Slashdot Mirror


BSOD Issues On Deepwater Horizon

ctdownunder passes along this excerpt from a NY Times article about a rig worker's testimony concerning the April 20 accident at the Deepwater Horizon well: "The emergency alarm on the Deepwater Horizon was not fully activated on the day the oil rig caught fire and exploded, triggering the massive spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a rig worker on Friday told a government panel investigating the accident. ... On Friday, Mr. Williams added several new details about the equipment on the vessel, testifying that another Transocean official turned a critical system for removing dangerous gas from the drilling shack to 'bypass mode.' When he questioned that decision, Mr. Williams said, he was reprimanded. ... Problems existed from the beginning of drilling the well, Mr. Williams said. For months, the computer system had been locking up, producing what the crew deemed the 'blue screen of death.' 'It would just turn blue,' he said. 'You’d have no data coming through.' Replacement hardware had been ordered but not yet installed by the time of the disaster, he said." The article doesn't mention whether it was specifically a Windows BSOD, or just an error screen that happened to be blue.

383 comments

  1. Why didn't they fix it? by SquarePixel · · Score: 1, Insightful

    For months, the computer system had been locking up, producing what the crew deemed the 'blue screen of death. 'It would just turn blue,' he said.

    So they didn't have proper computer administration in place? If my own computer started BSOD'ing often and for months, I would do something about it. I would especially do something about it if it was an important system, irrelevant to if it was Windows, Linux or any other OS.

    It's not like it BSOD'd once and caused it. It was BSOD'ing for months.

    1. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Many embedded systems have their console in blue. It's not even sure it was Windows.

    2. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1, Informative

      RTFA, the workers ordered the parts and were still waiting for them when the place blew up and sank.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    3. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by certain+death · · Score: 1

      You win the prize for the most "BSOD"s in a single post! Yay you!! :o)

      --
      "My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
    4. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "still waiting for them when the place blew up and sank."

      Don't you just HATE when that happens? And, who knows WHERE the hell the post office actually sent the parts! Zimbabwe? Rhodesia? Pakistan? Someone in Atlantis may get our parts, instead of what they ordered, and sink THEIR boats!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    5. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by somersault · · Score: 1

      It's right there in the summary, no need to RTFA. MONTHS. Considering the resources that companies like BP have, this should have been fixed within days or weeks, not months. Though the problems on this rig obviously went much deeper than poor IT policies.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    6. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      For months?

      Problems existed from the beginning of drilling the well, Mr. Williams said. For months, the computer system had been locking up, producing what the crew deemed the “blue screen of death.”

    7. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by gparent · · Score: 2, Funny

      On that note, I really gotta check up with newegg.ca on my brand new Pentium III. I should've paid for fast shipping =(

    8. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by jackalope · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You've obviously never worked at a Fortune 500 company. The simplest things take weeks, if not months, to requisition. Then add submitting a labor request to have it installed. Add in a helicopter trip to get the tech and the equipment to the rig and you've got massive delays. Seems like they need expedited procedures for life-critical safety systems. (Sorry that was obvious wasn't it).

    9. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by The+Spoonman · · Score: 1

      You must be new here. At Slashdot, it's always the fault of the OS, never the admin. Just because most of us real Windows admins haven't seen a blue screen in years is irrelevant...

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    10. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by spazdor · · Score: 1

      when Atlantis boats malfunction they float to the surface.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    11. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by bell.colin · · Score: 1

      Windows is not fit for "life-critical safety systems" read that EULA again, Windows should not have been running this system (if it was)

    12. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by somersault · · Score: 1

      You'd think they could at least have a spare PC lying around if this was actually an important piece of equipment. I do suspect it was just a plain old PC. I've done some work on Windows software for simulating downhole situations for Weatherford, and as far as I can tell they run their downhole telemetry software on Windows too - though perhaps BP do things differently.

