Actually the backup generators were located in the basement as per GE's original design. Engineers requested to locate the generators in a more secure (from tsunamis) location when the plants were built but were overruled by upper management.

However the location of the generators at Fukushima is irrelevant to my point that had the power grid been a distributed system with local batteries or what have you then all residents would not have lost power when the plant was flooded. This is not an argument about the design of the centralized power plant but an argument that a centralized power plant need not be used or even exist.

Putting all of ones eggs in one basket, all your reactors on one backup generator or all your data in one place is the reason for these catastrophic failures. Back 30 odd years ago we had mainframes, I used to operate an IBM 360, then along came the internet and the distributed computing model where the system didn't have all of its data in even one box in a company. There was a box on everyone's desktop. Now that's come full circle with the "Cloud" initiative where all your data is housed in one place (datacenter) again.

The reason the cloud was "invented" was to bring back the more profitable mainframe/dumb terminal business model.

And they can... Medical devices are subject to very stringent standards and testing for approval. They are also tailored to boost some frequencies more than others.

Consensus is not science. It is not evidence. Scientific consensus is an oxymoron.

Besides this is a losing argument on both sides because it's like trying to disprove the existence of God.

And the theoretic doubt of the occasional scientist you speak of is not a lone or even a few voices. They are as numerous as the true believers such as yourself. When you start with a hypothesis, gather all the data you can that agrees with that hypothesis and downplay or ignore all data which disagrees with it, what remains is a scientific consensus of the true believers, but it isn't science.

There's not one shred of evidence to disprove the existence of God. But try to dissuade a true believer that God doesn't exist.

There is none so blind as he who refuses to see.

I find it odd that the theory of evolution is shown in a light of being an evolving science which is correct in that the theory changes as more and new evidence is discovered. Yet the theory of climate change is shown as more of a dogma where the scientific community is a consensus which it is not and any dissent to the contrary is put down as being "unscientific".

There is plenty of evidence refuting the claims of anthropogenic climate change which is available to anyone who has an internet connection and can find google.com

Teaching science as a dogma is contrary to the scientific method. The ACC folks just can't see that the dogma they're teaching is just as bad as the scientific consensus against plate tectonics which was taught in schools well into the 60's. Real science is not a consensus. Only in the fullness of time will the truth be discovered but wrecking our economy in the name of a theory which is far from proven is the wrong way to go.

Here is a particularly scholarly site which puts the "ACC consensus" in the proper light. http://geologist-1011.net/

As long as your data is out of your hands it is extremely vulnerable. The hosting company only cares about the money you pay them and little else. If they're hacked, too bad. If they're servers are down, too bad. if the justice department comes with a request, all your data belong to them. Host your own systems on your own property and make your own "in-house" backups. The cloud by definition is vaporware.

Actually there IS a strong correlation between the variability of the Sun and global temperatures. I.E. When the sun is hotter the Earth is warmer and when the Sun is cooler the Earth is cooler. Yet. this data is completely ignored by climate scientists.
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world.
Those who understand binary and those who don't.

The idea that internet bandwidth is a fixed level and cannot be increased is pure nonsense. Greater demand for bandwidth results in more bandwidth capacity being created. This is how a free market works.

"Voluntarily". Is that similar to how the Income Tax is based on "voluntary compliance"?

Because of the Uniform Vehicle Code 98-100% of states have very similar laws and when it comes to traffic lights, if the laws were radically different you might have a basis for challenging the law on the grounds of deception.

If your bumper is over the first line of the crosswalk you are considered to be in the intersection. In fact you can be cited for blocking the intersection if you ARE in the crosswalk. Additionally it is a violation to back out of an intersection once you have entered it. I got a ticket for that.

If your front bumper is over the first line of the crosswalk you are OBLIGATED to clear the intersection and since you can't back up you must either go forward through the intersection or refrain from entering it if you cannot reasonably be sure you could go all the way through safely.

Some traffic signals are delayed for the express purpose of allowing vehicles to clear the intersection before cross traffic is given the green light.

The length of the yellow light is of no effect on whether you ran a light and for legal purposes it is the same as a green light. There is no crime of entering on a yellow light. There are only the crimes of entering on a red light or blocking the intersection.

IANAL

Edwin

Thank you for the well written response.

My problem is NOT with any person or corporation (although my belief that corporations having a special status via government charter is inherently evil) making a profit.

My problem is with the government controlling things via mandated coverage, mandated prescription drug coverage and every other government regulation which seeks to disconnect the price/benefit market mechanism between the consumer and the provider.

When the consumer no longer has to pay directly out of his pocket for care when it is delivered, he tends to not care as much about what the care costs because the insurance or the government will pay for it.

With insurance being mandated the consumer doesn't have a choice whether he gets the insurance or not so he tends to demand the best care his insurance will pay for. Doctors are more than happy to provide the most expensive treatments whether they are of any great benefit or not. There are lots of procedures and expensive tests which are of little benefit and may actually cause more harm. Doctors aren't perfect and they want to cover their behinds in case of the all to common malpractice lawsuits.

And I haven't even scratched the surface of the rapacious prices for drugs from Big Pharma.

The FDA bears a large part of the blame for high medical costs.

My main point is simply that government intervention has the unintended consequence of driving up costs.

As to what my recommendations are for fixing the problem if you haven't already guessed it, deregulate the medical industry and abolish the FDA completely. Remove the corporate shield that makes it impossible to sue the actual people who own the large corporations for malpractice and their callous disregard for thew welfare of their customers (patients).

Non-profit's are great and we should have more of them. we used to have lots of them but then government intervention has reduced the number and effectiveness of non-profits across the board.

I would like suggest to anyone that they read this book; More Harm Than Good by Alan Zelicoff and Michael Bellomo.

http://www.amazon.com/More-Harm-Than-Good-Treatments/dp/0814400272/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269465093&sr=8-1

And we should take the word of a person with as bad grammar and spelling skills as you have?

SHIT! Don't go putting ideas into their heads!