What boggles me is people like you just ACCEPT this... like it is ok. It isn't ok. It's fraud. Nothing can or will be done until you stop bending over and taking the whole broomstick.
You don't have to - don't buy at stores you feel are dishonest. Of course, everyone wants stellar service and the absolute lowest prices - even below what they can get from some guy moving stuff out a backroom in Nevada at 2% margin.
Free clue - good sales staff cost money; if people aren't willing to pay for service it's no surprise they don't get this. In this case, you really don't get what you won't pay for.
What I find weird is... I walk into my nearest Best Buy: Their mobile staff is really REALLY knowledgeable; their computer staff are knee-dragging morons! Is the mobile section of Best Buy a better money maker and worth having knowledgeable staff more-so than the computer section?
mother board and components? If so, that'd be a great case to replace the boring steel box. All you need the is a cool keyboard / mouse / monitor to finish it off.
Also note: If you understand statistics you would _never_ use the phrase 'statistically impossible'
If you understood thermodynamics, you'd know that 'statistically impossible' is why the world doesn't go crazy. Like sudden appearance of vacuum when you try to breathe or random melting of spoon when stirring your coffee.
Yes, I've studied thermodynamics and statistics. The problem is with the term "statistically impossible." There is a finite probability they such an event could occur; however it is so small that one would never expect to see it occur.
The real issue is many people do not understand statistics, and as a result act in irrational ways. They truly believe a 1-2-3-4-5-6 draw in less likely than some more random set of digits; yet the probability is the same for both events. Of course, those that do understand statistics can use that lack of knowledge to their advantage - casinos are a good example of this. Or, if you play lotto, you can pick combinations that don't increase your odds of winning but do increase the odds of being a sole winner. Or, on a coin flip, see what odds you can get on a 4th head coming up after 3 previous ones.
... or aircraft control and navigation, or banking, or encryption, or much of anything besides consumer products where it's OK to fail once in a while. Different situations require different approaches.
I agree, but even in those cases complexity doesn't mean better or more reliable performance. Reliability and predictability is often easier to ensure in a simple solution where there are fewer potential failure modes. Better is truly the enemy of good enough in many cases.
A poor plan vigorously executed is better than a perfect one never executed.
To me, the real value is to know what you can cutout with negatively impacting the customer experiences. far too often people build cost and delays into projects by building in cool when cool is of no value to the customer.
Not a new idea, and valid today academic exercises are best left to academics where they can't hurt anyone.
While edu4 clearly violated the GPL, what if they had contracted developer time to modified a copy of the code that was in the AFPA instead of providing (and hence distributing) a modified copy?
In that case, no distribution would occur and there would be no license obligation to distribute; edu4 could even put in contract terms that AFP could not distribute any of the code written by edu4; eliminating any need to distribute the source.
Not to mention their is no goddamn way they would leave. The investment in their campus structure alone would not fly with Shareholders. This is a PUBLIC COMPANY and such threats are laughable, at best.
As long as the loss is less than the taxes they would have to pay then dumping it is worth it; and they'd get a tax break as well.
There is no way Washington would want to risk MS actually moving any significant operations out of the state; the impact on their economy would be to great. It's not just MS that would leave, but many of the companies that depend on MS would either leave or go out of businss.
Er what? Europe was split into two roughly equally powerful alliances before World War One. Hence the Blackadder quote
Blackadder: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent a war in Europe, two super blocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side; and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast, opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way, there could never be a war.
Baldrick: Except, well, this is sort of a war, isn't it?
Blackadder: That's right. There was one tiny flaw in the plan.
George: Oh, what was that?
Blackadder: It was bollocks.
Actually, that's my point. Pre-WW1 Europe was a complex set of interlocking, shifting and competing alliances that resulted in a devastating war. What was a relatively unimportant political assassination caused one country after another to declare war as a result of their alliances. There no super powers to keep their client states under control, rather a set of roughly equally powerful countries that were acting independently.
So, what was essentially a continuation of the family feuds in Europe erupted in war because there were no patriarchs that could say "Ya, Franky Joe, what happened to little Freddie sucked. But you better behave or I'll cut you out of the will. By the way, Nicky, Willy, Georgie and the rest of you - stay out of this or you're out of the will too."
