And this would conceivably create the situation where a private citizen in a dispute with another citizen could compel him to do the old James Bond villain monologue where he outlines everything with a fucking cherry on top and then the judge throws it out as inadmissible.
Actually when private citizens do that sort of stuff it's not thrown out as inadmissible unless they were doing it at the behest of the police. If I break into your house of my own accord and discover your pot grow operation/collection of body parts/captive sex slaves I can report what I've seen to the police and the evidence is admissible. If the police suggest that I should break into your house to discover this evidence then it won't be admissible.
I might wind up getting charged with breaking and entering and/or trespassing but that doesn't change the fact that you'll be going to jail.
Cell phones can still only record one side, and it's a hassle (and hardly possible to turn on quietly).
Huh? I bought a $12 phone recorder at radio shack that plugs into the headset port on my cell phone. The other end plugs into a tape recorder or sound card. It records both sides of the call and isn't disrupt the call any more than plugging in a regular headset would.
These days the cops make all sorts of spurious charges and the DA plea bargains the charges down. I'll bet he pays a few huundred bucks fine for a misdemeanor.
That's not a real improvement. Even a misdemeanor record will hurt your employment viability/ability to get a security clearance/ability to get a concealed carry permit (in some states)/ability to get professional licenses/etc/etc.
When I got charged with felonies I didn't commit they offered me a plea bargain down to a misdemeanor. I told them to go to hell (actually my lawyer did but that's another matter) and fought it all the way to the Grand Jury that refused to indict me. Cost me a lot more money but at least I came out of it without a criminal record.
If you HATE that your state is on that list, get it changed!
Or just ignore the law and get away with doing so because your violation of the law provided convenient political ammo for somebody. Linda Tripp was never prosecuted for recording her phone calls with Monica Lewinsky, even though she made those recordings without her knowledge in a two party (Maryland) state.
See, the problem with AC's is I don't know if I'm arguing with the original loser or a new one. I guess I'll have to settle for telling you to kiss my ass and hoping that you are the original one. If so then I guess I'm just so awesome that you had to come back for more abuse:)
No, I'm saying it's stupid to argue about the wisdom of "re-arming" them when we've already done so. Unless they obtained the Aegis combat system, F-15, F-16, M-16, M-1, Patriot, etc all on their own. In which case we should sue them for patent infringement;)
I'd say you missed the boat. Japan is already re-armed. Other than the US and a handful of NATO members they have the most powerful Navy and Air Force in the World. They could become a nuclear power almost overnight if they made the decision to do so. The only thing Japan is lacking is the political will to flex it's military muscle to protect/advance it's national interests.
I don't know why you are worried about them. A lot of their weapons systems and military technology came from us. This means that we know what the capabilities of their systems are and they rely on us for spare parts/technical assistance. The major issue with Japan openly using her military power is that it would scare the crap out of the Chinese and Koreans and likely lead to an Asian arms race. She isn't a threat to the United States though.
You aren't even remotely objective if you are going to make such a simplistic statement. If nuclear material will "kill you now" then I suggest you immediately remove all the smoke detectors from your home, stay away from any granite structures, ditch any firearms that you own with tritium night sights and try to cure your next cancer diagnosis with prayer.
It's funny that you felt the need to compose that rant when I didn't actually say anything to indicate that I opposed the bailouts. I was just bemoaning the fact that we can't find $3,000,000,000 more per year for NASA (the amount that the report said would be required to reach the moon) but we can spend many times that on bailouts, pork, weapon systems that DoD doesn't even want, etc, etc.
Of course now that you mention it, what do you suppose will happen to those life savings that were "saved" by the bailouts when our currency tanks? The Fed has created billions of dollars out of thin air. Congress and the President continue to run the Federal Government deeper into the hole every year. Eventually those two factors are going to catch up to us and god help us all when those chickens come home to roost.
Two additional, greater risks that nuclear and hydro power present to the environment is the risk of terrorism. One can theorize that wind and solar power could have harmful effects on their local environments, but it would be on the order of roads or power lines. It would not be on the order of Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. Or that scene we see of the Hoover Dam crumbling in every freakin' movie that comes close to the Hoover Dam, ever.
C'mon, now they are using the 'T' word against hydro? Really? Hoover Dam is essentially a huge chunk of reinforced concrete. The last thing I'm worried about is seeing it crumble after a terrorist attack. I suppose you could sabotage it from within if you could buy off the right people but destroying it from the outside? Doesn't seem very likely.
