Actually, I don't see why a fixed structure couldn't deal with the movement of the islands. Couldn't you just build your structure on giant pillars, which are anchored into the land or seabed below the islands? I seem to remember a Bond movie about a structure that rose out of the water something like that.

Of course, such a structure would be rather expensive...

No, unless they pass another law counteracting Newton's Second Law of Motion, the bag will just sit there and drift about a little in the air currents. To get it up to the ISS, you'll still need some kind of thruster, though obviously much smaller since with gravity turned off by that legislation, it only needs to overcome its own inertia, which is dependant upon mass.

I wouldn't even go that far. They should charge the people for the rescuing, or if it's because of a stupid State law, the state should be billed.

Here in Arizona, we now have a law called the "stupid hiker law". Yes, that's really what it's called. The problem is that so many stupid people would go hiking in our desert mountain parks in or near the city of Phoenix, and would do so with little or no water, improper footwear, etc., and then would get in trouble and need a helicopter to come rescue them. Basically, it was a lot of either dumb students or other out-of-towners who would think it's cool to go "hiking" in flip-flops and a small water bottle, in the middle of the summer with 115-degree heat. When the hiking trail has an elevation of 1000 feet or more, the inevitable result is heatstroke and dehydration. So they made this law so that these morons get billed for the (very expensive) rescues they called in.

The same should go for anyone who needs to be rescued because they built too close to the water. That goes for tsunami victims too. We know all about tsunamis and their devastating effects now, so there's no excuse for any place to not be prepared for one.

If they want to develop on it, that's fine. The problem is (unless I'm missing something) forcing insurers to not use this new estimate in setting their premiums, or even being able to refuse to insure people in those locations. If people want to develop a place with zero insurance, that's fine, but don't make the rest of us pay for the damages when reality conflicts with your fantasies. Worse, since most flood insurance is run by the government, that means all of us (meaning everyone in the country) is paying for the mess when one of these places is destroyed.

No, he was wrong in his last sentence. It should read:

"Fortunately people in Texas were not as crazy as most other states in the south are now."

Then you're not a very good Republican. Your idol Mitt Romney loves corporations, and thinks they're people. And if you're not a fan of Romney, then you're not a true Republican because most everyone else in the country who identifies with that label has picked him.

There's nothing wrong with limiting the actions of corporations. They're not people, and they have far more power than any individual person.

However, a government should never be able to force a corporation to do business if it doesn't want to (as long as it isn't discriminating against any particular class of people). So if an insurance company decides it doesn't want to ensure anyone on the NC coast, that should be their right. I can see a case for allowing the government to regulate insurance rates (after all, the government regulates the rates you pay for power and water in most places), but if the corporation decides those regulated rates aren't worth doing business there, then they should be allowed to pull out. The government should never be able to force a company to sell something at a loss just because its legislators refuse to believe in reality.

The problem isn't gossipping or people not understanding "inside voice", the problem is loud-mouth asshole managers who think they're so important that everyone should listen to them whenever they're around.

Yep, that's exactly what I saw in my last job, where I had an "open concept" (bullpen) environment. The asshole bosses who talked about how great this was for "collaboration" all had walled offices with doors.

I worked in a bullpen in my last job (and this was one of the main reasons I quit without notice one day when I get too fed up with it). The software engineers weren't the problem; they're generally quiet. The problem was all the stupid managers constantly walking by, wanting to stop and chit-chat, or talk with my manager endlessly (he sat across from me), sit their ass on my desk while I'm trying to work, or worse tap me on the back when I had my headphones on. The other problem was the stupid loud air-conditioning unit in the ceiling directly over my desk that would drone for the entire day until 5PM sharp, when it suddenly became much quieter.

I had to stop wearing my headphones because of the assholes sneaking up on me all the time and nearly giving me a heart attack, and it eventually drove me nuts enough that when my manager gave me shit about coming to work too late (staying late to make up for it wasn't good enough for him, even though my productivity was far, far higher after 5PM when the noise and commotion all stopped), I threw a resignation letter at him and walked out.

My advice: never take a job in a bullpen environment.