Unfortunately for IT, it usually comes down to "How much revenue did you generate?" and "Oh, you're a cost center. Let's see if out sourcing is cheaper." As one boss of mine put it, once our IT department brings in 30 mill a year in revenue they can have a say in how we conduct business.
Once your IT department starts working sub-par, no department will bring 30 million a year in revenue. No department will bring a penny in, actually.
If you outsource your IT, you are as bad as your competitor. Actually, the shop you outsourced your IT to may very well also manage your competitors' IT departments. Companies need to realize an IT department is not a cost center but an investment, and a good IT department is a competitive advantage.
It really depends on what the company does. Most consulting firms I've worked for really don't need an in house IT department; it is really just a cost center.
You're right, nuclear weapons have kept us from getting involved in another massive global shooting war. On the other hand, they've allowed us to settle into a basically constant series of low-level conflicts across the globe. So, instead of having one giant conflict that lasts for a few years, we have a never-ending series of small but locally devastating conflicts that go on forever. Nuclear weapons haven't curbed our innate desire to destroy ourselves, they've just made it more of a long-term commitment to do so.
It not so much nukes as the breakup of the old two superpower system. In that system, many states align with one or the other; for a variety of reasons. Since both states have a vested interets in not going to war you have relative peace and ofetn high tension, with minor conflicts acting as surrogates for big ones.
Contrast that to pre-WWI Europe, where numerous roughly equal powers decide to go to war beacuse they believe they can win and there is no larger power restraining them. Shifting allegiances, low tension bur\t it's a lot easier for things to get out of control.
Even better, try to convince them that even though the calculator says 2 x 2 is 4.0000000000 that that's not an acceptable answer.
Nothing incorrect about it. Whether or not you will accept it is, I suppose, entirely your prerogative (so long as your students are suitably informed of all your nit-picking rules before the fact).
Significant digits. I'd often get students who failed to grasp the concept that mere multiplication does not increase the precision of a measurement.
Often, it's a failure to understand the nature of the work they are doing nor having an intuitive feel for what the answer should be (as evidenced by their clearly misplacing a decimal as they enter numbers and putting down an answer one or more factors of 10 too large or small.); which is a result IMHO of too much dependence on technology - the machine *must* be right. My favorite example is when you give someone a $5 for a $3.49; they ring up $5 and then are lost when you hand the 4 additional cents.
Personally, as much as I like the convenience of technology the slide rule actually forced you to think about the results of calculations.
Nit picky? Perhaps, but there are times when precision is important, so learning how to do math properly lays the groundwork for later./P.
Where do you get that from the legislation? The section you quote starts out:
In the case of any work other than a work made for hire...
It seems works for hire are not subject to transfer, which makes sense since you purchased the work, not licensed the rights to it.
Yeah, sorry, terminology slip due to the fact that the OP was using the term loosely. This wasn't work for hire; Kirby was a freelancer who sold the rights to Marvel.
Yea, my guess that, if lawsuits result, the outcome will depend on whether it was a work for hire or a transfer of rights by a freelance writer.
Realistically, I think Disney will simply settle; it's in their best interest to get clear rights, the cost of which should be rounding error in the purchase price.
The deal will probably be structured to let Disney write off the costs like they do any other cost associated with development; in the end money will change hands to make the problem go away. Not that that's anything new, it's no different than paying a writer to pen a sequel when you get sued over profits and points. You don't care if they never write it, you just make the problem go away in a manner that avoids upsetting your current accounting practices. That's why you gotta love Hollywood accounting, where the more money you make the more you lose (on paper).
If anything will get the length of copyright reduced back to reasonable levels, it'll be creators reclaiming their IP from big business. Then it'll enter into public domain and big business will probably just settle it via trademark legislation as they divide up public domain.
Nah. it'll just mean fat checks for those who own rights to valuable properties and a big shrug and "so what" from corporations for other properties. I doubt the original publisher cares if I want the rights back to Apple ][ clip art they licensed many years ago. Disney may want the rights to those Marvel characters, however; if only to be able to completely control their use.
If there is one thing Hollywood understands, it's money.
Also... the work done was clearly work for hire. Kirby knew it, Stan knew it.
Doesn't matter. Since 1978, part of the deal in work-for-hire arrangements is that the creator gets to take the rights back if they want them (relevant legislation). Being creative industry professionals, I'm sure both Kirby and Lee knew this, as well.