Likewise with nuclear plants. How do you attack a nuclear power plant? You aren't doing it with hijacked airliners. Never mind the containment building -- you aren't going to be able to hijack an airliner in the post 9/11 world. The passengers won't stand by and allow it to happen. So how do you do it? Ground assault? Good luck with that -- they all have well equipped security forces and backup is but a phone call away.
I'm surprised you got upmodded when you invoked the 'T' word to condemn something around here. Usually Slashdotters are smarter than that.
I don't care how high the consumption rate is for a given reactor, eventually there will be waste, and it will be extremely hazardous to humans and it has to go somewhere.
More hazardous than billions of tons of CO2 we are releasing every year? More hazardous than the radioactive fly ash generated in coal power plants? More hazardous than the chemicals used by the petrochemical industry?
Everything is a trade off. If you accept the fact that human civilization isn't going anywhere and that standards of living are going to continue to rise then you have to acknowledge that the energy we need has to come from somewhere. Nuclear seems to represent a pretty good trade off, IMHO anyway.
Sounds like an argument for getting the Government out of the business of funding research altogether. You can either accept Governmental money and the political strings that go along with it or you can stake it out on your own and accept that you'll have less funding but more freedom of action.
Personally I don't think politics has any business in science and I had to laugh when Obama was bragging about how he "took the politics out of science" by giving more Federal money to researchers. When has the Federal Government ever given away so much as a penny without politics entering the equation?
but that pales in comparison to the billions that are payed to the shareholders in dividends.
That's the part that's always amused me about people clamoring for a windfall profits tax or even just the griping about "big oil" in general. Do you have a 401(k)? Does it contain mutual funds? If the answer is the former is yes then the answer to the latter is almost certainly yes, in which case you are an owner of "big oil" and reap benefits from their profits.
or what happens whey then start fighting over claims up there,
Then some lawyers get really rich. What do you think happens when companies start fighting over claims right here on planet Earth? They settle it with fancy suits and checks, not firepower......
Shucks, where will I be if you don't read what I wrote?
It's an accurate term. The lunatic fringe of the environmentalist movement won't be happy until we revert to a stone-age society or cease to exist altogether.
And yet the French of all people have managed to overcome both of those concerns. Why is reprocessing nuclear "waste" into nuclear fuel such a security risk anyway? It's really more of a risk than storing the waste on site? Really?
The New York State Power Authority runs such a plant. Many years ago you used to be able to tour the whole thing (I have a photo somewhere of myself in front of one of the turbines) but I think nowadays you are limited to a visitors center.
That's a great energy storage scheme and would integrate well with nuclear for the base load. Fill the upper reservoir during off-peak hours from nuclear and drain it during peak hours to supply the demand over and beyond the base load. Now you've got an electricity supply that can meet both base and peak loads without resorting to carbon based sources to meet the peak demand (natural gas is the most popular fuel for this purpose right now).
The problem most environmentalists have isn't with nuclear power in theory. It is nuclear power in practice. They are expensive, dangerous, with long term problems to resolve
Environmentalists don't give a damn about how "expensive" an energy source is. If they did they wouldn't be pushing cap and tax^Wtrade as hard as they are. Nuclear power isn't regarded as "dangerous" to anybody outside of the Greenpeace and NIMBY/BANANA fringe. The long term problems that you speak of could have been resolved in the 70s if Ford and Carter had planned for the future instead of abandoning reprocessing technology.
No. That's the problem, how can we expect for-profit entities to solve expensive long-term problems truthfully when its cheap and easy to ignore them.
Remove the political roadblocks to reprocessing and require that they recycle/reprocess a large percentage of their fuel as a condition of granting their operating license. Private industry will come up with a solution if they have the incentive to do so. Right now they have no incentive because Washington won't let them do anything with it other than store it on site in giant casks.
Or we could use the technology that we know works instead of investing in your ideas that have no existing economic infrastructure or history of successful deployment.
Seriously, build batteries? That's your bright idea? Why don't you stop and think about the environmental impact of building enough batteries to store millions of megawatt hours worth of electricty. Even if we invent a better battery chemistry that results in a massive increase of energy density there's no way that will scale in an environmentally friendly manner.
Slashdot Mirror
And this would conceivably create the situation where a private citizen in a dispute with another citizen could compel him to do the old James Bond villain monologue where he outlines everything with a fucking cherry on top and then the judge throws it out as inadmissible.
Actually when private citizens do that sort of stuff it's not thrown out as inadmissible unless they were doing it at the behest of the police. If I break into your house of my own accord and discover your pot grow operation/collection of body parts/captive sex slaves I can report what I've seen to the police and the evidence is admissible. If the police suggest that I should break into your house to discover this evidence then it won't be admissible.
