That doesn't mean they can't try. Still costs to go to court.
Doesn't mean they can't sue the practice. The practice is a legal entity of itself.
Doesn't mean they can't sue a hospital, clinic or other medical institution.
There's also the possibility that this ruling may or may not supersede these provisions. Again, another long, drawn out, EXPENSIVE court battle.
They're basically depending on someone giving them money to go the fuck away. And the shitty part is, it'd probably be cheaper than fighting it out through our head-up-ass judicial system.
Sorry Mr. Patient. While I know exactly what's wrong with you, the Medi-Jackass Inc. will sue me into oblivion if I prescribe the proper treatment to you! No, I can't tell you either. They'd sue me into oblivion TWICE, then go after you too.
Un-fucking believable.
All I can hope is that medical establishments EVERYWHERE (including insurance companies) tell these people to fuck the hell off and stonewall them into bankruptcy while blacklisting every product and service they use to hasten the process.
I just don't think nuclear should be taken off the table. Nuclear is expensive and complicated.
No. Actually, nuclear is cheap and easy. All the science is already done. All the engineering for plants and systems is already done. The only reason it costs an arm, a leg and a town full of testicles to implement is because of all the regulations put into place by the "nuclear power = Hiroshima/Nagasaki/Bikini Atoll" crowd that make it impossible from both a regulatory and economic standpoint to implement new nuclear power plants.
Quite simply it's a 20+ year fight throught the courts, plus another decade beyond that for appeals, plus another decade beyond that for all the paperwork and further court challenges before the first slab of concrete is laid.
But they can put up a new coal plant in 18 months!
There's only two major (non-regulatory) factors for why you can't implement nuclear.
1: Geological/environmental factors. You don't want to build on a fault line known for producing quakes that could split your containment vessel like an egg. You don't want to put it in a river valley known for spectacular flooding on a yearly basis. You don't want to build it next to a volcano. And stuff like that.
2: You don't want to drop one in the middle of an existing, dense urban area. It's not that you CAN'T, just that, from a safety standpoint it's better not to.
Hell, they even make nuclear power plants the size of 18-wheel trailers that you can safely bury in lieu of diesel generators nowadays!
They can provide cheap, nearly limitless base load power.
Is nuclear fission power a "forever" solution? No. Eventually we'll run out of fuel, even with fuel recycling.
But it's the least problematic, cheapest, and environmentally safest option for base load power.
You can't say that with solar of any sort. You can't say that with wind or wave power. You can't say that with geothermal (well, you can, until the first earthquake). Only hydro comes close. And this country isn't going to build any more hydro, We've tapped the major resources, and the remainder aren't worth fighting the conservationists over.
Unless you've actually worked in a reactor, I wouldn't treat the subject of "sabotage" and attack on the reactor as something easily accomplished.
As someone previously noted. "What are they going to do to a containment vessel?
Essentially they'd need tons and tons of high explosives (or a real nuclear bomb). In either case, the issue of how safe the reactor is is completely academic at that point.
It is not "easy" to make a reactor fail in a critical and environmentally dangerous manner. It's even harder as you get into newer and newer plant designs.
Essentially why we're reading "Greenpeace breaks into reactor" and not "Terrorist group shot to death trying to break into reactor" is because the local authorities knew it was Greenpeace and restrained themselves.
So basically because there's always some amount of risk (most of which is manageable), we should never do a thing?
Hope you don't apply that kind of thinking to procreation.
On second thought...
And demand for nuclear reactors if falling because of the scare tactics of the anti-nuclear groups out there. They'd rather have us paying through the nose and out the ass for power generated by a means which isn't renewable, is dependent on materials that can't be produced locally, or doesn't work in all climates, turning those areas into slave states or forcing them to rely on dirty power methods like coal and oil.
I know of a couple of software projects that are outsourced and getting good results.
This one basically the formula for one of the best of them:
Each team is overseen by a local (stateside/canadian) lead programmer who can actually review the code properly.
There are guidelines in place for documenting and commenting the code. Don't follow the guidelines, don't get paid.
And they pay close to what US programmers for a similar project would demand.
As such, they never run out of a supply of candidates. They can afford to be VERY choosy about their hires. And they get damn good value for their money.
Yes, they went through a few scammers during their early spin-up. But they had that sort of thing built into their expectations. They eventually wound up with a crack cadre of programmers and software products that are some of the best-documented I've ever seen anywhere. You could literally spend a couple hours reading the documentation and start working on the software.