      Aside from that though, the real problems here are the type of morons who do stuff like disable the alarm system to stop themselves losing sleep when there are false alarms. If disabling the alarm means it's more likely that someone will die in a real emergency, then fix the fucking alarm already instead of just switching it off! That kind of attitude to safety is despicable, or in this case quite possibly suicidal. As you say, they need to have proper procedures in place for keeping safety critical systems in working order.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    13. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Informative

      I call bullshit, a real windows admin would have enough servers that he would see blue screens from bad ram every so often.

    14. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In most multi million dollar operations some kind of redundancy is built in.

      I am thinking there was a laptop or other desktop in a non critical role
      that could have stepped into the role.

      I think bad management plus ppl making excuses to not fix the problem
      are often at the root of the issue.

      We have a "not my problem" cutlure that spends more time looking for
      excuses to deflect something than just fixing it and moving on.

      I have been doing this for over 25 years so I can speak with some experience.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    15. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by The+Spoonman · · Score: 1

      Sorry, not the case. We've got 1200 Windows server, haven't seen a BSOD in the five years I've been here. (The desktop guys might have. 15k desktops, I'm sure one's had bad RAM). At the previous job, 3 years with 900 servers and no BSODs.

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    16. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Based on the particular phrasing in TFS, it may not have been a computer(except in some embedded sense) at all.

      "'It would just turn blue,' he said. 'You’d have no data coming through.'"

      Everybody uses computers these days, and knows that they "crash"(they may not be able to distinguish between hangs and crashes; but the word is in common consciousness). "Turn blue", though, sounds much more like what most analog video hardware does when it isn't receiving an input...

      Obviously, in any modern system of any complexity, there is a computer or more in the loop somewhere; but "You'd have no data coming through" and "it would just turn blue" sounds like a description of a video monitor suddenly losing its video source(presumably from a robotic camera somewhere, possibly with a bunch of vital stats being overlaid on it by an embedded video processor device).

      Only a caricature of an utter n00b would describe a computer blue-screening in those terms.

    17. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by magarity · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never worked at a Fortune 500 company
       
      I don't think TransOcean is that big.

    18. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, how is parent offtopic?

    19. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by cptdondo · · Score: 1

      Mission critical alarms without failover? WTF?

      Heck, if my mythtv install falls over, I'm screwed. I have myth failover. If a home hacker on a shoe string budget can do it, why can't a multi-billion dollar corp?

    20. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by cptdondo · · Score: 1

      I can tell you that if the CEO's pet gerbil caughed while on the rig, the best gerbil vet would be airlifted immediately. But people are much easier replaced than gerbils....

    21. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by sqkybeaver · · Score: 0

      if they needed a new drill head, it would be there in less than 12 hours! it is all about money, if you can still make money with a broken part or bad software why shut-down and replace it? > that's the thinking of multi billion dollar industry. fines need to be exponentially greater to the effect of putting fear of bankruptcy for BIGOIL only then will government regulation and compliance be effective!

    22. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      auto reboot on BSOD doesn't count...

    23. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      It's right there in the summary, no need to RTFA. MONTHS. Considering the resources that companies like BP have,

      So what? SOP is for the Operating Company (BP in this instance) to provide the boats between shorebase and rig, and since they were backloading mud at the time of the blowout coming to surface, clearly they were providing boat space. After all, they bloody well need the boats to get all the rest of the equipment to and from the rig.
      The summary describes testimony from a TransOcean employee, talking about TransOcean systems on a TransOcean rig. Blaming it on BP is like blaming the passenger in a taxi for the taxi having a bald spare tyre.
      Oh, sorry, I forgot - you're on Slashdot : writing about something you know nothing about is de rigeur.

      Far, far more disturbing is having a cabin pressurisation system on override for months at a time. That's just a stupid thing to do.

      (FWIW, I'm on a TransOcean rig at the moment, not that I work for either them or BP. But since TransOcean are one of the biggest companies in the MODU game, that's less than surprising.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    24. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Who is this magic vendor that can provide 1200 units and not a one have bad ram or bad Mobos in 5 years? I want to start buying hardware from them to run any OS on.
        This sounds impossible. We test all our servers incoming and still have one a year or so. As windows is the red headed step child in our server room we only have tens of them.

