Or, maybe, if regulations had not prevented the building of new nuclear power
Regulations aren't preventing new plants from being built. The unjustifiable cost of nuclear power is. Just ask a brutalized DAPL protestor, or a fisherman bankrupted by the Deep Horizon oil spill how many shits the government gives about people, the environment or regulations when there's a company wanting to make some money. But nuclear power is far to expensive for even politicians who burn billions on the F-35 trash heap to consider.
Don't like it? Name the nuclear plant that rolls the complete cost of material mining, refining, plant construction, security, maintenance, insurance, disaster preparedness, decommissioning, and thousands of years of waste storage into the rates it charges to its customers. Of course such a plant is a unicorn.
all those reactors at Fukushima could have been replaced with new ones
Constantly building and decommissioning is going to do wonders for the negative cost effectiveness of nuclear power. And you want them to do it without having to worry about regulations. What could possibly go wrong?
Then why is Japan restarting half of it's fleet of nuclear reactors and starting construction on new ones?
Why did Obama let bankers continue to run the economy they just crashed rather than prosecuting them? Because they're corrupt AF. Same goes for TEPCO and the government of Japan - pretty much every word out of their incestious mouthes about Fukushima has been a lie.
Angel upthread had a link to an Independent piece that argues the plant was doomed, with or without the tsunami. TEPCO was so half-assed with their maintenance that the earthquake took out the cooling pipes, making meltdown inevitable.
An a line often repeated, but wind and solar generating capacity would be spaced across the grid, same as you would for coal or nuclear power. You wouldn't use a single wind farm to power a state any more than with a single coal or nuclear plant.
at least without some energy storage mechanism
Like the Ludington Pumped Storage Power Plant? Excess power is stored in offpeak times - from a nuclear power plant - by pumping water into an artificial reservoir, then let out as needed for hydroelectric generation.
Other than the link to an Intercept piece showing that the source of your link is a propaganda rag. See, this is why you never go Full Russiaphobe - it makes you say stupid shit.
Consider yourself disregarded and irrelevant. Keep posting though after all it's your job.
Uh huh. Do let us know when you have more evidence than the Birthers, Chem Trailers and Anti-vaxxers have for their bullshit theories.
You mean at the end of their shift? You can drive on the road non-stop for 10-12 hours in most places in north america, that's 100% legal. You're not even required to take 30 minutes off half-way through your shift if you want, you can just keep driving. You have no idea exactly what happens in that industry do you.
California - which accounts for many of Tesla's preorders - isn't "most places" and requires breaks for truck drivers. Now, since you were so busy being an ignorant, arrogant know-it-all that you skipped over the point on range-wankery (most likely on purpose) I'll copy and paste:
What's with the "one-size-must-fit-all" meme when it comes to EV's? Do you call a Prius worthless because it can't haul fifteen passengers while at the same time towing an 8,000 lbs trailer? Do you call an E-350 worthless because it can't park in the same space (while getting the same gas milage) as a Prius?
If you're going to be a good capitalist bootlicker and hook yourself up with a catheter so you can drive 14 hours straight without stopping, then this probably isn't the rig for you. For people who aren't corporatist toadies, it will work just fine when they stop for a burger after 8 hours on the road.
It was left-leaning governments that allowed longer driving hours
Bootlicker, you know Carter was a right winger, yes? Party labels have jack to do with how "left" or "right" someone is - otherwise gay rights, gun control and abortion rights are prized conservative values, because Mike Bloomberg.
This is from a NA perspective, but first problem, the average driving day is 10h-12hrs. That makes the vehicles already less then the average driving range.
Which is easily taken care of if the driver takes their legally required breaks at a charging station. But even if they didn't....what's with the "one-size-must-fit-all" meme when it comes to EV's? Do you call a Prius worthless because it can't haul fifteen passengers while at the same time towing an 8,000 lbs trailer? Do you call an E-350 worthless because it can't park in the same space (while getting the same gas milage) as a Prius?
Copyright infringement actually takes away a measure of the exclusivity of control
Which is why it's called copyright infringement. Because you are infringing on someone else's time-limited right to the the sole source of authorized copies of a work.
Another easy test of this: go to any person or media company who's ever claimed to have been the victim of copyright infringement. Then ask them how much they reported to the police or their insurance companies for theft. That number is going to be zero.
Because copyright infringement is not theft. Never has been, never will be.
...regurgitating talking points debunked earlier this week. Although at least this time you're not complaining about the high cost of nuclear power coming from government regulation. Maybe because it was pointed out that a couple hundred million in extra costs from regulation (higher seawall and better backup cooling power) could have saved Japan a couple hundred billion in cleanup costs?