We'll start to see some interesting things happening in 2013 when the window for making those claims opens, I'm sure.
Where do you get that from the legislation? The section you quote starts out:
In the case of any work other than a work made for hire...
It seems works for hire are not subject to transfer, which makes sense since you purchased the work, not licensed the rights to it.
While this article correctly points out the problems with implementing an IT solution without significant and valued IT input; the same is true for IT driving a solution without significant user input hat is actually understood and included in the decision making process.
Too often, IT comes up with a solution that the think is cool, meets their needs, and is an abomination in the eyes of the end users. Yes, it has a cool underlying infrastructure, is easy to maintain, and has plenty of bells and whistles but unless it solves a problem, who (beyond IT) cares?
All too often, end users find ways around it and you wind up with a mess of one off apps taht IT is expected to support; leading to much whining about end users and the stupid things they are doing.
Unfortunately for IT, it usually comes down to "How much revenue did you generate?" and "Oh, you're a cost center. Let's see if out sourcing is cheaper." As one boss of mine put it, once our IT department brings in 30 mill a year in revenue they can have a say in how we conduct business. Unfortunately, the real problem - lack of communication and coordination - is never solved.
I have worked in places where IT and end users actually talked - usually smaller shops - and surprise surprise - it wasn't an adversarial relationship. They wouldn't always do what I asked, or would set something up with the understanding I was basically on my own from there out, or suggest a different supported solution - resulting in an environment where we simply got stuff done.
Hang on - it's 2009 and we're still arguing about calculators? Has this been going on since before the Amiga / Atari stuff?
(Comptometer ftw!)
Goes back to when Ogg and Trogg argued over the relative merits of charcoal or clay pigment for doing calculations on the cave wall. As technology progressed, the merits of flint vs rubbing sticks for starting fires become the next flame war.
The TI calculator division is all about placating teachers and standardized testing agencies. If it's too easy to install custom software in a relatively undetectable fashion, then the calculators won't be approved for testing and classroom use.
It's not TI that's the control freaks - it's the teachers.
heh. When I was in B-school, one of my proofs banned certain calculators from use on tests - including my trusty HP scientific because you could store things in memory. No problem, I brought in a slide rule and my other HP (11c) and got along just fine.
She seemed a bit perturbed when I pointed out that many calculators she banned had programmable memory as well.
Personally if I can't trust my classmates not to cheat I frankly don't want to be around them; everyone I knew would not program anything in if the prof asked them not to. As a side not, finance ain't rocket science, and I could do 90% of the math in my head or on paper faster than with a calculator.
As for standardized tests, the main advantage of a calculator is you didn't need to know how to actually solve the problem - plug in the middle value on the GMAT; see if your answer is higher / lower and by how much - bingo, select the right answer and move on.
Who says it's forgotten? Nearly everyone I know who's my age remembers it quite fondly.
-jcr
I remember it quite well. What I find interesting is that many such games actually hold up well, despite graphics taht are best described as primitive; the gameplay was anything but and that's what made the games good. Simple concepts - fFooger, Space Invaders, even Pong still hold their own today.
no, they don't. Even those that support Macs often have certain Window's only programs that have no Mac equivalent. In general, however, I've found a Mac with OO is more than usable so Linux ought to be as well; with the caveat that you may occasionally need o use a lab or rely on a friend for a few things. Look at it this way - you can send her off with a Linux machine and always add Windows; or partition and dual boot so she has it when he needs it.
They haven't solved the environmental issues. They might have better safety, but what about the fact that they use massive amounts of water, and heat it up about a degree before returning it to the river that the plant is inevitably next to? How about the waste? They still haven't solved that one; all our old waste is still sitting on site at current plants.
Palo Verde. 3 units, no river.
The waste is sitting there because politicians refuse to deal with the issue; not because it is unsolvable. Personally, I think we should rethink breeder reactors.
Slashdot Mirror
What boggles me is people like you just ACCEPT this... like it is ok. It isn't ok. It's fraud. Nothing can or will be done until you stop bending over and taking the whole broomstick.
You don't have to - don't buy at stores you feel are dishonest. Of course, everyone wants stellar service and the absolute lowest prices - even below what they can get from some guy moving stuff out a backroom in Nevada at 2% margin.