Then you get the guys who think they're going to set up a programmer sweatshop someplace and pay sub-subsistence wages to hordes of thousands and magically fall on the fair side of the "infinite monkeys" principle.
I have zero pity for these fools and the crap they wind up with (if anything is ever actually delivered).
I'll say this again about this form of "civil" disobedience.
There's nothing "civil" about the commission of a crime (breaking and entering, in a damned nuclear facility no less).
And the authorities can't simply shrug off one group as "a bunch of harmless crazies" and still be properly watchful for someone who'd break into such a facility for more sinister purposes.
The reason that Nebraska reactor wasn't a huge story was because it didn't survive a massive earthquake that was well beyond the specs the facility was built to, then get KO'ed by a huge tsunami that exceeded the specs the backup facilities had been built for.
Now if the Nebraska reactor had failed after the planet was dropped into the sun...
Well, THEN we'd have such a huge stink about it...
Give it time. Nuclear hasn't been around as long as coal, and with nuclear the plants themselves become more dangerous to operate as they age.
Christ on a crutch. This is why people are advocating for newer, cleaner, safer designs! Instead of continuing to rely stuff built in the 70's with technology firmly rooted in the 50's, why not build new plants based off cleaner, safer designs that have emerged in the last decade or two?
The problem is all the NIMBYs and BANANAs and people who've been hyper-conditioned to think "Nuclear = bomb in my yard".
And such stockpiles of waste wouldn't accumulate as fast or in as vast a quantity if we use newer designs and actually recycled the damn fuel! Yet another thing the "Nuclear = China Meltdown System On My Children" hyperbole-spewers have prevented us from undertaking.
Yes, the final end-product is quite dangerous. But it's quite compact and can be stored away from the populace quite easily. Or would if, yet again, the "Nuclear = THE DEVIL!" crowd would stop blowing holes in comprehensive planning and then bitching because the plan is now no longer comprehensive.
Personally, I'd rather have a man-made cavern in a geologically safe area be dangerous as hell for the next 10,000 years than have to breathe that crap in every day of my lives from coal-fired plants. Or risk dying in a cave-in. Or having the state I live in become a vassal-entity to another state simply because all the "renewable" power schemes don't work here due to climate conditions.
And the fact that some people are lacking in common sense is irrelevant to my answer to the question.
It was asked "since when have we used laws instead of common sense".
The answer is pretty much "always". Why? BECAUSE some people wouldn't know common sense if they were beaten within an inch of their life with it thrice a day and four times on Sundays.
Also, there's the consideration that simply because someone BELIEVES they're on the sunny side of "common sense" doesn't mean they actually ARE.
Since when did we start using law as a sorry substitute for what should be things like awareness, prudence, common sense, good decision-making, and an ability to think for oneself?
Well, at least since:
"I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods in My presence..."
"Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."
"Do not swear falsely by the name of the LORD..."
"Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy"
"Honor your father and your mother..."
"Do not murder"
"Do not commit adultery."
"Do not steal."
"Do not bear false witness against your neighbor"
"Do not covet your neighbor's wife"
So it's been status quo for several millennia at least.
then we tell adult people they can't do certain things with their own bodies and/or their own consciousness behind closed doors in their own homes.
As has been demonstrated by countless, moronic drunk drivers, what is meant to be kept behind the closed doors of one's home doesn't always stay there.
Note: I'm not saying I'm against legalizing weed. Just making an observation that there's always going to be some jackass who hops up and then goes out and fucks up (or ends) someone else's life.
On one hand it causes losses to the banks on the other it pisses of their customers and push them to find safer alternatives.
No. It just pisses off the customers. Because the banks aren't to blame for a bunch of malicious, thieving jackasses pretending to be revolutionaries. While the customers are UPSET with the banks, the people they're going to be pissed off at are the thieves themselves.
There's NOTHING civil about stealing someone's money.
Remember, this money isn't replaced in a person's account the second they report a theft. It's usually 7-10 business days (read 2 weeks).
So if your account is drained around rent/bill-pay time, are you prepared live without access to your money for 2 weeks?
Most of the "other 99%" simply ARE NOT. And that's who this bullshit is going to hurt.
This is theft, plain and simple.
The little guy whose money is stolen is hurt. The banks have to do more work because of this, raising fees. The places that get graced with the stolen windfall get screwed when that money gets charged back.