But we can't have nuclear power because
Because the cost can never be justified. Didn't seem to pick up on that one.
But we can't have nuclear power because we have what has been proven to be a non-issue while we keep burning coal
Coal and nuclear are non sequiturs when wind and solar have lapped them in cost effectiveness, and thats allowing coal and nuclear to externalize most of their costs. Like offloading nuclear plant decommission and waste storage onto taxpayers.
I believe I explained above how copyright infringement is theft.
But they're not. Not even remotely close. Just think about it for two seconds: if I steal your car that you have put up for sale, what have you lost: your car. You can no longer sell it. But what if I make a perfect copy of your car and start driving it - from thousands of miles away. You haven't lost anything that wasn't already in your possession.
Which is not to say that copyright infringement - a time limited right to exclusive duplication of works - isn't a violation of the law. It's saying it's not theft, never has been, and never will be. You don't go around insisting that arson is theft because it "deprives" someone of a possession, do you?
Your post implies that once you are employed, appointed, or elected to the government you are immune from treason charges.
Where was that, exactly.
I am so pro-gun gun my brain has ceased to function logically.
FTFY
as any government willing to violate the constitution in a flagrant enough manner to rile up the 2nd amendment loving crowd so much that they march on their own politicians would not give two shits about trials, evidence, attorneys, etc.
Except that crowd is the worst bunch of bed-wetting tough guys on the planet. Talk a good game right up until its time to put their necks on the line, in which case their shit is immediately lost.
Now, back to the point. The Constitution completely and unequivocally calls bullshit on the gun cultist storyline about the 2nd being about giving citizens the right to fight their government with force.
Coupla ways..being able to easily buy/trade the exact cards you want on the secondary market or sell your extra cards to recoup some of your costs. And the publisher not being able to jack up the odds of you completing a set because they know exactly what you already have.
...as opposed to pay-to-win DLC. And there's no way for Magic to know how close you are to completing a set and making your remaining items much harder to find....which would be trivial to do for EA.
So lets say Battlefront II was a card game, and you had a 1-3 chance of each card set containing a Kyber Crystal, or a Star Forge Robe, or a Circlet of Saresh. You have an equal chance of finding each item, and you can trade/sell to complete this particular loot set. As opposed to EA's game where, after finding the robe and the circlet, they jack up the odds of finding the crystal to 1 chance in 200.
So Magic had a predatory system set up - but EA's is on another level entirely.
Why - 1st Amendment heads off any slippery slope concerns on content regulation, at least in the U.S.
As for the general fear of regulation - wanting less regulation for the sake of it is as sensible as wanting maximum regulation for the sake of it. DLC is obnoxious enough without paying real-world cash for something that turns out to be in-game crap.
It is *also* true that unions become self-serving predators as well. It is unfortunate, but inescapable, given that everyone involved in a union has the same "I want more for me" incentives that the greedy employers have.
Except it's not the same as the union is far more dependent on the long-term success of the company than the greedy executive. The exec can cash out by gutting the company that will result in its failure in a few years, but generate short term profits, collecting his bonuses & selling his shares before the company goes Chapter 11. Not so much for the union workers.
boilterplate Hatorade is boilerplate. Only variation in your fairy tale is the use of the first person, as opposed to my girlfriend's-borther's-roomates's-uncle's perspective.
Actually, I've always thought that a fairly good argument can be made that it is stealing
Impossible as they are entirely different categories of crimes. May as well try and equate speeding and arson, as they both involve property and breaking the law.
And the Amendment was specifically for enabling the overthrow of a tyrannical government
Which has specifically been nonsense. The Constitution defines treason as making war on the government, and allows Congress to suspend habeas corpus in times of rebellion or invasion. Meaning, if the gun cultists try and use the 2nd Amendment how they think it was meant to be used, the government can arrest them all without warrants and then hang them for treason.
You've omitted another important argument in favor of the private possession of firearms: namely that a militia comprising armed citizens could defend the homeland in lieu of a standing army.
Don't need one. The U.S. has only ever had one real invasion and that was in response to a war it started in 1812. No, Japanese forces setting up shop on remote territory islands for strategic reasons is not a real invasion.
The U.S. doesn't need to protect itself from the rest of the world. The rest of the world needs protection from the U.S.