Free clue - good sales staff cost money; if people aren't willing to pay for service it's no surprise they don't get this. In this case, you really don't get what you won't pay for.
What I find weird is... I walk into my nearest Best Buy: Their mobile staff is really REALLY knowledgeable; their computer staff are knee-dragging morons! Is the mobile section of Best Buy a better money maker and worth having knowledgeable staff more-so than the computer section?
Money. Good sales people cost money.
mother board and components? If so, that'd be a great case to replace the boring steel box. All you need the is a cool keyboard / mouse / monitor to finish it off.
Also note: If you understand statistics you would _never_ use the phrase 'statistically impossible'
If you understood thermodynamics, you'd know that 'statistically impossible' is why the world doesn't go crazy. Like sudden appearance of vacuum when you try to breathe or random melting of spoon when stirring your coffee.
Yes, I've studied thermodynamics and statistics. The problem is with the term "statistically impossible." There is a finite probability they such an event could occur; however it is so small that one would never expect to see it occur.
The real issue is many people do not understand statistics, and as a result act in irrational ways. They truly believe a 1-2-3-4-5-6 draw in less likely than some more random set of digits; yet the probability is the same for both events. Of course, those that do understand statistics can use that lack of knowledge to their advantage - casinos are a good example of this. Or, if you play lotto, you can pick combinations that don't increase your odds of winning but do increase the odds of being a sole winner. Or, on a coin flip, see what odds you can get on a 4th head coming up after 3 previous ones.
... or aircraft control and navigation, or banking, or encryption, or much of anything besides consumer products where it's OK to fail once in a while. Different situations require different approaches.
I agree, but even in those cases complexity doesn't mean better or more reliable performance. Reliability and predictability is often easier to ensure in a simple solution where there are fewer potential failure modes. Better is truly the enemy of good enough in many cases.
A poor plan vigorously executed is better than a perfect one never executed.
To me, the real value is to know what you can cutout with negatively impacting the customer experiences. far too often people build cost and delays into projects by building in cool when cool is of no value to the customer.
Not a new idea, and valid today academic exercises are best left to academics where they can't hurt anyone.
While edu4 clearly violated the GPL, what if they had contracted developer time to modified a copy of the code that was in the AFPA instead of providing (and hence distributing) a modified copy?
In that case, no distribution would occur and there would be no license obligation to distribute; edu4 could even put in contract terms that AFP could not distribute any of the code written by edu4; eliminating any need to distribute the source.
Not to mention their is no goddamn way they would leave. The investment in their campus structure alone would not fly with Shareholders. This is a PUBLIC COMPANY and such threats are laughable, at best.
As long as the loss is less than the taxes they would have to pay then dumping it is worth it; and they'd get a tax break as well.
There is no way Washington would want to risk MS actually moving any significant operations out of the state; the impact on their economy would be to great. It's not just MS that would leave, but many of the companies that depend on MS would either leave or go out of businss.
MS has them over a barrel here.
Er what? Europe was split into two roughly equally powerful alliances before World War One. Hence the Blackadder quote
Blackadder: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent a war in Europe, two super blocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side; and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast, opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way, there could never be a war. Baldrick: Except, well, this is sort of a war, isn't it? Blackadder: That's right. There was one tiny flaw in the plan. George: Oh, what was that? Blackadder: It was bollocks.
Actually, that's my point. Pre-WW1 Europe was a complex set of interlocking, shifting and competing alliances that resulted in a devastating war. What was a relatively unimportant political assassination caused one country after another to declare war as a result of their alliances. There no super powers to keep their client states under control, rather a set of roughly equally powerful countries that were acting independently.
So, what was essentially a continuation of the family feuds in Europe erupted in war because there were no patriarchs that could say "Ya, Franky Joe, what happened to little Freddie sucked. But you better behave or I'll cut you out of the will. By the way, Nicky, Willy, Georgie and the rest of you - stay out of this or you're out of the will too."
Unfortunately for IT, it usually comes down to "How much revenue did you generate?" and "Oh, you're a cost center. Let's see if out sourcing is cheaper." As one boss of mine put it, once our IT department brings in 30 mill a year in revenue they can have a say in how we conduct business.
Once your IT department starts working sub-par, no department will bring 30 million a year in revenue. No department will bring a penny in, actually.