All so that these spineless script-kiddies can have their moment on the news and imagine themselves to be "1337 H@x0rz".
What exactly is so "renewable" about wind turbines that require rare earth elements? When those turbines wear out, and you've exhausted your supply of those elements (they call them "rare" for a reason), what then?
What exactly is so "renewable" about switch-grass replacing food-producing crops? And the energy taken to convert the switch-grass into usable bio-fuel? Oh yeah, and the bio-fuel? It's not clean-burning either. Nothing is.
What's so "renewable" about various hydro implementations that completely destroy the ecology in the areas they're implemented in?
I say again. There's no such thing as an "ideal" option. There just isn't. An ideal option would be one we could, ideally, continue until the sun runs out of hydrogen, have no inputs, no production costs, and no waste output. Which is a physics impossibility.
And the sooner you people pull your heads from your asses and realize this, the sooner we can get to engineering safer, better methods of power generation.
That's the problem. There are no "ideal" options. Anybody telling you different is selling you a line of bullshit.
Nuclear, done right, is safe, efficient, and the waste can be recycled numerous times. What's left at the end, while quite dangerous, it very compact and can be stored, long-term, safely. It's a damn sight better than breathing it in from coal plants and having thousands of miners dying every year.
Wave generation is in its infancy. And we aren't actually sure about what environmental impact that's going to have.
The nasty part they try to cover up is that EVERY "renewable" energy scheme out there relies, at some point, on non-renewable resources.
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't mean they can't try.
Still costs to go to court.
Doesn't mean they can't sue the practice. The practice is a legal entity of itself.
Doesn't mean they can't sue a hospital, clinic or other medical institution.
There's also the possibility that this ruling may or may not supersede these provisions. Again, another long, drawn out, EXPENSIVE court battle.
They're basically depending on someone giving them money to go the fuck away. And the shitty part is, it'd probably be cheaper than fighting it out through our head-up-ass judicial system.
Sorry Mr. Patient. While I know exactly what's wrong with you, the Medi-Jackass Inc. will sue me into oblivion if I prescribe the proper treatment to you!
No, I can't tell you either. They'd sue me into oblivion TWICE, then go after you too.
Un-fucking believable.
All I can hope is that medical establishments EVERYWHERE (including insurance companies) tell these people to fuck the hell off and stonewall them into bankruptcy while blacklisting every product and service they use to hasten the process.
Like it wasn't obvious even to some silly AC.
I just don't think nuclear should be taken off the table. Nuclear is expensive and complicated.
No. Actually, nuclear is cheap and easy. All the science is already done. All the engineering for plants and systems is already done. The only reason it costs an arm, a leg and a town full of testicles to implement is because of all the regulations put into place by the "nuclear power = Hiroshima/Nagasaki/Bikini Atoll" crowd that make it impossible from both a regulatory and economic standpoint to implement new nuclear power plants.
Quite simply it's a 20+ year fight throught the courts, plus another decade beyond that for appeals, plus another decade beyond that for all the paperwork and further court challenges before the first slab of concrete is laid.
But they can put up a new coal plant in 18 months!
There's only two major (non-regulatory) factors for why you can't implement nuclear.
1: Geological/environmental factors. You don't want to build on a fault line known for producing quakes that could split your containment vessel like an egg. You don't want to put it in a river valley known for spectacular flooding on a yearly basis. You don't want to build it next to a volcano. And stuff like that.
2: You don't want to drop one in the middle of an existing, dense urban area. It's not that you CAN'T, just that, from a safety standpoint it's better not to.
Hell, they even make nuclear power plants the size of 18-wheel trailers that you can safely bury in lieu of diesel generators nowadays!
They can provide cheap, nearly limitless base load power.
Is nuclear fission power a "forever" solution? No. Eventually we'll run out of fuel, even with fuel recycling.
But it's the least problematic, cheapest, and environmentally safest option for base load power.
You can't say that with solar of any sort. You can't say that with wind or wave power. You can't say that with geothermal (well, you can, until the first earthquake). Only hydro comes close. And this country isn't going to build any more hydro, We've tapped the major resources, and the remainder aren't worth fighting the conservationists over.
Unless you've actually worked in a reactor, I wouldn't treat the subject of "sabotage" and attack on the reactor as something easily accomplished.
As someone previously noted. "What are they going to do to a containment vessel?