If you bother to look even further, and read the Federalist Papers (documents and thought by the founding fathers), you will clearly read that The Founding Fathers of the United States firmly believed it was the right and responsibility of every Citizen to stand against tyranny, and gun ownership was a necessary balance as the last step against a corrupt Government.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
If gun cultists ever try and use the 2nd Amendment the way they think it was meant to be used, the government will throw their asses in prison without a warrant, and if they get a trial, hung for treason.
Are you just a mere mortal, but you have possession of a flux capacitor and a vintage Delorean?
Don't need one. All you have to do is read the section on Treason and the part where Congress can suspend habeas corpus in the event of a rebellion, to realize anyone who says the 2nd Amendment is about being able to resist the government is full of shit.
Slashdot Mirror
Regulations aren't preventing new plants from being built. The unjustifiable cost of nuclear power is. Just ask a brutalized DAPL protestor, or a fisherman bankrupted by the Deep Horizon oil spill how many shits the government gives about people, the environment or regulations when there's a company wanting to make some money. But nuclear power is far to expensive for even politicians who burn billions on the F-35 trash heap to consider.
Don't like it? Name the nuclear plant that rolls the complete cost of material mining, refining, plant construction, security, maintenance, insurance, disaster preparedness, decommissioning, and thousands of years of waste storage into the rates it charges to its customers. Of course such a plant is a unicorn.
Constantly building and decommissioning is going to do wonders for the negative cost effectiveness of nuclear power. And you want them to do it without having to worry about regulations. What could possibly go wrong?
Why did Obama let bankers continue to run the economy they just crashed rather than prosecuting them? Because they're corrupt AF. Same goes for TEPCO and the government of Japan - pretty much every word out of their incestious mouthes about Fukushima has been a lie.
Angel upthread had a link to an Independent piece that argues the plant was doomed, with or without the tsunami. TEPCO was so half-assed with their maintenance that the earthquake took out the cooling pipes, making meltdown inevitable.
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
Fukushima cleanup costing nearly two hundred billion isn't a matter of "opinion".
That regulation can save enormous sums of money by preventing disasters like Fukushima isn't a matter of "opinion".
The high costs of plant decommission and nuclear waste being offloaded onto taxpayers isn't a matter of "opinion".
You first, dipshit.
An a line often repeated, but wind and solar generating capacity would be spaced across the grid, same as you would for coal or nuclear power. You wouldn't use a single wind farm to power a state any more than with a single coal or nuclear plant.
Like the Ludington Pumped Storage Power Plant? Excess power is stored in offpeak times - from a nuclear power plant - by pumping water into an artificial reservoir, then let out as needed for hydroelectric generation.
Other than the link to an Intercept piece showing that the source of your link is a propaganda rag. See, this is why you never go Full Russiaphobe - it makes you say stupid shit.
Uh huh. Do let us know when you have more evidence than the Birthers, Chem Trailers and Anti-vaxxers have for their bullshit theories.
Eh.
Vi.
Dense.
California - which accounts for many of Tesla's preorders - isn't "most places" and requires breaks for truck drivers. Now, since you were so busy being an ignorant, arrogant know-it-all that you skipped over the point on range-wankery (most likely on purpose) I'll copy and paste:
What's with the "one-size-must-fit-all" meme when it comes to EV's? Do you call a Prius worthless because it can't haul fifteen passengers while at the same time towing an 8,000 lbs trailer? Do you call an E-350 worthless because it can't park in the same space (while getting the same gas milage) as a Prius?
If you're going to be a good capitalist bootlicker and hook yourself up with a catheter so you can drive 14 hours straight without stopping, then this probably isn't the rig for you. For people who aren't corporatist toadies, it will work just fine when they stop for a burger after 8 hours on the road.
Bootlicker, you know Carter was a right winger, yes? Party labels have jack to do with how "left" or "right" someone is - otherwise gay rights, gun control and abortion rights are prized conservative values, because Mike Bloomberg.
Which is easily taken care of if the driver takes their legally required breaks at a charging station. But even if they didn't....what's with the "one-size-must-fit-all" meme when it comes to EV's? Do you call a Prius worthless because it can't haul fifteen passengers while at the same time towing an 8,000 lbs trailer? Do you call an E-350 worthless because it can't park in the same space (while getting the same gas milage) as a Prius?
Which is why it's called copyright infringement. Because you are infringing on someone else's time-limited right to the the sole source of authorized copies of a work.
Another easy test of this: go to any person or media company who's ever claimed to have been the victim of copyright infringement. Then ask them how much they reported to the police or their insurance companies for theft. That number is going to be zero.
Because copyright infringement is not theft. Never has been, never will be.