    25. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Windows is not fit for "life-critical safety systems" read that EULA again, Windows should not have been running this system (if it was)

      Yet it does. Time to accept it. And this isn't an isolated case. Windows runs both the front end graphics and back end databases to most of the major control system vendors in the world. Sure the final control is done by a dedicated piece of hardware and if you're a very VERY awesome designer you can build a system to ride its way through a loss of the computers simply holding the last setpoints, but lets face it, the war is lost EULA and bugs be damned.

    26. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

      Try turning on the monitors

    27. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop buying RAM at Radio Shack and putting it in your servers. I have systems running NT4 that haven't blue screened since the day they were installed.

    28. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by The+Spoonman · · Score: 1

      Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!

      Who says Slashdotters are sad nerds with no sense of humor?

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    29. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by The+Spoonman · · Score: 1

      HP. We only buy the "previous", and thus well-tested, generations. Ensure our firmware and drivers are the latest. Run stress tests on the machine before putting into production. It's really not that hard. That's why we're pulling all the Unix stuff out. Everything revenue-generating and client-facing is 100% Windows. The Unix team couldn't come close to matching us for uptimes and performance.

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    30. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by somersault · · Score: 1

      Well, everyone from the president to world news have been blaming the thing on BP so I assumed they were the guys in charge of all of this. I don't know if you're saying that BP subcontract TransOcean or vice versa, but either way they both have plenty of money and expertise and should be able to provide redundant systems for something as simple and cheap as a computer.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    31. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by Peil · · Score: 1

      You do realise this was a rig operated by TransOcean, subcontracted to BP.

      The fault lies with the rigs owners and operators.

    32. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by riT-k0MA · · Score: 1

      Geographically, Rhodesia == Zimbabwe, you insensitive clod!

    33. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I thought that I got away with that blunder. It sat there safely under the radar for days, then you come along and point it out. I think I resent that - just gimme your coordinates, and I'll send a space crowbar your way . . . .

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    34. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      I've got two windows laptops (my other machines are linux). I've seen two BSOD in the last two years. For home and non-critical use it's just an aggravation but for mission critical stuff we stick with Linux. Our last server ran for four years until the power went out for an entire night (the UPS couldn't go that long).

      It seems just plain irresponsible to use a home OS for mission critical stuff.

    35. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by The+Spoonman · · Score: 1

      I agree, but you're the one using Linux, not me. :)

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    36. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Windows is not fit for "life-critical safety systems" read that EULA again, Windows should not have been running this system (if it was)

      RTFA! They didn't even specify it was Windows, they just said a blue screen with no data coming through - which doesn't sound like a Windows BSOD to me.

    37. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Quick primer on how the oil industry works :

