Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Re: Ralph agrees!

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Ralph agrees!

 
 
Whiskers
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-06-2010
On 2010-06-05, §nühw¤£f <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> But then, briliant minds think alike
>
> Planning for Disaster
> by Ralph Nader


[...]

> His problem is how long it took for the
> White House to see this as a national disaster not just
> a corporate disaster for BP to contain.
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/05


The answer to that question seems to be 'before Mr Nader did', and
whatever action could be taken, was taken, as soon as it could be in the
circumstances.
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...ama-briefed-in
-april-by-carol-browner-on-how-bad-bp-spill-was-/> or
<http://xrl.us/bhnxbu> for short.

Perhaps Mr Nader's problem is that he believes the POTUS has a phone
number for Superman and for some reason hasn't called him in to do his
special magic.

The ultimate cause of this disaster is the rush for oil; technology is
being pushed to the limit and beyond trying to meet growing demand for a
diminishing resource. Government regulators have no applicable
regulations to enforce, because the engineers have yet to learn what the
'best practice' should be - no-one has done this sort of thing before.

So what the authorities can tell the oil companies, is either 'don't do it,
it might be dangerous' or 'oh well, it might be dangerous but your guess is
as good as ours and it's your money so we won't stop you'. Only one of
those options can ever produce oil.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Whiskers
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-07-2010
On 2010-06-07, §nühw¤£f <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Whiskers <(E-Mail Removed)> clouded the waters of pure
> thought with
> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>> On 2010-06-05, §nühw¤£f <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> But then, briliant minds think alike
>>>
>>> Planning for Disaster
>>> by Ralph Nader

>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> His problem is how long it took for the
>>> White House to see this as a national disaster not just
>>> a corporate disaster for BP to contain.
>>>
>>> http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/05

>>
>> The answer to that question seems to be 'before Mr Nader did', and
>> whatever action could be taken, was taken, as soon as it could be
>> in the circumstances.
>> <http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...06-04/obama-br
>> iefed-in -april-by-carol-browner-on-how-bad-bp-spill-was-/> or
>> <http://xrl.us/bhnxbu> for short.
>>
>> Perhaps Mr Nader's problem is that he believes the POTUS has a
>> phone number for Superman and for some reason hasn't called him in
>> to do his special magic.
>>

> I'd say that Ralph understands that BP isnt going to cap a well by
> sealing it when they can still get resource from it.
> Its about the money.


Mostly, yes. of course it is. What's possible and what's sane are also in
there somewhere. Mr Nader is just exploiting his privileged position of
not actually being in a position to do anything helpful, to try to make
his political rivals look even sillier than he is making himself look.

The reliable solution is to drill 'relief wells' that will be used to pump
cement directly into the broken one. That is being done, and started
pretty early in the sequence of things, but won't be useable for weeks.
<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=arOaldTCI0FU>

>> The ultimate cause of this disaster is the rush for oil;
>> technology is being pushed to the limit and beyond trying to meet
>> growing demand for a diminishing resource. Government regulators
>> have no applicable regulations to enforce, because the engineers
>> have yet to learn what the 'best practice' should be - no-one has
>> done this sort of thing before.
>>

> Maybe, maybe not. The Russians offered to help and Obama acted like a
> duche and rejected it.
> http://www.mediaite.com/online/in-li...ning-traction/


That is a link to a journalist reporting something suggested by another
journalist in a Russian newspaper. "The Russians" don't seem to have made
any such offer. She even has another article on that site opposing the
idea
<http://www.mediaite.com/tv/steve-forbes-nuking-the-gulf-oil-spill-a-new-form-of-obamacare/>

Have the Russians successfully used a nuke to stop an oil leak under a
mile of water?

How would it be quicker to drill a hole and put a bomb in it, than it is
to drill a hole and pump cement into it? What chance a bomb would just
make things worse?

>> So what the authorities can tell the oil companies, is either
>> 'don't do it, it might be dangerous' or 'oh well, it might be
>> dangerous but your guess is as good as ours and it's your money so
>> we won't stop you'. Only one of those options can ever produce
>> oil.
>>

> We need to take over BP. They wont be accountable or operate safely
> otherwise.


BP is a publicly listed company. Guess which country the largest
shareholders are in? Guess whose regulations they were complying with
already?

