The good news: the longer the half-life, the less dangerous it is by definition. If it has a long half-life then there are fewer decays per unit time, which means it's a more stable substance and less radioactive.
For what it's worth, the Trojan Nuclear Generating Station in the Pacific Northwest was a Westinghouse PWR that was retired before the NRC license expired, and has been mostly disposed of - the cooling tower was imploded, and the reactor vessel buried upriver at Hanford.
As for the cost questions, I have nothing. It was retired early due to Chernobyl-inspired hysteria in the early '90s, as well as some serious steam pipe degradation and corrosion which Westinghouse refused to warranty. Portland General Electric decided the public goodwill for shuttering it was worth more than the remaining 20+ years of operation, and now Oregon (and yes, Portland, the city that greenies love to point to) gets >50% of it's electricity from a coal plant in Boardman, OR.
I'd rather they take a long time to build and be expensive than be constructed in a slip-shod half-assed manner and have none of the safety and redundancy necessary when dealing with a controlled nuclear criticality...
If I'm not mistaken, a large chunk of the world's uranium imports come from Australia too. You're sitting on the fuel, yet the envirodouchebags won't let you use it.
So you're willing to do what 99.9% of the market Apple is aiming for isn't. Enjoy the product you purchase.
You aren't in the market demographic Apple is selling to, and that is perfectly fine. I don't understand why every device has to be perfect for every single person. It's a standard that no one will EVER live up to. Not Google, not Apple, not Microsoft, not Nokia, not anyone.
Apple does actually borrow money in the short term, and secure it against their cash reserves to get a better credit rate on the bond. As I understand it (IANACA - I am not a corporate accountant), it makes for easier accounting of capital projects versus expense projects in accordance with GAAP.
The other thing, is if you've been watching AAPL for any amount of time, they go up and down multiple dollars per day, but the overall trend is up, up, up.
This week might be a down week of 5%. Next week might be an up week of 8%. I think the smart investor is staying right where he's at, looking at the 6+ month trend line.
Don't forget about the solid fuel boosters that Shuttle uses.
Space exploration has been about taking warheads off missiles and putting humans and other equipment on them since the beginning. Even the Redstone missile used for the first Mercury flights were little more than a next-generation German V2, and was in active military service in West Germany since 1958; Alan B. Shepard, Jr. didn't go into space on one until 1961.
Because when you don't have anything to ship, and your competition does, you blow ambiguous press releases out your ass and hope that your engineering team can deliver.
In order to license something, the licensor needs to be willing to enter into an agreement. Don't be so sure that NetApp wants to do that, when they can sell overpriced filers to Apple's customers.
California isn't the only one going over concrete with asphalt / tarmac. The Oregon Department of Transportation just resurfaced the Stadium Freeway in Portland (I-405) with blacktop over the original 1960s-era concrete. They are currently doing the same thing with Interstate-84 in the East County / Gresham urban area.
The worst of both worlds - the settling effect of concrete combined with the low lifetime of tarmac.
Moving walkways are great in airports, where you have stuff you're carrying with you, and they are sheltered from weather.
Moving walkways outdoors, where sidewalks are supposed to be, would be a maintenance disaster; especially in a time where many states and municipalities are drowning in debt already.
Solution: tell them to shove it, and that the city isn't responsible for their business decisions which violate the terms of the franchise agreement.
They can either provide a proper solution, free of charge; or renegotiate the terms of the franchise agreement, so that you can really screw them with their pants on.
Because none of those choices are enough for the radicals in organizations such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, which actually influence policy. The choices you talk about are rational. The choices they want done are irrational, such as the complete removal of coal power without first building enough baseload generation to make up capacity (as all current tech for baseload generation is something they don't like).
The choice they want to present is the choice between what we have today, and the pre-Edison society of the 1870s.
If it's Mac OS X 10.6.x, you don't even n eed NTFS-3G, as the native NTFS driver has read / write capability. You just need to change the/etc/fstab entry for the volume to rw, and remount.
Slashdot Mirror
The good news: the longer the half-life, the less dangerous it is by definition. If it has a long half-life then there are fewer decays per unit time, which means it's a more stable substance and less radioactive.
For what it's worth, the Trojan Nuclear Generating Station in the Pacific Northwest was a Westinghouse PWR that was retired before the NRC license expired, and has been mostly disposed of - the cooling tower was imploded, and the reactor vessel buried upriver at Hanford.
As for the cost questions, I have nothing. It was retired early due to Chernobyl-inspired hysteria in the early '90s, as well as some serious steam pipe degradation and corrosion which Westinghouse refused to warranty. Portland General Electric decided the public goodwill for shuttering it was worth more than the remaining 20+ years of operation, and now Oregon (and yes, Portland, the city that greenies love to point to) gets >50% of it's electricity from a coal plant in Boardman, OR.
