write or acquire my own executables.
Some people care about open source. I don't in particular (though I understand and sympathize with those who do care), but I do care about open access to run unsigned code.
To use a bad car analogy: I don't need GM to provide the blueprints to the engine in my car. But I *do* require that they not lock the hood and only allow a GM approved mechanic with a special key work on it.
Regarding the monopoly bit, I think you should re-read what I posted. You seem to be under the impression I was saying that they were a monopoly. I wasn't, I was questioning if they were.
Yes!
They ARE the only place you can purchase software for with an iOS device.
You can not download from the web, you can not use a competing app store, and you can't sync apps from your PC or Mac after using an installer from the web or from physical media.
The one and only source for apps on an iOS device is the official Apple App Store. I don't know if that makes them a monopoly in the legal sense, since iOS is still just around 20% of the smartphone market. But if they're not a legal monopoly, they're certainly the only game in town if you have an iOS device.
Restaurants and other businesses will often have a fish bowl or box where you drop your business card in and they randomly select a winner periodically for a free lunch or other prize.
Obviously the trade off is they get to add everyone's contact info to their mailing list.
Tin foil hat on a bit tight today?
Some of the safest nations in the world have the governments with the most expansive, controlling presence. You also wouldn't want to live there. North Korea's low low crime rate isn't much of a draw when you look at what else you get.
The U.S. government is hardly the most expansive intrusive government in the world. It does a lot, and it is huge. but we are also a huge country.
As far as crime rates going up in the U.S. correlating to government expansion: What makes you think there is correlation? Or even if you do think that, how do you know that the correlation isn't just in the greater reporting of crimes?
Your claims need support to be taken seriously.
Ever bought anything at Best Buy with a credit or debit card? Go in and ask for a reciept. They'll probably want a reason, and if they like the one that you gave them, (usually warranty claims) they can look up anything you purchased via the credit card number. I doubt most retailers have the same capability (Why does 7-11 need this?) but I doubt they are unique either.
It's probably just a hash that's stored in the database, but this is a distinction that only guarantees your card number can't be looked up and then retrieved without knowing the number. It can still be used to track purchases if one were so inclined.
Basically the rule says that if the shuttle is going to an orbit where it can rendezvous with ISS, that a backup has to be able to reach ISS within 28 days. During that time, the astronauts can stay there, but beyond 28 days, ISS can't really handle the extra crew.
If the shuttle mission is to an orbit where rendezvous is NOT possible, a vessel has to be ready to go more or less immediately (7 days if I recall).
Since the Columbia disaster, I believe only one mission was to a non-ISS orbit. (The final Hubble Space Telescope upgrade mission) This is the only time that two shuttles were on the pad simultaneously.
Now for the specific situation going on now:
The next flight will be Endeavour, and Atlantis will be the designated rescue shuttle.
Atlantis will fly the final mission of the shuttle program, (if the funding is approved) and there will be no space shuttle available as a backup. Because of this, Atlantis will only be carrying a crew of 4 so if something goes wrong with it, they can recover the crew via Russian capsule(s) while the four stay at ISS.
There's been an explosion:
(Go to 0:47)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPQ9qgry9C8
There *are* double level backups. The final level of backups are batteries. And those are dead by now.