While the ease of delaying nuclear reactor construction and inefficiency/changing safety standards resulted in huge cost overruns, for actually generating power Nuclear is pretty cheap.
My point is not that "actually generating power is pretty cheap" because that completely ignores the rest of the costs.
The WPPS default was over two -billion- dollars that ended up being paid by customers, for plants that were never even built.
To make fair comparisons, you have to look at the capital costs over the -entire- life of the plant, including construction and de-commissioning.
Someone has to pay those costs and take the risks.
The OP wanted examples of serious mismanagement, I presented two real examples.
Nuclear is not any cheaper than coal, wind or solar. It may be a good idea, but don't fool yourself that it is cheap, clean, or immune to -colossal- management fuck-ups. You cannot just gloss over these issues, they are very real.
If you want me to care about a specific instance of mis-management, I'm going to have to see some numbers first.
Well, this particular case of (spectacular) mismanagement has nothing to do with radiation release, although this one does.
My beef with nuclear isn't so much the environmental issues, it is the financial issues. Nuclear is becoming relatively safe, but for the complete life-cycle of the plant (dirt lot to dirt lot), it is extremely expensive.
If you believe in open market solutions, nuclear just doesn't cut it. If you believe in -incredibly- huge subsidies, well...
Why don't I have the right to know the sex offenders who live around me? The reason megan's laws and similar legislation is passed is because when you stack up the privacy rights of a sex offender against the right of a parent to know who lives around them that is potentially dangerous, it's an easy decision for politicians to make. And an easy decision for me too.
I'll answer your question with a question.
Why just sex offenders?
The drunk drivers in your neighborhood are probably more of a threat to your children - and there are more of them.
What about burglars? Shouldn't you know about them as well? That football player was just murdered by burglars. Many burglaries also turn into rapes as a crime of opportunity - in for a penny, in for a pound.
You and your children are -surrounded- by the threat of crime. Not to downplay the seriousness of sexual assault, but many of the "sex offenders" on these lists are people who took a piss at the wrong place and the wrong time.
Seriously, why just sex offenders, but not other felons? It seems like your risk-assessment is a little skewed from reality...
I'm a parent as well, and the reality is that bad things happen to good people all of the time, that's life. The bottom line is you can take precautions, but there are no guarantees. If you think about it for a minute, that is a very scary thought when you are talking about your children.
But publicly branding criminals after they have served their time does more damage to society than it prevents, and singling out "sex offenders" has a proven track record of unfairly tarring the public urinators with the same brush as the violent rapists.
You bring up some points that, while I don't agree with you 100%, need to be brought into this discussion.
You see the statements that "current punishments aren't tough enough", or "there is no punishment tough enough". And when you are talking about a clear case of forcible rape, I lean that way.
The problem is that, as you stated, "any and all child sex activity is automatically considered a rape and a tragedy, when maybe it was not the case." You also have the parents who are horrified to discover that their 17 year old daughter is a sexual being, and turn a consensual situation into "rape" to save face.
So you have someone who streaked their high school graduation, or someone who just turned 18 who has a 17-year old girlfriend, permanently labeled as a sex offender.
Or you have the case where the book is being thrown at someone who was involved in what was, at least to some degree, a consensual situation (I know, there is the argument that anyone below age x cannot consent), when clearly this is a much different situation than a violent, forcible rape.
Heck, the legal age of consent varies quite a bit from location to location (state-to-state, country-to-country), so in one place you are considered a child molester, but in another place you are not.
So to say that "there is no punishment tough enough", or "throw away the key", you should make clear exactly what situations you are talking about.
Hard-core, violent rapist of 8-year olds, yeah, throw away the key. Streaker at high school graduation, maybe a fine, maybe some probation.
Just so long as we keep Republicans and private enterprise the hell away from it. The last thing we need is fucking Enron-style bullshit with the nukers. Run public utilities as non-profit monopolies operated in the public's best interest. Treat any free market deregulation dittohead as a saboteur to be shot on sight.
I don't know if the OP was speaking tongue-in-cheek, but it brings up an interesting point.
If you are a believer in the free market, how can you support nuclear power? The numbers don't seem to add up, especially if you consider the -entire- life-cycle of a plant (from empty dirt lot to empty dirt lot).
Maybe it's possible, but from experience so far, nuclear power on the open market is an economic disaster.
Which reminds me: in Firefox, is it possible to keep the stupid popup box from coming up at startup ? The one which asks if I want to resume my previous "session" ? If yes, then how ?
Two ways:
Close Firefox before you shut down.
