This is pretty well documented. That people who achieve great things typically work at it relentlessly over a long period of time. They practice and they perfect their approach. They overcome failure and turn it in to a positive. It shows that many people have the capacity, be it mental or physical, to achieve great things, but it doesn't show that everyone has that capacity.
Good one. She also didn't think ahead before making this a public statement. She may have been able to get out of this ticket or have it reduced with a little help from a lawyer or just showing up at court (I have done this too many times). I think the odds of that happening now are significantly reduced.
Get a Ticket With Google Glass: Get a Slightly Larger Ticket (maybe)
This was my thought as well, but I would say make it a lot larger ticker, like 5 times, and have it count a lot of insurance points. If you are so confident you can drive perfectly wearing them, then that should not be a problem.
But in the end, it is more likely to be a distraction than a benefit for a certain percentage of drivers, so I'd prefer they be proven safe first.
There is always an excuse, never accountability. This made up excuse was floated by this same poster. At least last time the poster admitted there was no substantiation. Regardless of what the original approach plan was, there was more than enough time and money to do the website right. Clearly, some folks feel better if they can manufacture a way to shift blame. Most level headed Democrats actually admit it was a bungle.
Those that love blaming others and don't believe accountability, go ahead and moderate me down.
People will pay whatever is charged up to the point that the market will bear.
This is true, but competition more often makes a product available to the market at a price that is much lower than what the market will bear. I'd be willing to pay $5 some days for a chocolate glazed donut, but thank goodness I can get them for 99 cents!
Except that monopolies are almost always created by regulation.
That pretty much sums it up, although I'd also say that monopolies are also largely prevented by regulation as well. In the case of regulated utilities such as cable, the lack of competition is the central reason for high prices.
It would be interesting to see the cable ISP industry parsed up like they did the long distance telephone companies many years ago. It was a mess for a while, but eventually prices plummeted and service improved.
I think cable companies should be limited to management of the infrastructure, while services are regularly open to competitive ISPs & television service company competitive bids, or better yet, multiple providers simultaneously. It would be messy for a while.
So, just to be clear, as pointed out in my other replies, your assertion that a nuclear event would topple the treasury is nothing more than baseless fear mongering.
This sounds a lot like the stuff the fossil industry shrills love to spew.
As much of the cost would be born by the nuclear insurance fund, which has over $12B available and continues to grow, even though the probability of using much of it is extremely low. I think you are underplaying the federal costs associated with Katrina, but I don't have the numbers in front of me. I have seen numbers that indicate estimates that federal spending would be in the range of $150 billion. My guess is it probably was closer to $100b.
Buchanan may be the worst case scenario when it comes to land value, but it does not change the risk. A 50 km radius has no basis, it is in line with evacuation protocols, but not expected release/contamination path that would occur even if there was a release event. The evacuation zone has a large margin of safety built in, just as the plants do. In a significant release event, a large majority of the evacuation zone would be safe for return, some would require surface decon, and a few square miles around the plant would probably be off limits for quite some time with varying level of contamination. This would not cost $100b. Even if it cost $300b, it would not break the treasury.
But I am sure the fossil industry would support your take on this cost and risk.
I've been told for years that the only way employees can ever fight their employer is if a union represents them and does all the negotiations. Now you mean to tell me that even non-union employees have rights, too?
We are talking about hard to find, high demand employees here.
I never said anything about causing problems, or technology being a good or bad thing. Just commenting on the misgivings of the statement in the article. Technology is whatever we make of it, or use it for, good, bad, or indifferent. It is not 'supposed to be' anything.
True, you can't solve corruption. You can uncover it with the appropriate oversight and processes in place. And the costs associated with not getting away with it can be a big deterrent for some period of time. Its also a cultural thing, some places the controls are harder to implement effectively.
Land near nuclear plants is often very attractive and valuable in relative terms. Much more so than land near fossil plants, or large industrial facilities. This argument is tired and indefensible when you look at the land surrounding most of the plants in the US. Meanwhile, coal plants are already spreading filth over a wider swath of the country, its not a risk that might happen, its happening every day.
An accident at a nuclear plant that would contaminate nearby land is highly unlikely, unless of course you do something crazy like take a plant that is not designed to be run underwater, and place it underwater. A large storm or earthquake is much more likely to cost more, and they happen with regular frequency. Hell, we had New Orleans basically wiped off the map, I don't think the treasury blinked. The argument we could not respond if needed is just hyperbole.
The choice is between nuclear, coal, or natural gas. Pick your poison, or mix and match.