I'd rather they take a long time to build and be expensive than be constructed in a slip-shod half-assed manner and have none of the safety and redundancy necessary when dealing with a controlled nuclear criticality...
If I'm not mistaken, a large chunk of the world's uranium imports come from Australia too. You're sitting on the fuel, yet the envirodouchebags won't let you use it.
So you're willing to do what 99.9% of the market Apple is aiming for isn't. Enjoy the product you purchase.
You aren't in the market demographic Apple is selling to, and that is perfectly fine. I don't understand why every device has to be perfect for every single person. It's a standard that no one will EVER live up to. Not Google, not Apple, not Microsoft, not Nokia, not anyone.
Apple does actually borrow money in the short term, and secure it against their cash reserves to get a better credit rate on the bond. As I understand it (IANACA - I am not a corporate accountant), it makes for easier accounting of capital projects versus expense projects in accordance with GAAP.
The other thing, is if you've been watching AAPL for any amount of time, they go up and down multiple dollars per day, but the overall trend is up, up, up.
This week might be a down week of 5%. Next week might be an up week of 8%. I think the smart investor is staying right where he's at, looking at the 6+ month trend line.
Don't forget about the solid fuel boosters that Shuttle uses.
Space exploration has been about taking warheads off missiles and putting humans and other equipment on them since the beginning. Even the Redstone missile used for the first Mercury flights were little more than a next-generation German V2, and was in active military service in West Germany since 1958; Alan B. Shepard, Jr. didn't go into space on one until 1961.
Because when you don't have anything to ship, and your competition does, you blow ambiguous press releases out your ass and hope that your engineering team can deliver.
In order to license something, the licensor needs to be willing to enter into an agreement. Don't be so sure that NetApp wants to do that, when they can sell overpriced filers to Apple's customers.
In addition to getting reporting on this outside the regular gaming and tech media, but on the front page of BBC.com for $DEITY's sake.
This inflated to something they couldn't possibly control, so they ejected before crashing into the mountain.
Oh, you mean all the same things they tried with Ixtoc I, 30 years ago, which also didn't work then?
Yeah, that's some real R&D there. Well done.
California isn't the only one going over concrete with asphalt / tarmac. The Oregon Department of Transportation just resurfaced the Stadium Freeway in Portland (I-405) with blacktop over the original 1960s-era concrete. They are currently doing the same thing with Interstate-84 in the East County / Gresham urban area.
The worst of both worlds - the settling effect of concrete combined with the low lifetime of tarmac.
I'm sure it's not just me, but I go into convulsions any time I hear the terms "cyberspace", or even worse, the "information superhighway."
I think even about now, the phone books think that those terms are tired and obsolete.
In Soviet Russia, Codecs compare YOU!
(did I do it right?)
Moving walkways are great in airports, where you have stuff you're carrying with you, and they are sheltered from weather.
Moving walkways outdoors, where sidewalks are supposed to be, would be a maintenance disaster; especially in a time where many states and municipalities are drowning in debt already.
Get off your ass and walk.
Solution: tell them to shove it, and that the city isn't responsible for their business decisions which violate the terms of the franchise agreement.
They can either provide a proper solution, free of charge; or renegotiate the terms of the franchise agreement, so that you can really screw them with their pants on.
Because none of those choices are enough for the radicals in organizations such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, which actually influence policy. The choices you talk about are rational. The choices they want done are irrational, such as the complete removal of coal power without first building enough baseload generation to make up capacity (as all current tech for baseload generation is something they don't like).
The choice they want to present is the choice between what we have today, and the pre-Edison society of the 1870s.
I didn't say fstab.hd
I said /etc/fstab which does do something. It allows you to enable write access to NTFS volumes.
True, but the hope is that if we churn through enough half-wits and d-bags, we'll get a real candidate in there that we can keep.
I'm a big fan of them earning the right to represent us through doing a good job.
Well, Washington State University is already in the middle of nowhere so that's basically already done.
I find myself to be rabidly anti-incumbent because the current incumbents appear to be largely incompetent at making the proper choices.
This is not a new phenomenon of the last two, or four years. It's a chronic condition of the last 20+ years.
If it's Mac OS X 10.6.x, you don't even n eed NTFS-3G, as the native NTFS driver has read / write capability. You just need to change the /etc/fstab entry for the volume to rw, and remount.
with 10.6, the supplied NTFS driver can do read / write, but it's not supported by Apple. You just need to change it to RW in /etc/fstab.
Or even the piss-poor state of graphics drivers on OS X.