Essentially they'd need tons and tons of high explosives (or a real nuclear bomb). In either case, the issue of how safe the reactor is is completely academic at that point.
It is not "easy" to make a reactor fail in a critical and environmentally dangerous manner. It's even harder as you get into newer and newer plant designs.
Essentially why we're reading "Greenpeace breaks into reactor" and not "Terrorist group shot to death trying to break into reactor" is because the local authorities knew it was Greenpeace and restrained themselves.
So basically because there's always some amount of risk (most of which is manageable), we should never do a thing?
Hope you don't apply that kind of thinking to procreation.
On second thought...
And demand for nuclear reactors if falling because of the scare tactics of the anti-nuclear groups out there. They'd rather have us paying through the nose and out the ass for power generated by a means which isn't renewable, is dependent on materials that can't be produced locally, or doesn't work in all climates, turning those areas into slave states or forcing them to rely on dirty power methods like coal and oil.
I know of a couple of software projects that are outsourced and getting good results.
This one basically the formula for one of the best of them:
Each team is overseen by a local (stateside/canadian) lead programmer who can actually review the code properly.
There are guidelines in place for documenting and commenting the code. Don't follow the guidelines, don't get paid.
And they pay close to what US programmers for a similar project would demand.
As such, they never run out of a supply of candidates. They can afford to be VERY choosy about their hires. And they get damn good value for their money.
Yes, they went through a few scammers during their early spin-up. But they had that sort of thing built into their expectations. They eventually wound up with a crack cadre of programmers and software products that are some of the best-documented I've ever seen anywhere. You could literally spend a couple hours reading the documentation and start working on the software.
Then you get the guys who think they're going to set up a programmer sweatshop someplace and pay sub-subsistence wages to hordes of thousands and magically fall on the fair side of the "infinite monkeys" principle.
I have zero pity for these fools and the crap they wind up with (if anything is ever actually delivered).
I'll say this again about this form of "civil" disobedience.
There's nothing "civil" about the commission of a crime (breaking and entering, in a damned nuclear facility no less).
And the authorities can't simply shrug off one group as "a bunch of harmless crazies" and still be properly watchful for someone who'd break into such a facility for more sinister purposes.
The reason that Nebraska reactor wasn't a huge story was because it didn't survive a massive earthquake that was well beyond the specs the facility was built to, then get KO'ed by a huge tsunami that exceeded the specs the backup facilities had been built for.
Now if the Nebraska reactor had failed after the planet was dropped into the sun...
Well, THEN we'd have such a huge stink about it...
Give it time. Nuclear hasn't been around as long as coal, and with nuclear the plants themselves become more dangerous to operate as they age.
Christ on a crutch. This is why people are advocating for newer, cleaner, safer designs! Instead of continuing to rely stuff built in the 70's with technology firmly rooted in the 50's, why not build new plants based off cleaner, safer designs that have emerged in the last decade or two?
The problem is all the NIMBYs and BANANAs and people who've been hyper-conditioned to think "Nuclear = bomb in my yard".
And such stockpiles of waste wouldn't accumulate as fast or in as vast a quantity if we use newer designs and actually recycled the damn fuel! Yet another thing the "Nuclear = China Meltdown System On My Children" hyperbole-spewers have prevented us from undertaking.
Yes, the final end-product is quite dangerous. But it's quite compact and can be stored away from the populace quite easily. Or would if, yet again, the "Nuclear = THE DEVIL!" crowd would stop blowing holes in comprehensive planning and then bitching because the plan is now no longer comprehensive.
Personally, I'd rather have a man-made cavern in a geologically safe area be dangerous as hell for the next 10,000 years than have to breathe that crap in every day of my lives from coal-fired plants. Or risk dying in a cave-in. Or having the state I live in become a vassal-entity to another state simply because all the "renewable" power schemes don't work here due to climate conditions.
Look in a lot of religions, and the governments they spawned. You'll see a significant resemblance in all of them.
Hey, don't rag on me.
And the fact that some people are lacking in common sense is irrelevant to my answer to the question.
It was asked "since when have we used laws instead of common sense".
The answer is pretty much "always". Why? BECAUSE some people wouldn't know common sense if they were beaten within an inch of their life with it thrice a day and four times on Sundays.
Also, there's the consideration that simply because someone BELIEVES they're on the sunny side of "common sense" doesn't mean they actually ARE.
You're not arguing what you think you are.