      • Governments own land and mineral resources beneath it (I gather that the USA has some bizzare aspects to it's law onshore in this respect, but I doubt that's relevant offshore).
      • But governments don't know how to evaluate, develop or exploit an oilfield, so they get oil companies to do it (some countries nationalise their oil companies, as the USA plans to do with BP, but that doesn't much change things). The contracts are called licensing agreements, PSA (production sharing agreements) and shit like that, but their essence doesn't change.
      • Oil companies know how to evaluate, develop and exploit oil fields, but don't want to have thousands of engineering staff and billions of dollars worth of equipment under-used waiting on them having a prospect that needs just that equipment and expertise, so they sub-contract that job to drilling companies. (A little more detail - BP have probably got several dozen little rigs around the world, for repair work and that sort of thing, but the big ticket equipment such as the Ocean Alliance drilling rig, they either rent out on the open market when they're not using it themselves, or they just plain sub-contract. The Ocean Alliance drilling rig was, in fact, managed for BP by ... a drilling company. Don't confuse exploration and assessment equipment like drilling rigs with production equipment like production platforms, each of which is more or less a unique build of chemical processing plant for a specific oilfield's temperature, pressure, hydrocarbon properties and environmental conditions, and they are owned by the oil companies. Often the ownership is in consortium, as with the 25% stake that Andarko (of Texas) and the 10% that Mitsui group (Japan) have in the costs of the Macondo blowout.
      • The drilling companies who own the drilling equipment also employ personnel who have long-term contracts on particular MODUs (Mobile Offshore Drilling Units) or land rigs. These are large, complex assemblages of equipment, each of which has particular idiosyncrasies which really require long-term familiarity to work with effectively. To use the popular car analogy : in theory, Joe Le Taxi could drive Jenson Button's Formula One car, while Button could drive Fred The Miner's 100-tonne dump truck, and Fred could drive the taxi in the city. But in practice, specialisation leads to improved performance. Include the mechanics teams for each vehicle, and I think the analogy is reasonable.
        This is the level at which the original issue was described. A TransOcean employee complaining about a TransOcean system on a TransOcean rig ; BP's (and Andarko, and Mitsui's) only involvement is to make space available on supply boats and/ or helicopters for parts and technicians.
      • Moving down the line, the oil companies also don't want to have specialist drilling geologists (myself) on their pension liabilities (generally ; BP are almost uniquely hands-on in this regard), nor do they want catering staff, or medics, or bed-changers, or ROV pilots. All these specialisms are contracted or sub-contracted out to increasingly specialised companies. Similarly, the drilling companies generally don't provide specialists for things like top drive hydraulic systems, pipe handling systems, etc, but also sub-contract that back to the manufacturers.

      The oil industry, like many other industries, is a nest of sub-contracting to specialisation. Which is not in itself a bad thing. The problems occur (and this may or may not be an issue in this specific case - I know enough to know that I don't know, so I'm only illustrating a general point here) when the chains of information and accountability between the companies break down.
      In my work, I have an obligation (and get paid for doing) to report any concerns about excessive pore pressure in the formation. And I do report such things, partly because it's a part of my job, and partly because it's a matter of personal safety. But if the level above

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    38. Re:Why didn't they fix it? by somersault · · Score: 1

      Thanks for explaining :) I do have a little knowledge of oil industry subcontracting as that's one of the things we do here - hire out dredging teams for cable burial/deburial, etc, but I didn't have much knowledge of how things worked on the upper end of the scale. I'm working in the IT dept, though I have been learning a little more about business operations since I'm building a database for our sales team right now.

      --
      which is totally what she said
  2. BSOD by DWMorse · · Score: 4, Funny

    A Blue Screen of Death by a computer yields a Black Screen of Death on an ocean. Interesting. Kill all humans, anyone?

    --
    There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
    1. Re:BSOD by pitchpipe · · Score: 4, Funny

      So in this case BSOD is not a metaphor!

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    2. Re:BSOD by DWMorse · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Futurama quotes in obvious jest will mod your posts flamebait! Hah!

      --
      There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
    3. Re:BSOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is no evidence that BSODs contributed to this disaster. What is know to have contributed is the cheap cement job, plugged pressure sensors on the blowout preventer, possible damage to the blowout preventer during drilling (rubber fragments observed), and using seawater instead of drilling mud. None of these were automated.

    4. Re:BSOD by spun · · Score: 1

      Look, it's a huge oil slick. In middle of hurricane alley. Hurricanes produce lightning. Lightning ignites fires. That oil slick is one giant pool of flame bait. That's all the mods were trying to say.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    5. Re:BSOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
    6. Re:BSOD by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 3, Interesting

      To be fair, the cheap cement job was what BP ordered. I think it was two plugs instead of three and they skipped the final (and expensive) inspection.

      That said, Halliburton still needs to answer for all the shit it's pulled in Iraq.

    7. Re:BSOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If the monitoring systems weren't working right, while it didn't produce the penultimate cause, it points to a lot more going wrong- and it most definitely didn't help things any.

      I think we're going to find that BP was cutting corners everywhere so they could maximize profits in the short term- just like every other idiot company right at the moment.

    8. Re:BSOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not called the Blue Screen of DEATH for nothing you know...