If you outsource your IT, you are as bad as your competitor. Actually, the shop you outsourced your IT to may very well also manage your competitors' IT departments. Companies need to realize an IT department is not a cost center but an investment, and a good IT department is a competitive advantage.
It really depends on what the company does. Most consulting firms I've worked for really don't need an in house IT department; it is really just a cost center.
You're right, nuclear weapons have kept us from getting involved in another massive global shooting war. On the other hand, they've allowed us to settle into a basically constant series of low-level conflicts across the globe. So, instead of having one giant conflict that lasts for a few years, we have a never-ending series of small but locally devastating conflicts that go on forever. Nuclear weapons haven't curbed our innate desire to destroy ourselves, they've just made it more of a long-term commitment to do so.
It not so much nukes as the breakup of the old two superpower system. In that system, many states align with one or the other; for a variety of reasons. Since both states have a vested interets in not going to war you have relative peace and ofetn high tension, with minor conflicts acting as surrogates for big ones.
Contrast that to pre-WWI Europe, where numerous roughly equal powers decide to go to war beacuse they believe they can win and there is no larger power restraining them. Shifting allegiances, low tension bur\t it's a lot easier for things to get out of control.
Even better, try to convince them that even though the calculator says 2 x 2 is 4.0000000000 that that's not an acceptable answer.
Nothing incorrect about it. Whether or not you will accept it is, I suppose, entirely your prerogative (so long as your students are suitably informed of all your nit-picking rules before the fact).
Significant digits. I'd often get students who failed to grasp the concept that mere multiplication does not increase the precision of a measurement.
Often, it's a failure to understand the nature of the work they are doing nor having an intuitive feel for what the answer should be (as evidenced by their clearly misplacing a decimal as they enter numbers and putting down an answer one or more factors of 10 too large or small.); which is a result IMHO of too much dependence on technology - the machine *must* be right. My favorite example is when you give someone a $5 for a $3.49; they ring up $5 and then are lost when you hand the 4 additional cents.
Personally, as much as I like the convenience of technology the slide rule actually forced you to think about the results of calculations.
Nit picky? Perhaps, but there are times when precision is important, so learning how to do math properly lays the groundwork for later./P.
Where do you get that from the legislation? The section you quote starts out:
In the case of any work other than a work made for hire...
It seems works for hire are not subject to transfer, which makes sense since you purchased the work, not licensed the rights to it.
Yeah, sorry, terminology slip due to the fact that the OP was using the term loosely. This wasn't work for hire; Kirby was a freelancer who sold the rights to Marvel.
Yea, my guess that, if lawsuits result, the outcome will depend on whether it was a work for hire or a transfer of rights by a freelance writer.
Realistically, I think Disney will simply settle; it's in their best interest to get clear rights, the cost of which should be rounding error in the purchase price.
The deal will probably be structured to let Disney write off the costs like they do any other cost associated with development; in the end money will change hands to make the problem go away. Not that that's anything new, it's no different than paying a writer to pen a sequel when you get sued over profits and points. You don't care if they never write it, you just make the problem go away in a manner that avoids upsetting your current accounting practices. That's why you gotta love Hollywood accounting, where the more money you make the more you lose (on paper).
If anything will get the length of copyright reduced back to reasonable levels, it'll be creators reclaiming their IP from big business. Then it'll enter into public domain and big business will probably just settle it via trademark legislation as they divide up public domain.
Nah. it'll just mean fat checks for those who own rights to valuable properties and a big shrug and "so what" from corporations for other properties. I doubt the original publisher cares if I want the rights back to Apple ][ clip art they licensed many years ago. Disney may want the rights to those Marvel characters, however; if only to be able to completely control their use.
If there is one thing Hollywood understands, it's money.
Also... the work done was clearly work for hire. Kirby knew it, Stan knew it.
Doesn't matter. Since 1978, part of the deal in work-for-hire arrangements is that the creator gets to take the rights back if they want them (relevant legislation). Being creative industry professionals, I'm sure both Kirby and Lee knew this, as well.
We'll start to see some interesting things happening in 2013 when the window for making those claims opens, I'm sure.
Where do you get that from the legislation? The section you quote starts out:
In the case of any work other than a work made for hire...
It seems works for hire are not subject to transfer, which makes sense since you purchased the work, not licensed the rights to it.