You're talking about a small population of stoners and medical marijuana users vs an entire population of social drinkers.
The difference is several orders of magnitude at the minimum .
That's like getting 1000 blond guys and one redhead, pissing off the redhead, and claiming that redheads are more prone to violence.
Let's see.
190 proof shots?
With cans of beer as a chaser?
Nope. Not pure alcohol.
Since when did we start using law as a sorry substitute for what should be things like awareness, prudence, common sense, good decision-making, and an ability to think for oneself?
Well, at least since:
"I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods in My presence..."
"Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."
"Do not swear falsely by the name of the LORD..."
"Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy"
"Honor your father and your mother..."
"Do not murder"
"Do not commit adultery."
"Do not steal."
"Do not bear false witness against your neighbor"
"Do not covet your neighbor's wife"
So it's been status quo for several millennia at least.
Seven gallons works out to about 2-3 1oz drinks a day.
I don't drink myself, but I know people who put away several times that.
then we tell adult people they can't do certain things with their own bodies and/or their own consciousness behind closed doors in their own homes.
As has been demonstrated by countless, moronic drunk drivers, what is meant to be kept behind the closed doors of one's home doesn't always stay there.
Note: I'm not saying I'm against legalizing weed. Just making an observation that there's always going to be some jackass who hops up and then goes out and fucks up (or ends) someone else's life.
On one hand it causes losses to the banks on the other it pisses of their customers and push them to find safer alternatives.
No. It just pisses off the customers. Because the banks aren't to blame for a bunch of malicious, thieving jackasses pretending to be revolutionaries. While the customers are UPSET with the banks, the people they're going to be pissed off at are the thieves themselves.
Don't fool yourself.
If these guys get their hands on a bank card, they don't care if it's to a traditional bank or a credit union. They're going to use it.
Civil disobedience my ass.
There's NOTHING civil about stealing someone's money.
Remember, this money isn't replaced in a person's account the second they report a theft. It's usually 7-10 business days (read 2 weeks).
So if your account is drained around rent/bill-pay time, are you prepared live without access to your money for 2 weeks?
Most of the "other 99%" simply ARE NOT. And that's who this bullshit is going to hurt.
This is theft, plain and simple.
The little guy whose money is stolen is hurt.
The banks have to do more work because of this, raising fees.
The places that get graced with the stolen windfall get screwed when that money gets charged back.
All so that these spineless script-kiddies can have their moment on the news and imagine themselves to be "1337 H@x0rz".
What exactly is so "renewable" about wind turbines that require rare earth elements? When those turbines wear out, and you've exhausted your supply of those elements (they call them "rare" for a reason), what then?
What exactly is so "renewable" about switch-grass replacing food-producing crops? And the energy taken to convert the switch-grass into usable bio-fuel? Oh yeah, and the bio-fuel? It's not clean-burning either. Nothing is.
What's so "renewable" about various hydro implementations that completely destroy the ecology in the areas they're implemented in?
I say again. There's no such thing as an "ideal" option. There just isn't. An ideal option would be one we could, ideally, continue until the sun runs out of hydrogen, have no inputs, no production costs, and no waste output. Which is a physics impossibility.
And the sooner you people pull your heads from your asses and realize this, the sooner we can get to engineering safer, better methods of power generation.
http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2006/01/us_coal_mining_.html
Coal mining deaths. Both in the US and China.
That's the problem. There are no "ideal" options. Anybody telling you different is selling you a line of bullshit.
Nuclear, done right, is safe, efficient, and the waste can be recycled numerous times. What's left at the end, while quite dangerous, it very compact and can be stored, long-term, safely. It's a damn sight better than breathing it in from coal plants and having thousands of miners dying every year.
Wave generation is in its infancy. And we aren't actually sure about what environmental impact that's going to have.
The nasty part they try to cover up is that EVERY "renewable" energy scheme out there relies, at some point, on non-renewable resources.
Yeah. Let's talk about coal mining deaths.
http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2006/01/us_coal_mining_.html
Nearly a thousand in the US since 1980.
Now let's look at China's track record over the last decade.
Nearly 53 THOUSAND people dead mining coal.
How many people have nuke plants killed again?
You can't compare. Because no real research being done to link all the health problems people encounter back to the coal plant itself.
"Bob developed thyroid cancer and skin cancer."
"Well Bob smoked a lot."
Never mind that Bob lived a mile downwind of a coal-fired plant for 50-odd years.