    9. Re:BSOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't that then be a Black Sheen of Death?

    10. Re:BSOD by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Investigations of most disasters reveal not a single cause, but a combination of factors which lead to the disaster itself. Often, the absence of any one of those root causes may have avoided the disaster, or at least mitigated it to some degree. While I would not minimize the importance of the other factors which have already been acknowledged as key causes, identifying all the possible causes is critical to avoiding future repetition of the problem. If a computer-controlled alarm system was so faulty that its operators shut it down rather than endure its false alarms, we should give it due consideration as a potential contributing factor.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    11. Re:BSOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bullshit! It was Microsoft's fault.

    12. Re:BSOD by youn · · Score: 1

      Yeah but I believe, because it happened in deep water, it should more appropriately be called the blue screen of DEPTH

      --
      Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
    13. Re:BSOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said "It would just turn blue. You'd have no data coming through." That's not a BSOD. He didn't specify which computers, but a lot of the computers out there don't even run Windows. It's extremely likely a hardware issue, as a lot of the systems (ROVs, for instance) will just show a blue screen when there's no data. The fact that it happened so regularly that they began calling it BSOD is sad, but doesn't merit a link to Windows problems as TFS suggests.

    14. Re:BSOD by iamavirus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Based on reading the article + other news sources, the alarm system wasn't disaster preventive. It was a gas (danger) detector, and may have prevented zero / some / all fatalities.

    15. Re:BSOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What in the world does Halliburton have to do with this?

      Maybe we can blame Mauchly and Eckert for their work on ENIAC in the 40's.
      Surely they are to blame for the BSOD.

    16. Re:BSOD by treeves · · Score: 1

      This.
      It wouldn't have prevented the blowout or the oil spill, but it might have prevented some or all of the deaths.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    17. Re:BSOD by Laser+Dan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Investigations of most disasters reveal not a single cause, but a combination of factors which lead to the disaster itself. Often, the absence of any one of those root causes may have avoided the disaster, or at least mitigated it to some degree. While I would not minimize the importance of the other factors which have already been acknowledged as key causes, identifying all the possible causes is critical to avoiding future repetition of the problem. If a computer-controlled alarm system was so faulty that its operators shut it down rather than endure its false alarms, we should give it due consideration as a potential contributing factor.

      That makes it even more inexcusable though. There are so many systems and procedures in place to prevent such a disaster that they had to really make a continued effort of disabling safety devices and skipping procedures to blow up the rig.

    18. Re:BSOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't that be Black Spill of Death?

    19. Re:BSOD by lostsoulz · · Score: 1

      possible damage to the blowout preventer during drilling (rubber fragments observed)

      I'm going to assume you've never worked in the oilfield - just like /.'s other armchair drillers. Getting chunks of the Hydril at surface are not unusual. It's not actually part of the BOPs as such, but it sits above the conventional rams as an annular preventer. Tripping pipe and tools through the stack will always damage the Hydril (or bag as it's sometimes known,) and I doubt very much that a few missing chunks from the Hydril's fingers would have prevented the BOPs from operating...given that it's the pipe and shear rams that to the real work in the event of a blowout.

    20. Re:BSOD by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      I think you will find that Ubuntu would have saved the gulf

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    21. Re:BSOD by drolli · · Score: 1

      Yes. My favourite desater report on that issue is the Harriburg/Three mile island nuclear reactor incident.

      The chain of event which happened there is incredible. It read like an endless *that would not have been so bad, wouldnt they have ignored the following....*. If anybody would tell you that you declare him mad. (Which doenst excuse most of the points whihc happened).

    22. Re:BSOD by randyleepublic · · Score: 0

      Those things all "contributed", but what caused the disaster was BP's and/or Transocean's decision to ignore the plain evidence that the pressure was too high, excuse me, way, way, too high, to permit the removal of the mud.

      Why is this so freeking hard to comprehend? Sheesh! Really, the only question is not what, but who? Who made this decision? Everything else you hear or read is camofud!