I might wind up getting charged with breaking and entering and/or trespassing but that doesn't change the fact that you'll be going to jail.
Because it's controlled by lawyers, politicians, and the wealthy.
Why'd you waste your time typing out all three words when any one by itself would have covered it?
Cell phones can still only record one side, and it's a hassle (and hardly possible to turn on quietly).
Huh? I bought a $12 phone recorder at radio shack that plugs into the headset port on my cell phone. The other end plugs into a tape recorder or sound card. It records both sides of the call and isn't disrupt the call any more than plugging in a regular headset would.
These days the cops make all sorts of spurious charges and the DA plea bargains the charges down. I'll bet he pays a few huundred bucks fine for a misdemeanor.
That's not a real improvement. Even a misdemeanor record will hurt your employment viability/ability to get a security clearance/ability to get a concealed carry permit (in some states)/ability to get professional licenses/etc/etc.
When I got charged with felonies I didn't commit they offered me a plea bargain down to a misdemeanor. I told them to go to hell (actually my lawyer did but that's another matter) and fought it all the way to the Grand Jury that refused to indict me. Cost me a lot more money but at least I came out of it without a criminal record.
If you HATE that your state is on that list, get it changed!
Or just ignore the law and get away with doing so because your violation of the law provided convenient political ammo for somebody. Linda Tripp was never prosecuted for recording her phone calls with Monica Lewinsky, even though she made those recordings without her knowledge in a two party (Maryland) state.
See, the problem with AC's is I don't know if I'm arguing with the original loser or a new one. I guess I'll have to settle for telling you to kiss my ass and hoping that you are the original one. If so then I guess I'm just so awesome that you had to come back for more abuse :)
No, I'm saying it's stupid to argue about the wisdom of "re-arming" them when we've already done so. Unless they obtained the Aegis combat system, F-15, F-16, M-16, M-1, Patriot, etc all on their own. In which case we should sue them for patent infringement ;)
Uhhh, like this: "if the US is doing it and says it's for civilian purposes, then we're going to do it and say it's for civilian purposes".
Isn't that what the IAEA exists for? I wouldn't have a problem with them inspecting civilian power plants here in the States.
I'd say you missed the boat. Japan is already re-armed. Other than the US and a handful of NATO members they have the most powerful Navy and Air Force in the World. They could become a nuclear power almost overnight if they made the decision to do so. The only thing Japan is lacking is the political will to flex it's military muscle to protect/advance it's national interests.
I don't know why you are worried about them. A lot of their weapons systems and military technology came from us. This means that we know what the capabilities of their systems are and they rely on us for spare parts/technical assistance. The major issue with Japan openly using her military power is that it would scare the crap out of the Chinese and Koreans and likely lead to an Asian arms race. She isn't a threat to the United States though.
No, I don't, because my statement is accurate and his is trolling.
Now bugger off and go back to your Mom's basement. I think I heard her yelling that your hot pockets are done.
Nuclear material will kill you now.
You aren't even remotely objective if you are going to make such a simplistic statement. If nuclear material will "kill you now" then I suggest you immediately remove all the smoke detectors from your home, stay away from any granite structures, ditch any firearms that you own with tritium night sights and try to cure your next cancer diagnosis with prayer.
It's funny that you felt the need to compose that rant when I didn't actually say anything to indicate that I opposed the bailouts. I was just bemoaning the fact that we can't find $3,000,000,000 more per year for NASA (the amount that the report said would be required to reach the moon) but we can spend many times that on bailouts, pork, weapon systems that DoD doesn't even want, etc, etc.
Of course now that you mention it, what do you suppose will happen to those life savings that were "saved" by the bailouts when our currency tanks? The Fed has created billions of dollars out of thin air. Congress and the President continue to run the Federal Government deeper into the hole every year. Eventually those two factors are going to catch up to us and god help us all when those chickens come home to roost.
The US does NOT have even close to the best supplies of nuclear fuel. Canada and Australia actually have the largest supplies of uranium.
I'm not real worried about either of those places refusing to do business with us in the future ;)
Two additional, greater risks that nuclear and hydro power present to the environment is the risk of terrorism. One can theorize that wind and solar power could have harmful effects on their local environments, but it would be on the order of roads or power lines. It would not be on the order of Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. Or that scene we see of the Hoover Dam crumbling in every freakin' movie that comes close to the Hoover Dam, ever.
