Flooding and evacuating ballast tanks around a neutral buoyancy and the shape of the hull. He goes like half the speed a diver can swim at, so there's not a lot fins would do to help anyway. Probably slow him down even further due to drag, to be quite honest.

I would evacuate.

Hey bremnet-Been watching this one closely as well-(never been to guns.com before, first hit on google search for "Canada gun confiscation")

http://www.guns.com/2013/06/29/royal-canadian-mounted-police-confiscate-guns-from-town-residents-during-flood-video/

Apparently residents of High River in Alberta will return to their homes after having to evacuate due to floods and find all their firearms (registered and legal) have been confiscated by the RCMP-

Don't know if this is the video I watched below, but the red-jack-boots are certainly clueless as to how to carry-on a reasonable conversation on the matter with very reasonable and practical residents-Cops are cops are cops wherever you are, dutiful lap-soldiers of bullshit-gone-wild government.

Everyone is speculating about what the police knew and when. What we do know is they did not know, or even have any evidence that they had returned to Boston after the shootout, but the description claims these searches happened there too.
As for evacuation at gunpoint, yes, it's possible he had moved into a nearby home, but not at all possible that he had morphed into a 12 year old child or woman, so holding them at gunpoint is ridiculous.
It will likely only be true "public record" if there are lawsuits that force the police to give specific reasons for each and every entry.

I agree that it should not be simple. But you are speculating a great deal as to what the police knew, and when they knew it. The"total picture" of police knowledge won't be known until several things play out in court. It will be public record and it can be debated then.

I disagree about the gunpoint evacuation thing. If they suspect he was in a boat, isn't it possible that he moved since police received that information? Couldn't he be in a house now? Seems reasonable to use caution given what his actions were throughout this event. I wouldn't like being pulled out of my house at gunpoint either, but I wouldn't think the police were doing it just to be dicks.

There is a reason it's not 'that simple', it's supposed to be difficult for the powers that be to find a reason to intrude on your 'castle', even when they're scared.
I am hopeful that at least SOME will force them to articulate their specific reason for 'exigent circumstances' and hold their feet to the fire when they don't have one in most cases. In the specific instances where they knew or thought they knew where the suspect was (not when they had no idea) it made sense to evacuate surrounding houses, but not at gunpoint, and there was no reason whatsoever for the police to enter and search the home(s) when they suspected the suspect was trapped and totally surrounded in a neighbors yard, just none.
In the instances alluded to in the description, they'll have a hard time making the case for imminent danger or destruction of evidence, when they didn't know where he was or what he was doing they couldn't possibly have had evidence of either.

Back in shop class, when I was about, oh, 12, we were doing some metalworks that involved heating things up with a propane torch. Now some kids noticed a thin metal rod will heat up to a glow quite quickly and looks kinda neat if you wave it around fast. The teacher being at his desk at the time (he was a bit of a dick, to be honest), we spent a good while waving glowing hot metal bits around the propane tank.

The valve on the tank must have been faulty, because suddenly the top of the tank was on flames. You wouldn't believe how fast a room full of 12-year-olds evacuates itself when an explosion seems imminent. Some kids went out the door, others went out the window (we were in a basement with a window right at ground level) and some simply hid behind a sturdy desk far away from the flaming tank.

Our teacher wasn't quite disinterested enough not to notice the ruckus and went in to extinguish the fire. First he tried to stamp the flames out with his shoe, managing mainly to re-arrange the patterning of his soles, and then got a fire-extinguishing glove which did the job.

As I said, this teacher was something of an asshole, seeming to get his kicks from berating and belittling the kids he was teaching, but this time what followed was a very sober and concise lesson on fire safety. Everyone was left with the feeling we'd all gotten very lucky, and there was this worldess concensus that it'd really be best for all concerned if no-one said a word about what had happened, ever.

Ah, that's pretty clever. It does, however, look massively more expensive than just collapsing the building, probably including the cost of cleaning up any collateral mess or damage. Presumably it's cost effective here though, so what do I know (I imagine, for instance, if you were collapsing that building, you would have to evacuate the nearby buildings for several days around the actual collapse, which could be really expensive in lost business).

Anyways, this is a step closer to Voltron coming, picking up the building, and just hurling it into space to be swallowed by the sun, and I'm all for that bright future.

A few houses away from me a guy held some of his family hostage with an automatic weapon and eventually shot himself. Not only did I not record it but I slept through the helicopters circling my house for hours. When I finally got out of bed and went to lunch I had to ask the officers at the end of my street what had happened because they were blocking my way.

Also apparently they had evacuated my neighborhood, but I never answered the door.

There will be a CCW in the building, and chances are they wont be in the room where it starts. They can start an evacuation, gather their wits, and MAYBE try to stop the shooter. You have this gun lust fantasy that defies reality. No one wants to die, except maybe the shooter. And 5 gets me 10 you live in an urban area.

Having worked in the adult industry as an editor, photographer and videographer for several years I can say that most porn shoots are not even remotely like what Ms. Lubben describes. BUT that is not to say, that as with all industries, there are small unprofessional companies that crop up that don’t follow industry guidelines and ethics.