Go to about:config and change the value of browser.sessionstore.resume_from_crash to false.
How can it be easier to travel between countries in Europe than between states in the US. There are no restrictions on travel between states at all (except maybe for Alaska and Hawaii where you can't get their by land without crossing into Canada), you just drive down the road and see a big sign "Welcome to the State of New York", and you're in a different state.
It seems the only paranoid one here is you. Why do people keep insisting that the US is a 'siege state'? Is it fashionable to toss out '1984' as if it is even remotely close to the reality? Have you even bothered to read it, or did you just watch the movie? Seriously, thank you for not coming to visit. Maybe you should spend your misguided attention in dealing with your own problems in Quebec.
I don't see any mention of 1984 in the parent post. Was that a Freudian slip, or just a regular strawman?
Uh, yah. Try going to a number of so-called 'free' countries in Europe, like say, Germany. Or France. Or Great Britain.
You think they don't collect information about you, your purpose in visiting, your destination, etc, for future reference? Do you think they destroy that information once they're 'done with it'? Where did this illusion that you can update/correct/view any of this information comes from? What kind of idiotic self-important ignorant prick seriously thinks that he has any chance of doing so?
Let's see, none of those countries require fingerprints to enter. Now granted, British immigration are a bunch of pricks, but they've always been that way. As far as the rest of Europe, it is much easier to travel freely -between countries- than it is in the US to travel -between states-. I know, I've done both. Traveling to/within Europe is pleasant and easy, you know, like it used to be in the US. Now, traveling to/from/within the states sucks. It's clear that you have never been to the countries you are talking about, so I guess you really should STFU.
The chances of that happening (unless you have some legitimate reason to be fearful, like say, spending time in the middle East and contributing/associating with terrorist organizations) are pretty much zero.
OK, here's an example. My son just entered university, and he moved into an apartment. We are going to pay his rent for the first year, but his landlord happens to be from Tunisia and has an obviously arab name. Am I going to risk having my assets seized because I have it set up to make monthly payments to someone named El-Dirani? Fuck no! Now I -shouldn't- have to worry, but most folks would agree that when the government fucks up, it's no walk in the park to things straightened out. Am I going to end up in Gitmo? Probably (hopefully!!) not. Am I going to be fucked if (when?) my assets are frozen because I'm doing business with someone with an arab name? Definitely.
But here I am, responding to bullshit from a coward who is afraid to even post from an account and clearly has no idea what he's talking about. I should have listened to my momma when she said, "Don't feed the trolls!"
Good points, but there is one huge drawback. That is the loss of what I call "the peoples' library", more commonly known as the book exchange.
There are a lot of places where there is a shelf that says "take what you want, give what you can".
Heck, the military base library where my wife works has a large book exchange outside its front door. No need to be a patron, no need to face anyone, just an incredibly eclectic collection of books that constantly turns over without any form of organization other than an old bookcase that someone donated.
If you have ever traveled as a backpacker, the hostel book exchange is a godsend.
I would really hate to see the death of anonymous, free book exchanges...
Decommissioning? They started with solid plans to build a network of nuclear plants in 1957, started construction on 5, and after a series of cost overruns and delays, managed to get 1 plant online in 1983. Their failure of management doesn't exactly speak to problems with the nuclear industry, not when entire nuclear weapons programs have been brought to fruition in that timespan.
Failure of management doesn't speak to problems with the industry? This is our -actual experience- with the industry, not some pie-in-the-sky projection. Reality on the ground.
Weapons production is strictly tax-supported. The nuclear weapons industry is not a market, so the economics don't compare to energy production. And that isn't exactly a shining example of success on the decommissioning front, in fact it has been a huge disaster.
Experience so far shows that nuclear power isn't such a cheap, clean deal if you factor in the total end-to-end life cycle costs.
If you have a pre-existing condition, depending on the condition there almost always is a way to find coverage in the US. (Having dealt with asthma, diabetes, cancer, hbp, and smoking in one family member or another.) If the gov't turns you away? You have to fly to another country to get help. This was popular in London when I lived there.
So, this argues for the current system, how? Why not a system where you cannot be denied care in the first place?
The efficiency of HMO's have already shown us a way... Prevention costs them less money therefore they pay more willingly for preventative care, which is believed to be the driving force behind the better survivability rates in the US. They also ask for increased rates for certain risky behavior i.e., scuba diving, rock-climbing, competitive athletics, smoking, and obesity, but they still provide care, whereas smokers are often refused care for conditions in socialized medical systems. The medical system dares to refuse them care even though they pay more into the system than the average tax-payer.
