If you run it for 60 years, all you do is charge something like 1/10th of a center per kwh for 'decommissioning costs'.
2GW should produce about 15.8B kWh a year. Even excluding interest, that's $15.8M/year, $946M over 60.
If you figure that it earns 5%, that's $3.7B in 60 years, or $185M they can spend each year indefinitely doing whatever it takes to decommission it.
First, hot button topic for me, it's probably not a vigilante but somebody committing self defense. The difference is that the vigilante seeks out crime to punish, a self defense shooter just happened to be on the scene.
But the bank robbers would still be guilty of murder, because under the felony murder rule, when you commit a (violent) felony, you're responsible for all deaths stemming from your crime. Since the vigilante/self defense shooter wouldn't have shot at them and missed if they hadn't been robbing the bank, it's still on them.
Now, the shooter might or might not find himself up on manslaughter charges, but that's unlikely - despite it being very hard to find a similar case(a ccw permit holder shooting an innocent party by mistake), cops routinely get off with nothing for this.
Anyway, I'm a dude, and I don't really like office environments where everyone walks around all day with their potty mouths set to "maximum potty". It's unprofessional and is a distraction from actual work. In my mind, the best policy is for everyone to make their best effort to keep things professional and in exchange, for people who might be offended to just chill out when there is an occasional, inevitable slip-up.
And I agree with you. However, almost inevitably when management comes down on an incident they do overkill as well, and a little bit of humor/fun in the office just makes the day go by better.
Well, for one it's probably not technically a vigilante. If the crime is in progress and the bank robbers are threatening deadly force, then it's considered self defense to use deadly force to stop them. It's also still self defense to use said deadly force to protect others. I'm sorry, it's a bit of a hot button topic for me. I get a little annoyed when people call self defense vigilantism.
Anyways, in the case of self defense, where the shooter, could be a security guard, could be a customer or another teller, accidentally shoots and kills an innocent while trying to hit the robbers?
Felony murder rule still applies - the Robbers are still up on murder charges. Now the shooter? Might find himself up on manslaughter charges, but probably not. The case law isn't settled, I'm not aware of any self-defense shootings outside the home that have hit an innocent party.
Inside the home, shooting a relative or something? Generally not charged.
when you haven't even tried to understand the simple fucking point of what someone said.
Oh, I recognize the point. I just think it's irrelevant, because like I said before 'Hallo! I'm over HERE!'. You're normally so off course that if we were on a firing range you'd be practicing excellent muzzle control keeping it downrange and away from me at all times.
if you actually thought about what i was writing, it would lead you to realize there isn't a strawman in anything i said
I accurately identified and noted the strawmen. Sounds like you need a few English courses as well. Tell me, have you read the wiki I linked to yet? Even re-read the argument stream I called strawman on you for? I explained most of them.
Me: "The occasional dick joke is funny"
You "I approached a group of females, telling dick jokes, they loved it(sarcasm)".
Do you see how this is a strawman? This is like my saying "enjoying an occasional cookie is good" and you going all cookie-monster. The two situations are substantially different.
the simple fucking point:
nobody wants to hear dick jokes except immature douchebags
Ah, we're back to step 1. Now, sure, you may define people who want to hear dick jokes as 'immature douchebags', but that's your personal definition. It takes a lot more than just that for me to consider somebody an 'immature douchebag'.
So now it's up to you to PROVE this statement of yours, preferably without using circular logic. Keep in mind that somebody who's 'dick jokes, dick jokes all day' is indeed probably going to qualify as an immature douchebag in my mind, and that my position is that 'the occasional dick/sexual joke, in a reasonably appropriate context, can be funny'. You're apparently arguing that they're NEVER appropriate, and that reading them is as bad as saying them, etc...
It comes down to this: We both agree than an 'excess' of dick jokes is bad. What we disagree on is what amounts to said excess.
no it isn't. aggressive sexuality, dick jokes to women you don't know, is an immediate uncomfortable put off to all women as it tells them something about the male no female wants to deal with.
...I wasn't saying it was a good thing. Done inappropriately, the knock-knock jokes can be almost as off-putting as the dick jokes.
You're the one that brought up social context with your little scenario. Don't worry about it, if you make it to college speech and debate classes should help immensely.
to not know dick jokes to women you don't know is a complete uncomfortable turn off is identifying yourself as an immature person.
Some editing issues in here. I'm going to assume you meant to start with 'to tell'. Personally, I find telling knock-knock jokes to anybody I don't know(short of being up on stage in a comedy show), to be almost as bad as dick jokes. And you're still setting up strawmen because I never said telling dick jokes to random people in random situations to be 'acceptable'.
yes, you could be an unfortunate older male with no social abilities, but i'm trying to be charitable here and give you the benefit of the doubt that you are young
hehehehehe... No, I'm not young. Retired as a matter of fact, returned to college for a second degree. Of course, if your strawmen were actually true, then yes, I'd be an socially immature sort, but of course, I call them strawmen for a reason. You're either missing or deliberately ignoring the context of what I'm saying.
If anybody, man or woman, doesn't want to browse a repository of jokes, dick or otherwise, they're free to close it. That they're going there indicates that they want to go there. It's not OUR place to judge people on whether or not they like enjoying dick jokes on the privacy of their own computer. It's not my thing, but whatever.