Should we apply this logic to pharmaceutical companies in the US, or even food companies, where failures in maintaining safety standards have actually killed people? The government has a woeful record of maintaining nuclear safety (DOD waste site, for example), while utilities, both privately and publicly owned, have done an excellent job in comparison with most other industries. TVA has done a good job as well. The NRC regulatory structure, while not perfect, is very effective. I think they would be less effective if the government also ran all the plants, and/or ran the fuel cycle.
To me, that's what technology was supposed to do. It was supposed to empower people and level the playing field.
While technology can and does often empower people, it has little to do with leveling the playing field. Many technologies are developed for the sole purpose of attaining an advantage.
Let me summarize for those who think that my critical analysis means I don't like EVs, which would be a completely incorrect assumption.
The filling station model for charging electric vehicles probably won't work. It will more likely require a distributed approach where you can charge up at work, at the mall, at the grocery store, and at home. That will eliminate a certain percentage of folks that need a filling station, but there will still be a lot of drivers that will need to stop and charge as quickly and conveniently as possible so they can continue their travel. In areas where available space is limited, this can be a challenge. Existing gas stations can probably add a few charging stations, but will need to keep their gas pumps as well for the foreseeable future. Regardless of the solution, nobody will be willing to wait for a charging station to become available.
The "mall parking lot model" brings its own interesting little complications. Mall owners will install the number of charging spaces they expect to be used consistently, so they probably don't want you using those spaces if you are not charging, and not leave your car for a long time after it is done charging. On the other hand, they don't want you leaving the mall any sooner than you otherwise would, so they have to balance that as well. It is certainly not a big deal as far as challenges, but its an example of the kind of thing you can foresee with a little critical analysis.
Challenges are adventures for those who see them before they appear, obstacles for those that see them when they appear, and barriers for those that do not see them.
If people could separate news from opinion, it would not matter so much where they get the news from. Ignoring a source of news because of fear of opinions that may accompany it is a problem we all have to some extent.
Slashdot Mirror
If you like your cable plan, you can keep your cable plan.
I stand corrected.
Who cares. All flying shit is cool!
This is pretty well documented. That people who achieve great things typically work at it relentlessly over a long period of time. They practice and they perfect their approach. They overcome failure and turn it in to a positive. It shows that many people have the capacity, be it mental or physical, to achieve great things, but it doesn't show that everyone has that capacity.
They analyzed Einstein's dead brain. After months of intense research, they discovered that it was no smarter than any other dead brain.
Now they can sell the "Taiwan App" which changes the representation.
Not all that different treatment is for the worse.
My comment came with no judgement.
Second step, treat them differently.
Good one. She also didn't think ahead before making this a public statement. She may have been able to get out of this ticket or have it reduced with a little help from a lawyer or just showing up at court (I have done this too many times). I think the odds of that happening now are significantly reduced.
Get a Ticket With Google Glass: Get a Slightly Larger Ticket (maybe)
This was my thought as well, but I would say make it a lot larger ticker, like 5 times, and have it count a lot of insurance points. If you are so confident you can drive perfectly wearing them, then that should not be a problem.
But in the end, it is more likely to be a distraction than a benefit for a certain percentage of drivers, so I'd prefer they be proven safe first.
How about redundant datacenters in two places that are both reasonably protected, well separated, and economical?
Not sure why this is news. Most folks already carry a smartphone & don't need their watch to do some of those functions.
There is always an excuse, never accountability. This made up excuse was floated by this same poster. At least last time the poster admitted there was no substantiation. Regardless of what the original approach plan was, there was more than enough time and money to do the website right. Clearly, some folks feel better if they can manufacture a way to shift blame. Most level headed Democrats actually admit it was a bungle.
Those that love blaming others and don't believe accountability, go ahead and moderate me down.
People will pay whatever is charged up to the point that the market will bear.
This is true, but competition more often makes a product available to the market at a price that is much lower than what the market will bear. I'd be willing to pay $5 some days for a chocolate glazed donut, but thank goodness I can get them for 99 cents!
Except that monopolies are almost always created by regulation.
That pretty much sums it up, although I'd also say that monopolies are also largely prevented by regulation as well. In the case of regulated utilities such as cable, the lack of competition is the central reason for high prices.
It would be interesting to see the cable ISP industry parsed up like they did the long distance telephone companies many years ago. It was a mess for a while, but eventually prices plummeted and service improved.
I think cable companies should be limited to management of the infrastructure, while services are regularly open to competitive ISPs & television service company competitive bids, or better yet, multiple providers simultaneously. It would be messy for a while.
