Re: Ralph agrees!

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Whiskers, Jun 6, 2010.

  1. Whiskers

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2010-06-05, §nühw¤£f <> 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-and-stories/2010-06-04/obama-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
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Whiskers, Jun 6, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Whiskers

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2010-06-07, §nühw¤£f <> wrote:
    > Whiskers <> clouded the waters of pure
    > thought with
    > news::
    >> On 2010-06-05, §nühw¤£f <> 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-and-stories/2010-06-04/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-l...ar-option-for-stopping-leak-gaining-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
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Whiskers, Jun 7, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Whiskers

    chuckcar Guest

    Whiskers <> wrote in
    news::

    > On 2010-06-07, §nühw¤£f <> wrote:
    >> Whiskers <> clouded the waters of pure
    >> thought with
    >> news::
    >>> On 2010-06-05, §nühw¤£f <> 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-forbes-nuking-the-gulf-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) )
     
    chuckcar, Jun 8, 2010
    #3
  4. Whiskers

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2010-06-07, §ñühw¤£f <> wrote:
    > Whiskers wrote:
    >> On 2010-06-07, §nühw¤£f <> wrote:
    >>> Whiskers <> clouded the waters of pure
    >>> thought with
    >>> news::
    >>>> On 2010-06-05, §nühw¤£f <> 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-and-stories/2010-06-04/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
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Whiskers, Jun 8, 2010
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. pat

    message for RALPH

    pat, Jun 6, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    573
  2. .Seneca#

    Re: Seneca Agrees: He's a 'Holocuast Denier'

    .Seneca#, Feb 29, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    450
    William Daffer
    Mar 1, 2004
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    487
  4. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    B&H settles discrimination suit, agrees to pay $4.3 million

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Oct 20, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    82
    Views:
    1,633
    Pudentame
    Oct 27, 2007
  5. Frank Williams

    Ping Ralph Fox

    Frank Williams, Mar 1, 2014, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    147
    Ralph Fox
    Mar 1, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page