C'mon, now they are using the 'T' word against hydro? Really? Hoover Dam is essentially a huge chunk of reinforced concrete. The last thing I'm worried about is seeing it crumble after a terrorist attack. I suppose you could sabotage it from within if you could buy off the right people but destroying it from the outside? Doesn't seem very likely.
Likewise with nuclear plants. How do you attack a nuclear power plant? You aren't doing it with hijacked airliners. Never mind the containment building -- you aren't going to be able to hijack an airliner in the post 9/11 world. The passengers won't stand by and allow it to happen. So how do you do it? Ground assault? Good luck with that -- they all have well equipped security forces and backup is but a phone call away.
I'm surprised you got upmodded when you invoked the 'T' word to condemn something around here. Usually Slashdotters are smarter than that.
I don't care how high the consumption rate is for a given reactor, eventually there will be waste, and it will be extremely hazardous to humans and it has to go somewhere.
More hazardous than billions of tons of CO2 we are releasing every year? More hazardous than the radioactive fly ash generated in coal power plants? More hazardous than the chemicals used by the petrochemical industry?
Everything is a trade off. If you accept the fact that human civilization isn't going anywhere and that standards of living are going to continue to rise then you have to acknowledge that the energy we need has to come from somewhere. Nuclear seems to represent a pretty good trade off, IMHO anyway.
Sounds like an argument for getting the Government out of the business of funding research altogether. You can either accept Governmental money and the political strings that go along with it or you can stake it out on your own and accept that you'll have less funding but more freedom of action.
Personally I don't think politics has any business in science and I had to laugh when Obama was bragging about how he "took the politics out of science" by giving more Federal money to researchers. When has the Federal Government ever given away so much as a penny without politics entering the equation?
but that pales in comparison to the billions that are payed to the shareholders in dividends.
That's the part that's always amused me about people clamoring for a windfall profits tax or even just the griping about "big oil" in general. Do you have a 401(k)? Does it contain mutual funds? If the answer is the former is yes then the answer to the latter is almost certainly yes, in which case you are an owner of "big oil" and reap benefits from their profits.
If only NASA was too big to fail......
or what happens whey then start fighting over claims up there,
Then some lawyers get really rich. What do you think happens when companies start fighting over claims right here on planet Earth? They settle it with fancy suits and checks, not firepower......
Those moonrocks were obviously fabrications of a global Illuminati/Jewish/Freemason/Scientologist/Cowboyneal conspiracy. Everybody knows that ;)
Shucks, where will I be if you don't read what I wrote?
It's an accurate term. The lunatic fringe of the environmentalist movement won't be happy until we revert to a stone-age society or cease to exist altogether.
And yet the French of all people have managed to overcome both of those concerns. Why is reprocessing nuclear "waste" into nuclear fuel such a security risk anyway? It's really more of a risk than storing the waste on site? Really?
The New York State Power Authority runs such a plant. Many years ago you used to be able to tour the whole thing (I have a photo somewhere of myself in front of one of the turbines) but I think nowadays you are limited to a visitors center.
That's a great energy storage scheme and would integrate well with nuclear for the base load. Fill the upper reservoir during off-peak hours from nuclear and drain it during peak hours to supply the demand over and beyond the base load. Now you've got an electricity supply that can meet both base and peak loads without resorting to carbon based sources to meet the peak demand (natural gas is the most popular fuel for this purpose right now).
The problem most environmentalists have isn't with nuclear power in theory. It is nuclear power in practice. They are expensive, dangerous, with long term problems to resolve
Environmentalists don't give a damn about how "expensive" an energy source is. If they did they wouldn't be pushing cap and tax^Wtrade as hard as they are. Nuclear power isn't regarded as "dangerous" to anybody outside of the Greenpeace and NIMBY/BANANA fringe. The long term problems that you speak of could have been resolved in the 70s if Ford and Carter had planned for the future instead of abandoning reprocessing technology.
No. That's the problem, how can we expect for-profit entities to solve expensive long-term problems truthfully when its cheap and easy to ignore them.
Remove the political roadblocks to reprocessing and require that they recycle/reprocess a large percentage of their fuel as a condition of granting their operating license. Private industry will come up with a solution if they have the incentive to do so. Right now they have no incentive because Washington won't let them do anything with it other than store it on site in giant casks.
Or we could use the technology that we know works instead of investing in your ideas that have no existing economic infrastructure or history of successful deployment.
Seriously, build batteries? That's your bright idea? Why don't you stop and think about the environmental impact of building enough batteries to store millions of megawatt hours worth of electricty. Even if we invent a better battery chemistry that results in a massive increase of energy density there's no way that will scale in an environmentally friendly manner.