Your first link goes to a complaint about the "nanny state", yet you point to HMO's charging more for "risky behavior". What difference does it make if the government is the nanny or if a corporation is the nanny? The answer is that a corporation can arbitrarily decide what is bad for you based on their profit motive (the whole point of a corporation in the first place), where the government would at least have a consistent set of rules, not necessarily based on a profit motive.
Your argument that "smokers are often refused care for conditions in socialized medical systems" is without basis. For every socialized medical system that you can document this claim for, I can show you one that doesn't. Your generalization doesn't hold up.
The HMO's have a vested interest in providing better, more efficient service than gov't care. I don't know about where you live, but competition is alive and well here in Oklahoma between various healthcare providers. I have seen gov't care first hand as a Marine, and later as a expat in the UK. I was not impressed on either occasion.
HMO's have a vested interest in "more efficient" service (profit motive), but they definitely do not have a vested interest in "better" service. They have a vested interest in cheaper service, which means refusing care whenever possible.
I don't see that competition is "alive and well". Most people cannot afford anything but the group policy that their employer provides; that is essentially their only choice.
I have seen universal health care as an expat in Germany, and they have a -very- impressive system. I have also seen the military health care system, and while it isn't as impressive as the German system, it is far from broken.
Also, HMO's are not the only plans or services available. PPO's, EPO's, HDHP's, and plain ol' cash also work for the gainfully employed. For those who are not, Medicaid, and the various state run programs pick up the slack. Do people fall through the cracks? Sure, but would I rather have the ability to pull myself out of the crack without the gov't workers unions and medical workers associations stepping on my head by decrying the use of private physicians? You bet your ass I would.
Holy shit dude, "plain ol' cash"? WTF are you smoking? Sure, for something like a simple fracture, that can work. Or not. I have a friend who fractured her collarbone. They pinned it, but it didn't heal, so they had to do a bone graft. Guess what, the insurance company declared the bone graft to be an "experimental treatment", and she had to pay $8,000 out of pocket for the treatment, all the while making monthly insurance payments. For what? If you need major surgery or get something like cancer, there is just no way that's going to work. Why should I have to go into bankruptcy just because I happe
I tell you what, I'll vote for a socialized health-care system if you volunteer you and yours to always lose the treatment lotto for cancer patients.
And how is that different than the current system? You are already "playing the lotto" that your HMO won't declare your cancer "a pre-existing condition" or the treatment that you need is "experimental".
What good is a cure for cancer if your HMO won't pay for it and you can't afford it?
More importantly, most Linux install programs guide the user through making both a root and regular user account as part of the install process.
That's where MS really dropped the ball. Their install wizard doesn't make sure that important step is taken care of.
When they are starting their computer for the first time, typical users just want to start using the system, so if you don't force them to create a regular user account, it's not going to happen.
The release of Vista provided MS with a golden opportunity to modify the startup wizard and eliminate a huge chunk of their security problem, but they chose not to.
Vista has some security improvements if Vista is used correctly, but MS still missed the boat in a big way.
The fundamental problem is people running under an admin account. Vista does not solve this basic problem.
When you install Vista (or run for the first time), it guides you through creating an account. If you actually read the dialog (hint: most people won't), it tells you that this first account is an admin account. The problem is that for most folks, that is the only account they ever bother to set up, and it is the only account they use.
To use Vista properly, you have to then set up a normal user account (something you are -not- guided through by the setup wizard) and use that account. It is not obvious to the typical user, and even as an experienced user I had to navigate a fairly unintuitive interface to do it.
IOW, I really had to -want- to create a normal user -and- go out of my way to do that.
MS had the opportunity to fix their wizard so that it creates -both- an admin and non-admin user and tell the user to use the non-admin account, but for some unfathomable reason they didn't.
Slashdot Mirror
The Nyquist Theorem is mathematically provable.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
My point is not that "actually generating power is pretty cheap" because that completely ignores the rest of the costs.
The WPPS default was over two -billion- dollars that ended up being paid by customers, for plants that were never even built.
To make fair comparisons, you have to look at the capital costs over the -entire- life of the plant, including construction and de-commissioning.
Someone has to pay those costs and take the risks.
The OP wanted examples of serious mismanagement, I presented two real examples.
Nuclear is not any cheaper than coal, wind or solar. It may be a good idea, but don't fool yourself that it is cheap, clean, or immune to -colossal- management fuck-ups. You cannot just gloss over these issues, they are very real.
Well, this particular case of (spectacular) mismanagement has nothing to do with radiation release, although this one does.
