Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Re: BP paying for silence

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: BP paying for silence

 
 
OldGringo38
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-22-2010
On 5/22/2010 5:25 PM Just to please that super-ego, §nühw¤£f wrote the
following tidbit of information:
> Looks like BP is buying off people to keep quiet about the effects of the Gulf Oil Disaster...
>
> "One of the biggest hurdles to covering the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was actually getting a good look at the oil. For somewhat
> murky reasons (health, safety of fragile habitats), press has been repeatedly forbidden to enter impacted areas by the Coast Guard, BP,
> or the Fish& Wildlife Service. I was on the ground in the Gulf, and trying to get the story from one of the fishermen contracted to work
> with BP was like asking them if they'd like a root canal on the spot. Word is that cleanup workers are told if they talk to press, they're fired.
>
> http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/...ulf-oil-spill/
>
>

Lets go hydrogen. **** on BP, and all the rest of the Oil mongers.

--
OldGringo38
Just West Of Nowhere
Enjoy Life And Live It To Its Fullest
http://www.NuBoy-Industries.Com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
chuckcar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-23-2010
OldGringo38 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:ht9pb1$s19$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org:

> On 5/22/2010 5:25 PM Just to please that super-ego, §nühw¤£f wrote the
> following tidbit of information:
>> Looks like BP is buying off people to keep quiet about the effects of
>> the Gulf Oil Disaster...
>>
>> "One of the biggest hurdles to covering the BP oil spill in the Gulf
>> of Mexico was actually getting a good look at the oil. For somewhat
>> murky reasons (health, safety of fragile habitats), press has been
>> repeatedly forbidden to enter impacted areas by the Coast Guard, BP,
>> or the Fish& Wildlife Service. I was on the ground in the Gulf, and
>> trying to get the story from one of the fishermen contracted to work
>> with BP was like asking them if they'd like a root canal on the spot.
>> Word is that cleanup workers are told if they talk to press, they're
>> fired.
>>
>> http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/...-you-wont-see-
>> the-worst-of-the-gulf-oil-spill/
>>
>>

> Lets go hydrogen. **** on BP, and all the rest of the Oil mongers.
>

Where are you going to get it all and Who's going to pay for converting
all the vehicles on the road? I seriously like the idea - *if* it still
involves an internal combustion engine only - but we simply don't have
the infrstructure to switch right now.


--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Meat Plow
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-23-2010
On Sun, 23 May 2010 01:33:14 +0000, chuckcar wrote:

> Where are you going to get it all and Who's going to pay for converting
> all the vehicles on the road? I seriously like the idea - *if* it still
> involves an internal combustion engine only


It never did involve an internal combustion engine. At least not in a
fuel cell version.
 
Reply With Quote
 
chuckcar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-23-2010
"§nühw¤£f" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:Xns9D8159915368snuhwolfyahoocom@216.196.97.14 2:

> chuckcar <(E-Mail Removed)> clouded the waters of pure thought with
> news:Xns9D80DAE3F1B50chuck@127.0.0.1:
>


>>> Lets go hydrogen. **** on BP, and all the rest of the Oil
>>> mongers.
>>>

>> Where are you going to get it all and Who's going to pay for
>> converting all the vehicles on the road? I seriously like the idea
>> - *if* it still involves an internal combustion engine only - but
>> we simply don't have the infrstructure to switch right now.

>
> Its currently a zero sum game too. Splitting seawater to make
> hydrogen takes more energy than it produces.
>

And Gasoline is quite likely the same. Certainly celery is the worst loser
in such energy conversions: it delivers something like 1/20th of what it
costs to produce and deliver. They mean nothing. What's important is a)
the polution generated by such and b) the maintenance costs of the energy
production method used to convert it. Solar is non-poluting (*if* you ignore
the toxic materials used in production of the cells themselves) bu high
maintenance. Nuclear is extremely high return, but requires extremely highly
skilled labour to maintain properly. Hydro is high return, but limited
geographically and affects salmon populations and can affect other ecologies
in unknown ways. There are such negatives in *all* forms of energy production.

However, this looks encouraging:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biologi...gen_production

If you ignore the fact that copper is toxic as well and now you're
adding it to water and will have to retrieve it somehow.

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bucky Breeder
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-25-2010
chuckcar <http://tinyurl.com/2bout62>:

> "Idiot-tard":
>
>> chuckcar <(E-Mail Removed)>:

>
>>>> Lets go hydrogen. **** on BP, and all the rest of the Oil
>>>> mongers.
>>>>
>>> Where are you going to get it all and Who's going to pay for
>>> converting all the vehicles on the road? I seriously like the idea
>>> - *if* it still involves an internal combustion engine only - but
>>> we simply don't have the infrstructure to switch right now.

>>
>> Its currently a zero sum game too. Splitting seawater to make
>> hydrogen takes more energy than it produces.
>>

> And Gasoline is quite likely the same. Certainly celery is the worst
> loser in such energy conversions: it delivers something like 1/20th of
> what it costs to produce and deliver. They mean nothing. What's
> important is a) the polution generated by such and b) the maintenance
> costs of the energy production method used to convert it. Solar is
> non-poluting (*if* you ignore the toxic materials used in production of
> the cells themselves) bu high maintenance. Nuclear is extremely high
> return, but requires extremely highly skilled labour to maintain
> properly. Hydro is high return, but limited geographically and affects
> salmon populations and can affect other ecologies in unknown ways. There
> are such negatives in *all* forms of energy production.
>
> However, this looks encouraging:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biologi...gen_production
>
> If you ignore the fact that copper is toxic as well and now you're
> adding it to water and will have to retrieve it somehow.



Back in the late 1800's our forefathers and foremothers used
whale oil as the primary source of energy. I do not know if
they used it for sex-lube as well; and except for Hawaii, there
was no need for surf-board-waxes... The Hubbel telescope still
uses whale oil today - little known fact, but true enough.
It is, however, one of the great mysteries of our time as to
exactly *how* NASA gets the whales way up there to donate their
oils, but that is probably a matter of great national security.

I'm not saying to start the whaling again; that could be inhumane!

But since the population of our planet has increased so exponentially
since those early whale-oil times, and fat people take up so much
more room as well as consume disproportianate amounts of resources...
every country should donate its fat people to an energy conversion
facility; thereby, efficiently solving two of planet Earth's most
pressing problems at once. Lean, green and clean... Yep, that's the
ticket. And no more worries about where you're going to be sitting
on airliners anymore. "Happy days are here again." And people are
motivated to eat right and get exercise. It's a win-win-win-win-win!

HTH.

--

I AM Bucky Breeder, (*(^; and I'm not talking to the aliens
because Stephen Hawking said it's not such a good idea :

http://tinyurl.com/2g76h4c [http://www.timesonline.co.uk]

http://tinyurl.com/396ljz4 [for those who need illustrations]

Repent! The end is near.... So, smoke 'em if you got 'em.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Silence detection Martin UK VOIP 3 02-04-2006 11:13 AM
Sipgate and Asterisk, Calls cut if silence detected Sparks UK VOIP 1 07-12-2005 09:03 AM
REVIEW: "Silence on the Wire", Michal Zalewski Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor Computer Security 1 06-27-2005 03:37 PM
DVD Verdict reviews: LOVING WALTER, THE PACT OF SILENCE, and more! DVD Verdict DVD Video 0 11-26-2003 10:04 AM
Does G.711 have silence suppression? Alex VOIP 3 09-05-2003 03:39 AM



Advertisments