Reactors five and six are in perfect shape and could be restarted today. That won't happen for political reasons, but there's no technical reason not to.
It depends on what standard they intend to apply at the forty year mark. A reasonable thing to do would be to look at current designs and current thinking on seismology to determine what kind of gap exists between the old design and a brand new one. If the gap is too large the plant would be replaced. It's impossible to tell from the article if that's what they have in mind, but I wouldn't be surprised.
That makes a lot of sense. Plant and reactor design has changed a whole lot over the last forty years, and not every new safety system can be retrofitted.
If it was YOUR credit card, or your wife's, or child's (if you are older) then you would want your state to take action.
Sure. I'd want the state to do what it takes to stop him, just like I want them to stop bank robbers and shoplifters.
To me it seems that your political views about "funding in a post 9/11 political environment" has overriden your human empathy.
No, not really. I recognize bureaucrats twist language in an effort to get funding.
As in all such cases the best thing to do would be to put aside your political and worldviews for a while and ask yourself the very simple question, "What should be done if this happened to ME or MY FAMILY?".
"What should be done?" isn't the same question as "Is this terrorism?"
You or me in a garage somewhere will never be able to defend our patent anyway. Whatever we've discovered will be covered by one of IBM's or Microsoft's overly broad patents, and they'll sue us into bankruptcy.
You can still buy cars without all that junk, but you'll probably have to buy it over the internet. Your local dealer isn't going to stock something like that except to bring people in the door before upselling them. My friends laugh at my Corolla with its hand-cranked windows, but I haven't had to replace any switches or motors.
Two seaters end up costing you a fortune in the US because insurance companies assume you plan to drive them, well, like they're sports cars. That's why in the US the vast majority of cars intended to be sports cars are nominally four seaters.
My point is there's no reason for the government to restrict the use of drugs if the worry is the addict will break other laws. He can be prosecuted for breaking those other laws. That's not to say voluntary rehab isn't a good idea. It's just that I don't see the basis for society dictating what people can put in their bodies - there are a whole lot of drug users out there who never engage in theft and violence.
I'm not convinced raising the gas tax will be good for the economy. In fact I think it will be quite detrimental.
Also, as others have pointed out, if you have more than one child you can't fit the family in a small car any more because of child seat laws. My office mate at work tried it with his family and finally just gave up - the child seats take up the entire rear seat of an economy car, leaving no room whatsoever for diaper bags and strollers and whatever else people with families lug around.
I get the distinct impression most of the people commenting on this article don't have families.
I doubt you could legally sell the Civic VX in the US today. Cars are heavier as a result of new safety regulations and engines are less efficient because of pollution standards.
If they really worried about the poor, they would tax the hell out of gas and use the proceeds to fund mass transit.
I wonder about that. Where I live mass transit is heavily subsidized, more expensive than driving, and (as always) the transit agencies are broke and asking for more tax dollars.
Slashdot Mirror
Reactors five and six are in perfect shape and could be restarted today. That won't happen for political reasons, but there's no technical reason not to.
It depends on what standard they intend to apply at the forty year mark. A reasonable thing to do would be to look at current designs and current thinking on seismology to determine what kind of gap exists between the old design and a brand new one. If the gap is too large the plant would be replaced. It's impossible to tell from the article if that's what they have in mind, but I wouldn't be surprised.
That makes a lot of sense. Plant and reactor design has changed a whole lot over the last forty years, and not every new safety system can be retrofitted.
Forty years is too long.. based on what analysis?
Sure. I'd want the state to do what it takes to stop him, just like I want them to stop bank robbers and shoplifters.
No, not really. I recognize bureaucrats twist language in an effort to get funding.
"What should be done?" isn't the same question as "Is this terrorism?"
Uh huh. "Cyberterrorism" is a bullshit plea for funding in a post 9/11 political environment. It's not terrorism.
The goal of terrorism is, you now, terror, not "Aw crap, this is going to be a hassle."
If he's strangled by a hotel maid we'll know what happened.
Not that I'll, you know, shed a tear.
Government regulation, far from being "thrown out the window", is more overbearing than ever.
It's anathema to mainstream conservatives as well. Remember NCLB, was the product of both Ted Kennedy and George Bush.
You or me in a garage somewhere will never be able to defend our patent anyway. Whatever we've discovered will be covered by one of IBM's or Microsoft's overly broad patents, and they'll sue us into bankruptcy.
Clearly you haven't worked on a car made in the last twenty years.
You can still buy cars without all that junk, but you'll probably have to buy it over the internet. Your local dealer isn't going to stock something like that except to bring people in the door before upselling them. My friends laugh at my Corolla with its hand-cranked windows, but I haven't had to replace any switches or motors.
Two seaters end up costing you a fortune in the US because insurance companies assume you plan to drive them, well, like they're sports cars. That's why in the US the vast majority of cars intended to be sports cars are nominally four seaters.
Like what?
My point is there's no reason for the government to restrict the use of drugs if the worry is the addict will break other laws. He can be prosecuted for breaking those other laws. That's not to say voluntary rehab isn't a good idea. It's just that I don't see the basis for society dictating what people can put in their bodies - there are a whole lot of drug users out there who never engage in theft and violence.
I'm not convinced raising the gas tax will be good for the economy. In fact I think it will be quite detrimental.
Isn't criminal behavior already illegal?
Also, as others have pointed out, if you have more than one child you can't fit the family in a small car any more because of child seat laws. My office mate at work tried it with his family and finally just gave up - the child seats take up the entire rear seat of an economy car, leaving no room whatsoever for diaper bags and strollers and whatever else people with families lug around.
I get the distinct impression most of the people commenting on this article don't have families.
I doubt you could legally sell the Civic VX in the US today. Cars are heavier as a result of new safety regulations and engines are less efficient because of pollution standards.
Is there a shortage of whale oil?
Why does the government get involved when an addict chooses to take heroin?
I wonder about that. Where I live mass transit is heavily subsidized, more expensive than driving, and (as always) the transit agencies are broke and asking for more tax dollars.
This wouldn't be funny if it wasn't true.
Yes, that was my distinct impression.
Why don't you just turn your TV off?