Well since the Ronald Reagan is a nuclear-powered ship itself, I am guessing that the political angle has nothing to do with it. If I am captain of a nuclear powered vessel, chances are I understand the consequences of hanging out downstream of a radioactive plume. 1) there is no reason to expose oneself to any radioactive contamination, no matter how inconsequential. 2) If my ship gets contaminated with radioactive particulates, how do I now distinguish that from contamination that might come about from a mishandling of radioactive material on ship or release of radioactivity from the reactor on board?
Not sure why people continue to believe that building a boat load of new nuke plants is going to break our addiction to oil. Newsflash - oil is predominantly used to produce gasoline, not generate electricity. To break our addiction to oil, we first need electric frickin' vehicles. That problem needs to be solved first. Now granted, all those electric vehicles are probably going to require new power capacity (although not as much as one might think if most vehicles are charged overnight - which is when many baseload plants decrease power level), and nuclear can fill that bill nicely, but there is no direct correlation such that "more nuke plants = less oil dependency", which is what was implied.
Seems like you guys need to take a real hard look at the Federal Acquistion Regulation. There are clauses in there which should protect you from such robbery. Bottom line as I read things in there is that contractors do have some rights to the software, but those rights must be explicitly granted by the government in written form.
Insomniacs interested in following up should take a look at the Federal Acquistion Regulation Guide - Subpart 27.4- "Rights in Data and Copyrights" and Section 52.227-14 "Rights in Data - General"
Slashdot Mirror
Well since the Ronald Reagan is a nuclear-powered ship itself, I am guessing that the political angle has nothing to do with it. If I am captain of a nuclear powered vessel, chances are I understand the consequences of hanging out downstream of a radioactive plume. 1) there is no reason to expose oneself to any radioactive contamination, no matter how inconsequential. 2) If my ship gets contaminated with radioactive particulates, how do I now distinguish that from contamination that might come about from a mishandling of radioactive material on ship or release of radioactivity from the reactor on board?
I'm not impressed until it can run faster than a cheetah
Not sure why people continue to believe that building a boat load of new nuke plants is going to break our addiction to oil. Newsflash - oil is predominantly used to produce gasoline, not generate electricity. To break our addiction to oil, we first need electric frickin' vehicles. That problem needs to be solved first. Now granted, all those electric vehicles are probably going to require new power capacity (although not as much as one might think if most vehicles are charged overnight - which is when many baseload plants decrease power level), and nuclear can fill that bill nicely, but there is no direct correlation such that "more nuke plants = less oil dependency", which is what was implied.
Seems like you guys need to take a real hard look at the Federal Acquistion Regulation. There are clauses in there which should protect you from such robbery. Bottom line as I read things in there is that contractors do have some rights to the software, but those rights must be explicitly granted by the government in written form. Insomniacs interested in following up should take a look at the Federal Acquistion Regulation Guide - Subpart 27.4- "Rights in Data and Copyrights" and Section 52.227-14 "Rights in Data - General"