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
    23. Re:BSOD by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Actually, they just say the screen would "just turn blue". It sounds more to me like they're talking about a monitor screen losing signal; often blue is the default colour meaning "hi, I'm a screen, and I'm working, but I'm not getting any video signal."

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    24. Re:BSOD by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Often though it's not a continued effort by one person, but a whole series of mistakes, lies, and outright incompetence on the designer and operations manager of any given plant. An operator may ignore alarms, but why doesn't the control system automatically react, or the blow-out preventer have the power to sheer through drill pipe joins, or why wasn't the documentation on the blow-out preventer correct, the battery not charged, OR the damn well cemented properly.

      Operators, systems engineer, mechanical engineers, maintenance department, and project manager. Each of these could have contributed if not outright prevented the disaster. It's very likely absolutely none of them had a clue what the other was doing. The many problems should make this a quite isolated incident, but history shows it simply is not so, and every 10 years there will be an industry defining event.

      To see how little we have truly learnt I suggest you check out a book What Went Wrong by Trevor Kletz. It will be quite eye-opening just how often complete systems break down and disasters happen which could have been stopped on many levels.

  3. interesting question: by hypergreatthing · · Score: 2, Funny

    What color did it turn when the rig exploded?

    1. Re:interesting question: by ByteSlicer · · Score: 2, Funny

      What color did it turn when the rig exploded?

      Most likely, it turned into fiery pieces ...

    2. Re:interesting question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't change. Parts blew east and others blew west...

    3. Re:interesting question: by countSudoku() · · Score: 1

      Brown!

      For those keeping score, here are the Deepwater Horizon color-coded threat warning levels:
      GREEN == A-OKAY, have a nice day.
      BLUE/BSOD == Lunchtime!
      AMBER == Check rig, abort, retry, ignore.
      RED == Begin cover-up procedures. Make sure you've already had lunch.
      BROWN == OH SHIT! Get off the fucking rig!!!1!!
      BLACK == No such alert; The Simpsons already did this one!

      --
      This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
    4. Re:interesting question: by spun · · Score: 1

      What about threat level Blackwatch Plaid or Moving Pictures?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  4. They didn't fix a lot of things by 18_Rabbit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For example, they KNEW that the BOP (blowout preventer) was not functioning correctly. one of the 2 control systems was out, and they had been bringing up pieces of the rubber seal in the test fluid. They were cutting corners on their cut corners. You'd think this would serve as exhibit A to silence all the "GOVERNMENT R BAD, CORPORATIONS R GOOD" nutcases in the USA today, but unfortunately it does not seem to have had that effect.

    1. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the government's responses to national crises like this one should also tell you that those "GOVERNMENT IS GOOD, DOWN WITH CORPS" nutcases in the usa should also be silenced.

      How about down with self-serving bureaucracy? you know, the kind that insulates its ideology from reality so much that everyone else is left holding the resulting inevitable calamity.

    2. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You were there?

    3. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean because the regulators did such a wonderful job at enforcing the regulations that were already in place that we should create new regulations?
      I am never a fan of government regulations, but when there are problems with an industry we can discuss possible government regulations of that industry. However, I am always opposed to new regulations to address a problem that appears to have happened largely because exisitng regulations were not being followed. If regulators have failed to enforce existing regulations, what makes anyone think they will enforce any new regulations?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    4. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by mark72005 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You're right, if the government ran this, we'd have huge messes every year and gas would cost $16 a gallon.

    5. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by amorsen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If regulators have failed to enforce existing regulations, what makes anyone think they will enforce any new regulations?

      The regulators were tasked to check that the companies followed the procedures for checking their own operations. This kind of twice-removed oversight is becoming increasingly common in lots of places, because it saves money for the government (popular with voters) as well as being popular in the private sector (for obvious reasons).