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
chuckcar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2010
Whiskers <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> On 2010-06-07, §nühw¤£f <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Whiskers <(E-Mail Removed)> clouded the waters of pure
>> thought with
>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>> On 2010-06-05, §nühw¤£f <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> But then, briliant minds think alike

> That is a link to a journalist reporting something suggested by
> another journalist in a Russian newspaper. "The Russians" don't seem
> to have made any such offer. She even has another article on that
> site opposing the idea
> <http://www.mediaite.com/tv/steve-for...oil-spill-a-ne
> w-form-of-obamacare/>
>
> Have the Russians successfully used a nuke to stop an oil leak under a
> mile of water?
>
> How would it be quicker to drill a hole and put a bomb in it, than it
> is to drill a hole and pump cement into it? What chance a bomb would
> just make things worse?
>

A complete red herring - as I've replied to him before. 1. The bomb has to
be below the ground - quite possibly 5,000' below the ground. That would be
10,000' from the surface of the water. And if it wasn't, you'd naturally
irradiate the entire gulf of mexico for hundreds of years of course.

>>> So what the authorities can tell the oil companies, is either
>>> 'don't do it, it might be dangerous' or 'oh well, it might be
>>> dangerous but your guess is as good as ours and it's your money so
>>> we won't stop you'. Only one of those options can ever produce
>>> oil.
>>>

>> We need to take over BP. They wont be accountable or operate safely
>> otherwise.

>
> BP is a publicly listed company. Guess which country the largest
> shareholders are in? Guess whose regulations they were complying with
> already?
>

All of them naturally - so we're told. The regulating body is such a mess
that I doubt anyone really knows for sure.


--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
 
Reply With Quote
 
Whiskers
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2010
On 2010-06-07, §ñühw¤£f <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Whiskers wrote:
>> On 2010-06-07, §nühw¤£f <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> Whiskers <(E-Mail Removed)> clouded the waters of pure
>>> thought with
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>>> On 2010-06-05, §nühw¤£f <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> But then, briliant minds think alike
>>>>>
>>>>> Planning for Disaster
>>>>> by Ralph Nader
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> His problem is how long it took for the
>>>>> White House to see this as a national disaster not just
>>>>> a corporate disaster for BP to contain.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/05
>>>>
>>>> The answer to that question seems to be 'before Mr Nader did', and
>>>> whatever action could be taken, was taken, as soon as it could be
>>>> in the circumstances.
>>>> <http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...06-04/obama-br
>>>> iefed-in -april-by-carol-browner-on-how-bad-bp-spill-was-/> or
>>>> <http://xrl.us/bhnxbu> for short.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps Mr Nader's problem is that he believes the POTUS has a
>>>> phone number for Superman and for some reason hasn't called him in
>>>> to do his special magic.
>>>>
>>> I'd say that Ralph understands that BP isnt going to cap a well by
>>> sealing it when they can still get resource from it.
>>> Its about the money.

>>
>> Mostly, yes. of course it is. What's possible and what's sane are
>> also in
>> there somewhere.

>
> How is it "sane" to allow it to spew millions of gallons into the Gulf?
> Say that to a fisherman or a guy cleaning the oil-soaked birds, mate.


One mght as well ask how it is sane to allow the wind to blow or the tide
to rise.

>> Mr Nader is just exploiting his privileged position
>> of
>> not actually being in a position to do anything helpful, to try to
>> make
>> his political rivals look even sillier than he is making himself look.
>>

> Oh please. Really? You as well?
> FFS...


You and me both; we're doing what Nader is doing - making pointless
comments from the side-line.

>> The reliable solution is to drill 'relief wells' that will be used to
>> pump
>> cement directly into the broken one. That is being done, and started
>> pretty early in the sequence of things, but won't be useable for
>> weeks.
>> <http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=arOaldTCI0FU>
>>

>
> Uh huh. So it you can put *cement* in there, why not a nuke?
> Time frame's the same, mate.
> Oh, One Big Differnce: with CEMENT, you have to HIT the .5 meter wide
> well-hole to plug it.
> With a NUKE, you get within the blast zone and detonate.
> Sealed Deal.


Or you get a leak that's miles across instead of inches, and is
radioactive and possibly on fire too. But that wouldn't matter any more,
as most of the Gulf of Mexico and surrounding land would be un-inhabitable
for the foreseeable future. I suppose that would solve the problem of
flood control for New Orleans.

[...]

> And **** anyone who buys gas from BP.
>
> Word.


You do know that the brand-name on the pump doesn't tell you who ran the
well the crude came from, don't you?

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
 
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
Ralph Lauren polo zero C++ 0 11-08-2009 12:41 PM
message for RALPH pat Computer Support 9 06-07-2005 11:31 AM
Polo Ralph Lauren "loses" customer data... Michael Pelletier Computer Security 0 04-17-2005 06:22 AM



Advertisments