Good article and it points up something the media hasn’t discussed yet, namely this earthquake is NOT the big one that seismologists were expecting. They expect that one to occur on a fault to the southwest of Tokyo not to the north of it.
The earthquake hazard for northern Japan was always considered to be much less, which is why they clustered their nuclear power plants to the north of Tokyo and on the western coast of Japan, with only a single plant on the eastern coast in the area of highest risk.
Well, they took the whole existential concept of high speed rail to its logical conclusion, Thomas. Enough of this damned unregulated madness of letting mere capitalists and private citizens in a market full of pirates and clowns decide how to allocate resources and address risks. We need experts at the center — with PhDs! Preferably with tenure at a major university! — to design foolproof efficient centralized systems.
Carl,
Not sure what you are ranting about, but I am as much against government getting involved in picking winners in high speed rail as I am against NASA picking winners in HSF. Let the commercial market decide on both high speed rail and HSF which systems are best.
But the problem I see are the folks that are inconsistent, ranting against the government selecting winners in high speed rail while advocating for the government to pick winners in HSF.
ranting against the government selecting winners in high speed rail while advocating for the government to pick winners in HSF.
Thomas, when the government is planning spending billions to send a few employees somewhere on high-speed rail, get back to us. Until then, please refrain from any further idiotic attempts to make a comparison between the two completely different things on this blog.
Er…I appear to be ranting about your point, Thomas. Can’t take “yes” for an answer, huh? But can we not extend by induction your parallel observations — the government will not competently pick winners and losers in the area of transportation earth-bound or orbital — into a general law?
The government will not competently pick winners and losers in any area whatsoever. Hence the axiomatic basis of “regulation” and “oversight” is intellectually (not to say morally) bankrupt.
Say that three times slowly and your initiation is essentially complete, save for the ritual slinging of the teabag around your head and the traditional middle-finger salute towards 38°53′ N 77°2′ W.
please refrain from any further idiotic attempts to make a comparison between the two completely different things on this blog.
He’s like a broken clock that some how manages to not even be right twice a day.
Back to the nuclear disaster…
It rather reminds me of the steamroller scene in “Austin Powers…” Every hour, new headlines appear about the latest “desperate” actions being taken to prevent a meltdown. And it’s been going on for five days, now.
What non-nuclear energy source (that delivers useful energy) gives one five days worth of slack when dealing with an emergency?
The dangers from a meltdown, and *of* a meltdown, diminish with each passing day as the shorter-lived fission products decay. This is a self-healing “disaster” on top of being a slow emergency.
Rand,
[[[Thomas, when the government is planning spending billions to send a few employees somewhere on high-speed rail, get back to us. ]]]
As I stated before, one person’s pork is another loobyist’s essential speaking. If the government wants to use a private option for sending astronauts to the ISS they should just pass a law they will buy seats on the first U.S. option available at the same price as they paid for most recent Soyuz seat purchased and let the REAL commercial markets decide who the winner is instead of picking which firms are subsidize and which ones get to go under from not winning CCDev and not getting the government subsidy.
Carl,
Sorry for the delay, I have been busy the last couple of days.
[[[The government will not competently pick winners and losers in any area whatsoever. Hence the axiomatic basis of “regulation” and “oversight” is intellectually (not to say morally) bankrupt.]]]
Apples and oranges. In one case the government is actually giving money to some firms while not giving it to others and by doing so picking who will win and lose. By contrast regulations apply to all firms in that market so it simply becomes another macroenvironmental variable to consider in crafting the business model.
Good article and it points up something the media hasn’t discussed yet, namely this earthquake is NOT the big one that seismologists were expecting. They expect that one to occur on a fault to the southwest of Tokyo not to the north of it.
The earthquake hazard for northern Japan was always considered to be much less, which is why they clustered their nuclear power plants to the north of Tokyo and on the western coast of Japan, with only a single plant on the eastern coast in the area of highest risk.
Well, they took the whole existential concept of high speed rail to its logical conclusion, Thomas. Enough of this damned unregulated madness of letting mere capitalists and private citizens in a market full of pirates and clowns decide how to allocate resources and address risks. We need experts at the center — with PhDs! Preferably with tenure at a major university! — to design foolproof efficient centralized systems.
Carl,
Not sure what you are ranting about, but I am as much against government getting involved in picking winners in high speed rail as I am against NASA picking winners in HSF. Let the commercial market decide on both high speed rail and HSF which systems are best.
But the problem I see are the folks that are inconsistent, ranting against the government selecting winners in high speed rail while advocating for the government to pick winners in HSF.
ranting against the government selecting winners in high speed rail while advocating for the government to pick winners in HSF.
Thomas, when the government is planning spending billions to send a few employees somewhere on high-speed rail, get back to us. Until then, please refrain from any further idiotic attempts to make a comparison between the two completely different things on this blog.
Er…I appear to be ranting about your point, Thomas. Can’t take “yes” for an answer, huh? But can we not extend by induction your parallel observations — the government will not competently pick winners and losers in the area of transportation earth-bound or orbital — into a general law?
The government will not competently pick winners and losers in any area whatsoever. Hence the axiomatic basis of “regulation” and “oversight” is intellectually (not to say morally) bankrupt.
Say that three times slowly and your initiation is essentially complete, save for the ritual slinging of the teabag around your head and the traditional middle-finger salute towards 38°53′ N 77°2′ W.
please refrain from any further idiotic attempts to make a comparison between the two completely different things on this blog.
He’s like a broken clock that some how manages to not even be right twice a day.
Back to the nuclear disaster…
It rather reminds me of the steamroller scene in “Austin Powers…” Every hour, new headlines appear about the latest “desperate” actions being taken to prevent a meltdown. And it’s been going on for five days, now.
What non-nuclear energy source (that delivers useful energy) gives one five days worth of slack when dealing with an emergency?
The dangers from a meltdown, and *of* a meltdown, diminish with each passing day as the shorter-lived fission products decay. This is a self-healing “disaster” on top of being a slow emergency.
Rand,
[[[Thomas, when the government is planning spending billions to send a few employees somewhere on high-speed rail, get back to us. ]]]
As I stated before, one person’s pork is another loobyist’s essential speaking. If the government wants to use a private option for sending astronauts to the ISS they should just pass a law they will buy seats on the first U.S. option available at the same price as they paid for most recent Soyuz seat purchased and let the REAL commercial markets decide who the winner is instead of picking which firms are subsidize and which ones get to go under from not winning CCDev and not getting the government subsidy.
Carl,
Sorry for the delay, I have been busy the last couple of days.
[[[The government will not competently pick winners and losers in any area whatsoever. Hence the axiomatic basis of “regulation” and “oversight” is intellectually (not to say morally) bankrupt.]]]
Apples and oranges. In one case the government is actually giving money to some firms while not giving it to others and by doing so picking who will win and lose. By contrast regulations apply to all firms in that market so it simply becomes another macroenvironmental variable to consider in crafting the business model.