My beef with nuclear isn't so much the environmental issues, it is the financial issues. Nuclear is becoming relatively safe, but for the complete life-cycle of the plant (dirt lot to dirt lot), it is extremely expensive.
If you believe in open market solutions, nuclear just doesn't cut it. If you believe in -incredibly- huge subsidies, well...
I'll answer your question with a question.
Why just sex offenders?
The drunk drivers in your neighborhood are probably more of a threat to your children - and there are more of them.
What about burglars? Shouldn't you know about them as well? That football player was just murdered by burglars. Many burglaries also turn into rapes as a crime of opportunity - in for a penny, in for a pound.
You and your children are -surrounded- by the threat of crime. Not to downplay the seriousness of sexual assault, but many of the "sex offenders" on these lists are people who took a piss at the wrong place and the wrong time.
Seriously, why just sex offenders, but not other felons? It seems like your risk-assessment is a little skewed from reality...
I'm a parent as well, and the reality is that bad things happen to good people all of the time, that's life. The bottom line is you can take precautions, but there are no guarantees. If you think about it for a minute, that is a very scary thought when you are talking about your children.
But publicly branding criminals after they have served their time does more damage to society than it prevents, and singling out "sex offenders" has a proven track record of unfairly tarring the public urinators with the same brush as the violent rapists.
You bring up some points that, while I don't agree with you 100%, need to be brought into this discussion.
You see the statements that "current punishments aren't tough enough", or "there is no punishment tough enough". And when you are talking about a clear case of forcible rape, I lean that way.
The problem is that, as you stated, "any and all child sex activity is automatically considered a rape and a tragedy, when maybe it was not the case." You also have the parents who are horrified to discover that their 17 year old daughter is a sexual being, and turn a consensual situation into "rape" to save face.
So you have someone who streaked their high school graduation, or someone who just turned 18 who has a 17-year old girlfriend, permanently labeled as a sex offender.
Or you have the case where the book is being thrown at someone who was involved in what was, at least to some degree, a consensual situation (I know, there is the argument that anyone below age x cannot consent), when clearly this is a much different situation than a violent, forcible rape.
Heck, the legal age of consent varies quite a bit from location to location (state-to-state, country-to-country), so in one place you are considered a child molester, but in another place you are not.
So to say that "there is no punishment tough enough", or "throw away the key", you should make clear exactly what situations you are talking about.
Hard-core, violent rapist of 8-year olds, yeah, throw away the key. Streaker at high school graduation, maybe a fine, maybe some probation.
One-size-fits-all justice is not justice.
I don't know if the OP was speaking tongue-in-cheek, but it brings up an interesting point.
If you are a believer in the free market, how can you support nuclear power? The numbers don't seem to add up, especially if you consider the -entire- life-cycle of a plant (from empty dirt lot to empty dirt lot).
Maybe it's possible, but from experience so far, nuclear power on the open market is an economic disaster.
Two ways:
I don't see any mention of 1984 in the parent post. Was that a Freudian slip, or just a regular strawman?
Let's see, none of those countries require fingerprints to enter. Now granted, British immigration are a bunch of pricks, but they've always been that way. As far as the rest of Europe, it is much easier to travel freely -between countries- than it is in the US to travel -between states-. I know, I've done both. Traveling to/within Europe is pleasant and easy, you know, like it used to be in the US. Now, traveling to/from/within the states sucks. It's clear that you have never been to the countries you are talking about, so I guess you really should STFU.
OK, here's an example. My son just entered university, and he moved into an apartment. We are going to pay his rent for the first year, but his landlord happens to be from Tunisia and has an obviously arab name. Am I going to risk having my assets seized because I have it set up to make monthly payments to someone named El-Dirani? Fuck no! Now I -shouldn't- have to worry, but most folks would agree that when the government fucks up, it's no walk in the park to things straightened out. Am I going to end up in Gitmo? Probably (hopefully!!) not. Am I going to be fucked if (when?) my assets are frozen because I'm doing business with someone with an arab name? Definitely.
But here I am, responding to bullshit from a coward who is afraid to even post from an account and clearly has no idea what he's talking about. I should have listened to my momma when she said, "Don't feed the trolls!"
Good points, but there is one huge drawback. That is the loss of what I call "the peoples' library", more commonly known as the book exchange.
There are a lot of places where there is a shelf that says "take what you want, give what you can".
Heck, the military base library where my wife works has a large book exchange outside its front door. No need to be a patron, no need to face anyone, just an incredibly eclectic collection of books that constantly turns over without any form of organization other than an old bookcase that someone donated.