While this article correctly points out the problems with implementing an IT solution without significant and valued IT input; the same is true for IT driving a solution without significant user input hat is actually understood and included in the decision making process.
Too often, IT comes up with a solution that the think is cool, meets their needs, and is an abomination in the eyes of the end users. Yes, it has a cool underlying infrastructure, is easy to maintain, and has plenty of bells and whistles but unless it solves a problem, who (beyond IT) cares?
All too often, end users find ways around it and you wind up with a mess of one off apps taht IT is expected to support; leading to much whining about end users and the stupid things they are doing.
Unfortunately for IT, it usually comes down to "How much revenue did you generate?" and "Oh, you're a cost center. Let's see if out sourcing is cheaper." As one boss of mine put it, once our IT department brings in 30 mill a year in revenue they can have a say in how we conduct business. Unfortunately, the real problem - lack of communication and coordination - is never solved.
I have worked in places where IT and end users actually talked - usually smaller shops - and surprise surprise - it wasn't an adversarial relationship. They wouldn't always do what I asked, or would set something up with the understanding I was basically on my own from there out, or suggest a different supported solution - resulting in an environment where we simply got stuff done.
Hang on - it's 2009 and we're still arguing about calculators? Has this been going on since before the Amiga / Atari stuff?
(Comptometer ftw!)
Goes back to when Ogg and Trogg argued over the relative merits of charcoal or clay pigment for doing calculations on the cave wall. As technology progressed, the merits of flint vs rubbing sticks for starting fires become the next flame war.
[some lecturers] make up problems such that you shouldn't need a calculator to solve them
You wouldn't believe how difficult it is to convince undergrads that they do not need a calculator to multiply 1024 by 4.
Even better, try to convince them that even though the calculator says 2 x 2 is 4.0000000000 that that's not a correct answer.
The TI calculator division is all about placating teachers and standardized testing agencies. If it's too easy to install custom software in a relatively undetectable fashion, then the calculators won't be approved for testing and classroom use.
It's not TI that's the control freaks - it's the teachers.
heh. When I was in B-school, one of my proofs banned certain calculators from use on tests - including my trusty HP scientific because you could store things in memory. No problem, I brought in a slide rule and my other HP (11c) and got along just fine.
She seemed a bit perturbed when I pointed out that many calculators she banned had programmable memory as well.
Personally if I can't trust my classmates not to cheat I frankly don't want to be around them; everyone I knew would not program anything in if the prof asked them not to. As a side not, finance ain't rocket science, and I could do 90% of the math in my head or on paper faster than with a calculator.
As for standardized tests, the main advantage of a calculator is you didn't need to know how to actually solve the problem - plug in the middle value on the GMAT; see if your answer is higher / lower and by how much - bingo, select the right answer and move on.
A +/- variation of 50% in something as simple as the number of machines sampled leads me to believe there more then likely other errors.
I want to know where I can by the anti-virus software from Unknown - it seems to be the most popular by a long shot,
But I repeat myself
Who says it's forgotten? Nearly everyone I know who's my age remembers it quite fondly.
-jcr
I remember it quite well. What I find interesting is that many such games actually hold up well, despite graphics taht are best described as primitive; the gameplay was anything but and that's what made the games good. Simple concepts - fFooger, Space Invaders, even Pong still hold their own today.
Palo Verde makes NRC watch list. Such a great example of Nuclear industry operations. What a joke.
In 2006 and was removed in 2009; the NRC caught their errors and provided extra oversight until they were fixed. In short, the system worked.
no, they don't. Even those that support Macs often have certain Window's only programs that have no Mac equivalent. In general, however, I've found a Mac with OO is more than usable so Linux ought to be as well; with the caveat that you may occasionally need o use a lab or rely on a friend for a few things. Look at it this way - you can send her off with a Linux machine and always add Windows; or partition and dual boot so she has it when he needs it.
They haven't solved the environmental issues. They might have better safety, but what about the fact that they use massive amounts of water, and heat it up about a degree before returning it to the river that the plant is inevitably next to? How about the waste? They still haven't solved that one; all our old waste is still sitting on site at current plants.
Palo Verde. 3 units, no river.
The waste is sitting there because politicians refuse to deal with the issue; not because it is unsolvable. Personally, I think we should rethink breeder reactors.