This is OK except for the part when they said it would someday make power and sell it. That part was an extremely unethical lie.
While it was always intended to generate excess (more-than-went-in) power — that is the point of the experiment — you’ll need to back up, with some evidence, your claim that they said they would sell it. I’ve been involved in fusion research for 26 years and have never heard that. The next stage machine was always intended to be the one to connect to the electrical grid.
Sixteenth year pursuing a doctorate indeed...
Sixteenth year! Holy guacamole. I thought my seven full-time was bad
Apple also successfully stopped them from selling grey import iPads at international prices. (we get quite stooged on electronics here)
They may have been true in the past and likely still true in many areas but iPads aren't one of them. I bought our new 16GB iPad from Big W for AU$498. It sells on the Australian Apple website for AU$539 incl. shipping. Less sales tax (GST, in this case) makes the price AU$490. The new iPad sells on the US website without sales tax for US$499. Given the US and Australian dollars are hovering around parity with each other and have been for months, I don't think your argument is valid in the specific case you cited.
The actual incident that triggered the request for UAVs was the death in Fyshwick earlier this year - where a serial car thief who delighted in baiting police (because the courts kept letting him off) hit and killed some of his friends after calling them to help escape the police pursuit.
Really? Because the article is a report on minutes from a meeting held in June 2010.
Irrespective of whether we can trust the AFP, the installation of point-to-point speed cameras which have "relatively low infringement rates" seems like a gross over-reaction to a non-existent problem. The data --crazy I know to look at it when considering emotionally driven issues -- does not bear out the expense http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/D18CA4EA930FF0D2CA25773700169CE5?opendocument
Suggesting that reducing tolerances to increase infringements (in this case, I see no other reason than for revenue) to pay for a system that is not needed is abusive. Will it reduce deaths?
The short of the data is that the ACT has about half the traffic accident-related fatalities of the western world, including those countries noted for above-average driving abilities. Indeed, one might argue that Canberra has the safest roads in the world. It makes one ask the question, what is the target death rate? Zero? As always the last 10% takes 90% of the effort and in this case, I believe, such a low rate can be accepted as part of the inherent risk of driving.
Case in point, "the average price of a movie ticket in Australia for 2010 was AUD$12.98. In the United States, though, the average ticket cost just $US7.89 (approximately AUD$7.40)" [1]
Having said all that, I don't mind the government looking out for it's people who are being priced gouged.
Oh, and any American who thinks this kind of complaint seems a bit whiny (and are under the delusion that there is much a consumer can do about it) you all squealed like stuck pigs when your gasoline hit $4 a gallon for goodness sakes.
Computer models were based on the data. Apparently, they were based on insufficient data.
There is input, output and logic. Input, in this case was the collected data from weather stations, satellites, ice cores, tree rings, etc. The model is a computer simulation program. It is a set of logic rules (algorithms) we feed the input to produce the output. The output is the climate prediction.
The output, or the global warming prediction is flawed because the logic (the model) is flawed.
Of course, there are many that will challenge the data (input) as well (weather stations located inside an active volcano, etc).
It appears as though it is not so much the logic as the magnitude of one of the input variables of the model looks to be incorrect. In this case, the incorrect input is the size of the Earth's energy loss. I believe the new data will allow for a correction on this input magnitude.
However, your comments on tort reform are dead on. As a resident of Illinois (one of the worse states for medical malpractice insurance), I completely agree that the first step toward fixing any healthcare system in our country is malpractice tort reform. I feel that an acquaintance of mine put it best: "You expect a bunch of lawyers to fix tort law to make it harder to sue? Ha!"
All I know about the benefit of tort reform came from two US doctors -- both familiar with their industry -- who both said it would not amount to much difference, money-wise. I am all for tort reform on a matter of principle but I don't think it will fix the myriad of problems that is the US health care 'system'.
If God had a beard, he'd be a UNIX programmer.