So, just to be clear, as pointed out in my other replies, your assertion that a nuclear event would topple the treasury is nothing more than baseless fear mongering.
This sounds a lot like the stuff the fossil industry shrills love to spew.
As much of the cost would be born by the nuclear insurance fund, which has over $12B available and continues to grow, even though the probability of using much of it is extremely low. I think you are underplaying the federal costs associated with Katrina, but I don't have the numbers in front of me. I have seen numbers that indicate estimates that federal spending would be in the range of $150 billion. My guess is it probably was closer to $100b.
Buchanan may be the worst case scenario when it comes to land value, but it does not change the risk. A 50 km radius has no basis, it is in line with evacuation protocols, but not expected release/contamination path that would occur even if there was a release event. The evacuation zone has a large margin of safety built in, just as the plants do. In a significant release event, a large majority of the evacuation zone would be safe for return, some would require surface decon, and a few square miles around the plant would probably be off limits for quite some time with varying level of contamination. This would not cost $100b. Even if it cost $300b, it would not break the treasury.
But I am sure the fossil industry would support your take on this cost and risk.
I've been told for years that the only way employees can ever fight their employer is if a union represents them and does all the negotiations. Now you mean to tell me that even non-union employees have rights, too?
We are talking about hard to find, high demand employees here.
I never said anything about causing problems, or technology being a good or bad thing. Just commenting on the misgivings of the statement in the article. Technology is whatever we make of it, or use it for, good, bad, or indifferent. It is not 'supposed to be' anything.
True, you can't solve corruption. You can uncover it with the appropriate oversight and processes in place. And the costs associated with not getting away with it can be a big deterrent for some period of time. Its also a cultural thing, some places the controls are harder to implement effectively.
Land near nuclear plants is often very attractive and valuable in relative terms. Much more so than land near fossil plants, or large industrial facilities. This argument is tired and indefensible when you look at the land surrounding most of the plants in the US. Meanwhile, coal plants are already spreading filth over a wider swath of the country, its not a risk that might happen, its happening every day.
An accident at a nuclear plant that would contaminate nearby land is highly unlikely, unless of course you do something crazy like take a plant that is not designed to be run underwater, and place it underwater. A large storm or earthquake is much more likely to cost more, and they happen with regular frequency. Hell, we had New Orleans basically wiped off the map, I don't think the treasury blinked. The argument we could not respond if needed is just hyperbole.
The choice is between nuclear, coal, or natural gas. Pick your poison, or mix and match.
Should we apply this logic to pharmaceutical companies in the US, or even food companies, where failures in maintaining safety standards have actually killed people? The government has a woeful record of maintaining nuclear safety (DOD waste site, for example), while utilities, both privately and publicly owned, have done an excellent job in comparison with most other industries. TVA has done a good job as well. The NRC regulatory structure, while not perfect, is very effective. I think they would be less effective if the government also ran all the plants, and/or ran the fuel cycle.
To me, that's what technology was supposed to do. It was supposed to empower people and level the playing field.
While technology can and does often empower people, it has little to do with leveling the playing field. Many technologies are developed for the sole purpose of attaining an advantage.
Let me summarize for those who think that my critical analysis means I don't like EVs, which would be a completely incorrect assumption.
The filling station model for charging electric vehicles probably won't work. It will more likely require a distributed approach where you can charge up at work, at the mall, at the grocery store, and at home. That will eliminate a certain percentage of folks that need a filling station, but there will still be a lot of drivers that will need to stop and charge as quickly and conveniently as possible so they can continue their travel. In areas where available space is limited, this can be a challenge. Existing gas stations can probably add a few charging stations, but will need to keep their gas pumps as well for the foreseeable future. Regardless of the solution, nobody will be willing to wait for a charging station to become available.
The "mall parking lot model" brings its own interesting little complications. Mall owners will install the number of charging spaces they expect to be used consistently, so they probably don't want you using those spaces if you are not charging, and not leave your car for a long time after it is done charging. On the other hand, they don't want you leaving the mall any sooner than you otherwise would, so they have to balance that as well. It is certainly not a big deal as far as challenges, but its an example of the kind of thing you can foresee with a little critical analysis.
Challenges are adventures for those who see them before they appear, obstacles for those that see them when they appear, and barriers for those that do not see them.
If people could separate news from opinion, it would not matter so much where they get the news from. Ignoring a source of news because of fear of opinions that may accompany it is a problem we all have to some extent.