The company I worked for did fetish porn, so slapping, choking and inflicting pain were all a part of the days work. The actors that perform in these videos are professionals who have very clear guidelines as to what they will and won’t do, those guidelines are in writing with the contract signed by them prior to shooting and are gone over again in a interview prior to shooting the scene which are recorded on camera. All professional production companies work with talent agencies who are familiar with what scenes their actors are willing to perform in and also have a clear list of their artists “hard no’s”. Again, unprofessional agents and companies will not follow these guidelines.

Porn is not mostly shot at private locations as Ms. Lubben asserts in the video, it’s shot either on sound stages or at locations that are rented from private owners and permitted with the city for shooting a film. Here again, unprofessional companies will slide past these regulations and shoot rogue.

Bodily fluids?! Yes, of course, it’s sex. All the fluids she spoke of are part of sexual contact and rightfully so are part of the shoots. Again a professional company is prepared to clean up and deal with this. If anal work is part of the shoot, actors are given guidelines, if they are not already familiar with them, on how to prepare themselves for this kind of a shoot, including dietary info and a bowel evacuation schedule prior to shooting.

Up to date health reports are verified prior to starting work, if you aren’t compliant, no shoot. PERIOD. People’s lives and welfare are at stake and it’s taken very seriously.

My personal take on the video shown here is that Ms. Lubben has a very personal agenda, her experience in the industry was not a good one and it seems to fall under working for unprofessional companies. The video “Porn Set” used to illustrate her points in her speech shows actors who obviously had major issues with the shoots they were working on and who should have left them immediately. Also from the video shown it looked like some of the actors were either high or drunk. The use of drugs and alcohol on set is a huge NO at any professional shoot; Ms. Lubben’s experience in the industry again seems to fall foul of that. I personally have turned away actors (in the kindest way possible) who were visibly intoxicated showing up for to work. It’s incredibly unsafe as with any work place to perform impaired.

How to solve these problems? Regulation is a good start, but also a sticky area (no pun intended) for gov’t to get involved in. Porn is a multi-billion dollar industry with little to no regulation. BUT as you begin to regulate, you legitimize the actions of porn, which in the simplest of terms is prostitution, and with that word politicians start to turn and run. Should gov’t be involved? I for one think in the long run it should be, to protect the workers health and safety and weed out the unprofessional elements of the porn industry, and who knows eventually professionalize the sex industry all together.

How did the police emerge from the tunnels clean, shaved, and ready for battle after 3 months without sunlight?
Did neither the mercs or cops understand the concept of "cover"?
Why would the detective ask the kids to run door to door and evacuate the city with about 12 minutes left?
Why did all the guys in the pit of despair help everyone try to climb out of the place except for a young, innocent girl, whom they apparently wished very dead?
With raw materials up the wazoo, why is it no one in prison could figure out how to make a grappling hook?
How did the mercs manage to pour explosive concrete on already-built bridges?
How did Bane floss?
and ain't it just a dick move to let your friends think you're dead?

Welcome to America!

http://news.yahoo.com/la-town-evacuates-police-relocate-explosives-052337453.html;_ylt=ApaGUB1AybLuD3mcgG3z7Pms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNsZTk0M25mBG1pdANUb3BTd
G9yeSBGUARwa2cDMDhhZjA5OTQtNjE4Mi0zYWEwLThlNGMtZDE4ODY1MDJkMGM5BHBvcwMzBHNlYwN0b3Bfc3RvcnkEdmVyA2Q5ZTVkZGMxLTNkNGUtMTFlMi1iM2JlLTUzNWM5NzI1Yzc4OA--;_y
lg=X3oDMTFpNzk0NjhtBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3

@radx No problem on the short comment, I do the exact same thing

I find your question hard to address directly because it is a series of things I find kind of complexly contradictory. IE, market forces causing undesirable things, and the lack of market forces because of centralization causing undesirable things. Not to say you are believing in contradictions, but rather it is a complex set of issues that have to be addressed, In that, I was thinking all day how to address these, and decided on an a round about way, talking about neither, but rather the history and evolution as to why it is viewed the way you see it, and if those things are necessarily bad. This might be a bit long in the tooth, and I apologize up front for that.

Firstly, reactors are the second invention of nuclear. While a reactor type creation were the first demonstration of fission by humans (turns out there are natural fission reactors: Oklo in Gabon, Africa ), the first objective was, of course, weapons. Most of the early tech that was researched was aimed at "how to make a bomb, and fast". As a result, after the war was all said and done, those pieces of technology could most quickly be transitioned to reactor tech, even if more qualified pieces of technology were better suited. As a result, nearly all of Americas 104 (or so) reactors are based on light water pressure vessels, the result of mostly Admiral Rickover's decision to use them in the nuclear navy. This technological lock in made the big players bigger in the nuclear field, as they didn't have to do any heavy lifting on R&D, just sell lucrative fuel contracts.