If you have ever traveled as a backpacker, the hostel book exchange is a godsend.
I would really hate to see the death of anonymous, free book exchanges...
And then a stone came flying out of the back of the crowd and hit Jesus smack in the forehead.
Jesus picked himself up off the ground and grumbled, "Mother..."
If only I had mod points.
The big problem with nuclear power isn't environmental, it's economic.
If you really believe in the free market, then I've got bad news for you, nuclear is -not- an option.
Maybe it was a country where the 3991 didn't have to directly pay the cost of their individual operations?
For its many faults, at least the Ukrainian health care system doesn't discriminate against the poor.
Back to the point at hand, if the 3991 had not received medical intervention (or if effective intervention did not exist), they all would have died.
Failure of management doesn't speak to problems with the industry? This is our -actual experience- with the industry, not some pie-in-the-sky projection. Reality on the ground.
Weapons production is strictly tax-supported. The nuclear weapons industry is not a market, so the economics don't compare to energy production. And that isn't exactly a shining example of success on the decommissioning front, in fact it has been a huge disaster.
Experience so far shows that nuclear power isn't such a cheap, clean deal if you factor in the total end-to-end life cycle costs.
So, this argues for the current system, how? Why not a system where you cannot be denied care in the first place?
Your first link goes to a complaint about the "nanny state", yet you point to HMO's charging more for "risky behavior". What difference does it make if the government is the nanny or if a corporation is the nanny? The answer is that a corporation can arbitrarily decide what is bad for you based on their profit motive (the whole point of a corporation in the first place), where the government would at least have a consistent set of rules, not necessarily based on a profit motive.
Your argument that "smokers are often refused care for conditions in socialized medical systems" is without basis. For every socialized medical system that you can document this claim for, I can show you one that doesn't. Your generalization doesn't hold up.
HMO's have a vested interest in "more efficient" service (profit motive), but they definitely do not have a vested interest in "better" service. They have a vested interest in cheaper service, which means refusing care whenever possible.
I don't see that competition is "alive and well". Most people cannot afford anything but the group policy that their employer provides; that is essentially their only choice.
I have seen universal health care as an expat in Germany, and they have a -very- impressive system. I have also seen the military health care system, and while it isn't as impressive as the German system, it is far from broken.
Holy shit dude, "plain ol' cash"? WTF are you smoking? Sure, for something like a simple fracture, that can work. Or not. I have a friend who fractured her collarbone. They pinned it, but it didn't heal, so they had to do a bone graft. Guess what, the insurance company declared the bone graft to be an "experimental treatment", and she had to pay $8,000 out of pocket for the treatment, all the while making monthly insurance payments. For what? If you need major surgery or get something like cancer, there is just no way that's going to work. Why should I have to go into bankruptcy just because I happe
And how is that different than the current system? You are already "playing the lotto" that your HMO won't declare your cancer "a pre-existing condition" or the treatment that you need is "experimental".
What good is a cure for cancer if your HMO won't pay for it and you can't afford it?
More importantly, most Linux install programs guide the user through making both a root and regular user account as part of the install process.
That's where MS really dropped the ball. Their install wizard doesn't make sure that important step is taken care of.
When they are starting their computer for the first time, typical users just want to start using the system, so if you don't force them to create a regular user account, it's not going to happen.
The release of Vista provided MS with a golden opportunity to modify the startup wizard and eliminate a huge chunk of their security problem, but they chose not to.
It boggles the mind.
There, fixed that for ya....
Vista has some security improvements if Vista is used correctly, but MS still missed the boat in a big way.
The fundamental problem is people running under an admin account. Vista does not solve this basic problem.
When you install Vista (or run for the first time), it guides you through creating an account. If you actually read the dialog (hint: most people won't), it tells you that this first account is an admin account. The problem is that for most folks, that is the only account they ever bother to set up, and it is the only account they use.
To use Vista properly, you have to then set up a normal user account (something you are -not- guided through by the setup wizard) and use that account. It is not obvious to the typical user, and even as an experienced user I had to navigate a fairly unintuitive interface to do it.
IOW, I really had to -want- to create a normal user -and- go out of my way to do that.
MS had the opportunity to fix their wizard so that it creates -both- an admin and non-admin user and tell the user to use the non-admin account, but for some unfathomable reason they didn't.
Key exchange
I assume you have a credible citation that backs up this claim? I'd love to see where you are getting your numbers.
Hey, you left out the grammar nazis who would point out that it is "fare", not "fair"...