Also, I'm not conceding jack because you have failed in your arguments. You have failed to correct the debate errors that you make. You have failed to address that women are indeed as sexual as men, they are NOT generally 'special little snowflakes' with no sense of humor. You instead set up and quite successfully knock down a series of strawmen while I'm waving 'Over here!'
but keep talking. stubbornness over intelligence is awesome. never mind really attractive to women, right? right? (btw, that's called sarcasm. i'm not sure you have the social skills to understand that. i have to save you from embarrassing yourself further and gloating and arguing with me that stubbornness is not sexy)
Strawman. I guess I'm going to have to start pointing out the irony in my posts to you, aren't I? The subtle as a hammer inversions of any insults against me that I turned back on you, that you apparently didn't catch onto, because you keep using the same argument schemes. Also, not trying to be sexy on the internet. Yet another strawman, I guess.
yes, "i was just joking" is the standard go-to cover story for socially immature douchebags when they realize they have been inappropriate or transgressive or pathetic. thanks for demonstrating that
Again with the Strawman. Where in my post did I suggest that I was joking? I might be talking about humor, but I'm being serious. Well, other than my picturing you as a cloistered noble getting the vapors, covering your nose with a handkerchief.
and to not admit that, to try to deflect that, like you are, is a clumsy, unsuccessful attempt at avoiding the obvious
That you're an ivory tower type trying to find something to feel superior about? That you get to look down on society because *sniff*, it's so crude? That you can't deal with sexual humor?
I'm not calling it high art, obviously. But humor is humor, and part of humor is being inappropriate at times.
I should probably rephrase my point a bit to make it clearer. There are lots of serious repositories out there. The people working on said repositories spend lots of time there. Somehow the 'dick joke' one goes viral(see 'slashdot effect'), and you end up with lots and lots of people signing into said repository to see what's up, even if they only spend 5 minutes on it.
a strawman is an off-topic unrelated issue
Incorrect. A strawman is where you make a argument based on a false representation of the opponent's argument. Which you did with your presentation of 'walking up to a group of females' - implies a more or less random group, 'making dick jokes' - In my very first post I endorsed moderation, so implying that you were telling nothing but dick jokes violates that suggestion. It also violates the second where I specify 'occasional'. Which should imply some level of social context. It's around as strange to be walking up to a random group of women and telling knock-knock jokes.
but inquiring as to your age is completely relevant, as not understanding that women don't like hearing dick jokes is a sign of social immaturity
And not understanding that, at least occasionally, they do, means that you're socially immature because you haven't met enough women yet.
of course, it's possible you could be an older, socially deformed individual, that could be the cause of your immature faulty reasoning on the topic
I suppose you could be an ivory tower intellectual, sheltered from the 'real world' by your own personal echo box.
is it safe to assume the people in the room like chocolate?
Nope. It's probably safer to say that you either have a thief that took it all, IE you have a singular person who really, really loves chocolate.
if this socially moronic project rockets to the top in popularity on GitHub, what have you learned about the prevailing culture?
It's a culture thing. Most repositories are rather serious affairs, only joined by those interested in contributing. However, it seems a large percent do indeed, like the occasional dick joke, so the repository of those sees greater numbers.
Then it hits the news, goes viral, and you have a lot of people joining just to see what the deal is.
how old are you?
Old enough to avoid setting up strawmen too often. I guess you're not that old then.
Under the felony murder rule, all the bank robbers are guilty of the murder of the teller.
2. drive away women and socially normal programmers
You're assuming both women and 'socially normal programmers' don't enjoy the occasional dick joke. Which is my second paragraph.
1. suppress the toxic, asocial frat boy douchebaggery
You're also assuming that a repository of dick jokes is automatically toxic.
tax & spend - the environment is just an excuse
Nah, harm to people is the excuse. Harming the environment harms people indirectly, so it's still about people being harmed.
Note that I said 'balance the budget' first. Instituting another expansion to medicare is because pollution is known to increase medical expenses, so if you're going to be taxing pollution on the basis of the harm it causes, putting it towards medical care is at least a step in the right direction.
I'm in support of increasing taxes(and cutting spending) until we have the budget balanced. But remember the other part of my rant - 'opposing shit that saves money'. If a program is net positive(IE it saves more money than it costs), then it needs to stay around. If estimates are that increasing funding for it would result in even more money saved(such as the auditing department), then increase their funding.
But even my practical minarchist self thinks that the government needs to be fulfilling certain functions, and should be funded properly to do so.
There is no right to create a hostile working environment for women.
A 'random' github repository isn't a hostile working environment. For that matter, why do we automatically assume that sexual jokes are 'hostile' towards women? Even when they're for anatomy that women typically don't have?
Why do we assume that women don't have a sense of humor and men aren't offended, apparently, by anything?
Many of the women I've worked with are just fine with a certain amount of humor. Dick jokes all day would get boring quickly, but if you have a 'joke of the day' board that pulls from a list of jokes that include everything from 'why'd the chicken cross the road' to 'your mama' to George Carlin thoughts, to 'How NOT to get your ass beat by the police', and containing about 1% jokes that can be considered sexual, is 3-4 sexual jokes a year creating a hostile environment? Or perhaps I should say, would preventing those 3-4 jokes a year going to create a more hostile environment?
As for your frat house arms race - yeah, that's going overboard, ala my 'dick jokes all day' example. Extremism is bad, everything in moderation(including moderation).
If God had not given us sticky tape, it would have been necessary to invent it.