This had some very toxic effects on the overall development of reactor technology. As a result of this lock-in, the NRC is predisposed to only approving technology the resembles 50 year old reactor technology. Most of the fleet is very old, and all might as well be called Rickover Reactors. Reactors which use solid fuel rods, control rods, water under pressure, ect, are approved; even though there are some other very good candidates for reactor R&D and deployment, it simply is beyond the NRCs desire to make those kinds of changes. These barriers to entry can't be understated, only the very rich could ever afford to attempt to approve a new reactor technology, like mutli-billionaire, and still might not get approved it it smells funny (thorium, what the hell is thorium!)! The result is current reactors use mostly the same innards but have larger requirements. Those requirements also change without notice and they are required to comply with more hast than any industry. So if you built a reactor to code, and the wire mesh standards changed mid construction, you have to comply, so tear down the wall and start over unless you can figure out some way to comply. This has had a multiplication effect on costs and construction times. So many times, complications can arise not because it was "over engineered", but that they have had to go super ad-hawk to make it all work due to changes mid construction. Frankly, it is pretty amazing what they have done with reactor technology to stretch it out this long. Even with the setbacks you mention, these rube goldbergian devices still manage to compete with coal in terms of its cost per Kwh, and blow away things like solar and wind on the carbon free front.

As to reactor size LWRs had to be big in the day because of various reasons, mostly licencing. Currently, there are no real ways to do small reactors because all licencing and regulatory framework assumes it is a 1GW power station. All the huge fees and regulatory framework established by these well engineered at the time, but now ancient marvels. So you need an evacuation plan that is X miles wide ( I think it is 10), even if your reactor is fractionally as large. In other words, there is nothing technically keeping reactors large. I actually would like to see them go more modular, self regulating, and at the point of need. This would simplify transmission greatly and build in a redundancy into the system. It would also potentially open up a huge market to a variety of different small, modular reactors. Currently, though, this is a pipe dream...but a dream well worth having and pushing for.

Also, reactors in the west are pretty safe, if you look at deaths per KWH, even figuring in the worst estimates of Chernobyl, nuclear is one of the best (Chernobyl isn't a western reactor). Even so, safety ratcheting in nuclear safety happens all the time, driving costs and complexity on very old systems up and up with only nominal gains. For instance, there are no computer control systems in a reactor. Each and every gauge is a specific type that is mandated by NRC edict or similar ones abroad (usually very archaic) . This creates a potential for counterfeiter parts and other actions considered foul by many. These edicts do little for safety, most safety comes from proper reactor design, and skillful operation of the plant managers. With plants so expensive, and general costs of power still very competitive, Managers would never want to damage the money output of nuclear reactors. They would very much like to make plant operations a combination of safe, smooth, and affordable. When one of those edges out the other, it tends to find abuses in the real world. If something gets to needlessly costly, managers start looking around for alternatives. Like the DHS, much of nuclear safety is nuclear safety theater...so to a certain extent, some of the abuses don't account for any real significant increase in risk. This isn't always the case, but it has to be evaluated case by case, and for the layperson, this isn't usually something that will be done.

This combination of unwillingness to invest in new reactor technology, higher demands from reactors in general, and a single minded focus on safety, (several NRC chairmen have been decidedly anti-nuclear, that is like having the internet czar hate broadband) have stilted true growth in nuclear technology. For instance, cars are not 100% safe. It is likely you will know someone that will die in a car wreak in the course of your life. This, however, doesn't cause cars to escalate that drastically in safety features or costs to implement features to drop the death rate to 0. Even though in the US, 10s of thousands die each year in cars, you will not see well meaning people call for arresting foam injection or titanium platted unobtanium body frames, mainly because safety isn't the only point of a car. A car, or a plane, or anything really, has a complicated set of benefits and defects that we have to make hard choices on...choices that don't necessarily have a correct answer. There is a benefit curve where excessive costs don't actually improve safety that much more. If everyone in the USA had to spend 10K more on a car for form injection systems that saved 100 lives in the course of a year, is that worth it? I don't have an answer there as a matter of fact, only opinion. And as the same matter of opinion on reactors, most of their cost, complication, and centralization have to do with the special way in which we treat reactors, not the technology itself. If there was a better regulatory framework, you would see (as we kind of are slowly in the industry despite these things) cheaper, easier to fabricate reactors which are safer by default. Designs that start on a fresh sheet of paper, with the latest and greatest in computer modeling (most current reactors were designed before computer simulations on the internals or externals was even a thing) and materials science. I am routing for the molten salt, thorium reactors, but there are a bunch of other generation4 reactors that are just begging to be built.

Right now, getting the NRC to approve a new reactor design takes millions of dollars, ensuring the big boy will stay around for awhile longer yet. And the regularly framework also ensures whatever reactor gets built, it is big, and that it will use solid fuel, and water coolant, and specific dials and gauges...ect. It would be like the FCC saying the exact innards of what a cellphone should be, it would be kind of maddening to cellphone manufacturers..and you most likely wouldn't have an iPhone in the way we have it today. NRC needs to change for any of the problems you mentioned to be resolved. That is a big obstacle, I am not going to lie, it is unlikely to change anytime soon. But I think the promise of carbon free energy with reliable base-load abilities can't be ignored in this green minded future we want to create.

Any rate, thanks for your feedback, hopefully, that wasn't overkill