...regurgitating talking points debunked earlier this week. Although at least this time you're not complaining about the high cost of nuclear power coming from government regulation. Maybe because it was pointed out that a couple hundred million in extra costs from regulation (higher seawall and better backup cooling power) could have saved Japan a couple hundred billion in cleanup costs?
Because the cost can never be justified. Didn't seem to pick up on that one.
Coal and nuclear are non sequiturs when wind and solar have lapped them in cost effectiveness, and thats allowing coal and nuclear to externalize most of their costs. Like offloading nuclear plant decommission and waste storage onto taxpayers.
You sure can! You can also make non-sequiturs.
Which has what to do with the subject at hand: gun nuts who think the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to resist their government with firearms.
But they're not. Not even remotely close. Just think about it for two seconds: if I steal your car that you have put up for sale, what have you lost: your car. You can no longer sell it. But what if I make a perfect copy of your car and start driving it - from thousands of miles away. You haven't lost anything that wasn't already in your possession.
Which is not to say that copyright infringement - a time limited right to exclusive duplication of works - isn't a violation of the law. It's saying it's not theft, never has been, and never will be. You don't go around insisting that arson is theft because it "deprives" someone of a possession, do you?
Where was that, exactly.
FTFY
Except that crowd is the worst bunch of bed-wetting tough guys on the planet. Talk a good game right up until its time to put their necks on the line, in which case their shit is immediately lost.
Now, back to the point. The Constitution completely and unequivocally calls bullshit on the gun cultist storyline about the 2nd being about giving citizens the right to fight their government with force.
Coupla ways..being able to easily buy/trade the exact cards you want on the secondary market or sell your extra cards to recoup some of your costs. And the publisher not being able to jack up the odds of you completing a set because they know exactly what you already have.
...as opposed to pay-to-win DLC. And there's no way for Magic to know how close you are to completing a set and making your remaining items much harder to find....which would be trivial to do for EA.
So lets say Battlefront II was a card game, and you had a 1-3 chance of each card set containing a Kyber Crystal, or a Star Forge Robe, or a Circlet of Saresh. You have an equal chance of finding each item, and you can trade/sell to complete this particular loot set. As opposed to EA's game where, after finding the robe and the circlet, they jack up the odds of finding the crystal to 1 chance in 200.
So Magic had a predatory system set up - but EA's is on another level entirely.
Why - 1st Amendment heads off any slippery slope concerns on content regulation, at least in the U.S.
As for the general fear of regulation - wanting less regulation for the sake of it is as sensible as wanting maximum regulation for the sake of it. DLC is obnoxious enough without paying real-world cash for something that turns out to be in-game crap.
1) there is some skill in using the toy grabber to get something, it's not pure random chance and 2) you can see what it is you are trying to get.
Loot boxes are random chance and you don't know if you're getting a +10 Sword of Destiny or a poop emoji.
Except it's not the same as the union is far more dependent on the long-term success of the company than the greedy executive. The exec can cash out by gutting the company that will result in its failure in a few years, but generate short term profits, collecting his bonuses & selling his shares before the company goes Chapter 11. Not so much for the union workers.
boilterplate Hatorade is boilerplate. Only variation in your fairy tale is the use of the first person, as opposed to my girlfriend's-borther's-roomates's-uncle's perspective.
Impossible as they are entirely different categories of crimes. May as well try and equate speeding and arson, as they both involve property and breaking the law.
Which has specifically been nonsense. The Constitution defines treason as making war on the government, and allows Congress to suspend habeas corpus in times of rebellion or invasion. Meaning, if the gun cultists try and use the 2nd Amendment how they think it was meant to be used, the government can arrest them all without warrants and then hang them for treason.
One has nothing to do with the other.
Don't need one. The U.S. has only ever had one real invasion and that was in response to a war it started in 1812. No, Japanese forces setting up shop on remote territory islands for strategic reasons is not a real invasion.
The U.S. doesn't need to protect itself from the rest of the world. The rest of the world needs protection from the U.S.
Except that's all gun nut bullshit. Article III, Section 3:
Article I, Section 9:
If gun cultists ever try and use the 2nd Amendment the way they think it was meant to be used, the government will throw their asses in prison without a warrant, and if they get a trial, hung for treason.
Don't need one. All you have to do is read the section on Treason and the part where Congress can suspend habeas corpus in the event of a rebellion, to realize anyone who says the 2nd Amendment is about being able to resist the government is full of shit.
Where, in an alternate universe where all muggers let you know in advance that they intend to rob you so you get your gun off?