      It works great as long as companies are overall honest and all their problems are caused by simple negligence. It doesn't work so well in the face of outright fraud.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    6. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your oversimplification is trite. The black and white world is a false dichotomy. Corporations have government granted limited liability. This means that if the oil spill costs more to clean up than BP is worth, then they will need to either raise capital to pay the damages or file for bankruptcy. Any remaining costs would be payed by taxpayers. In a free market, there would be no limited liability. After bankruptcy, any remaining cleanup costs would be passed directly to the owners of BP. Mansions, Yachts, Real Estate - All assets would be forfeit. Then they'd have to work in whatever capacity for the rest of their lives paying back the damage. In such a world, with the risks demonstrated, people would give more thought to the those they impact with the risks they take, from financial bailouts to environmental disasters.

    7. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by uncqual · · Score: 1

      This "GOVERNMENT" you speak of. Is that the one responsible for regulating the Deepwater Horizon. You know, the one MMS is part of?

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    8. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by spun · · Score: 4, Funny

      GOVERNMENT R BAD, CORPORATIONS R GOOD
      However:
      BP screwed up bad
      BP is a corporation
      Therefore, the initial statement must be false, even if governments R BAD also.

      Proof by Reductio ad absurdum. No fallacy. Thanks for playing, and here's a copy of our home game, 'Logic for Dummies.'

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    9. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by spun · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      How about down with self-serving bureaucracy? you know, the kind that insulates its ideology from reality so much that everyone else is left holding the resulting inevitable calamity.

      This is exactly why I don't vote Republican.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    10. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by T.E.D. · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The regulators were tasked to check that the companies followed the procedures for checking their own operations. This kind of twice-removed oversight is becoming increasingly common in lots of places, because it saves money for the government (popular with voters) as well as being popular in the private sector (for obvious reasons). It works great as long as companies are overall honest and all their problems are caused by simple negligence. It doesn't work so well in the face of outright fraud.

      It doesn't work period. Anybody who understands economics (as "fiscal conservatives" claim they do) should understand that you can't expect entities to act contrary to the incentives around them out of a sense of civic duty or something. When you set up a system where there are tremendous financial incentives to cheat, the chances are getting caught are almost nil, and even then the punishments will be laughable compared to the money saved by cheating, it would be insane to not expect things like this to happen.

      The only way to prevent reoccurances is to change the system. That will require changing the regulations.

    11. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Mantrid · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As opposed to the Democrats?

    12. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 0, Troll

      The regulators were tasked to check that the companies followed the procedures for checking their own operations.

      And they didn't do that. There would likely not have been a spill if they had. BP's safety procedures are based on industry standards, which were so good that there had never been a spill in the 40 years prior to the BP spill. 40 years without incident, think about that.

      The problem is the regulators in this case waved BP on through their own safety procedures, which would have prevented the problem had they been followed to the letter. Saying "Yeah yeah, that's fine, we know you'll do it" is not how you ensure a company is following their safety procedures.

      I don't think the US Government is at fault for the spill, but they were very much in a position to prevent the spill from happening. Since that is what those regulators are paid to do, there should be serious consequences for failing. Possibly even criminal liability for dereliction of duty, but I doubt there is anything close to that sort of thing on the books.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    13. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by fyoder · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Then we need new regulations regulating regulators. And I know, you're thinking, but who will regulate the regulators of the regulators? There will be regulators for the regulators of the regulators as well. It will be regulators all the way to the bottom.

      The real answer is to stop regarding corporations as 'persons' and go back to regarding them as what they are, associations, and ones which can be disbanded when they screw up big time. A corporation who, through its negligence, causes a major environmental disaster doesn't get to continue to exist.

      Granted, that's unenforceable outside of a particular nation state, but it would certainly reduce share holder value if several countries, including the US, regarded it as outlaw and forbade it to do business.

      Or if we're going to continue to regard them as persons, what sort of a punishment would a human person get for gross criminal negligence? What would be the corporate equivalent?

      Because when it comes right down to it, regulation is better than no regulation, but ultimately can't be counted on, because there are minimal consequences for failure to comply, and because of lax enforcement in the first place.

      The first rule for corporations should be that if they screw up big time, they cease to exist. But anything that draconian has to be preceded by defining corporations in law as non-persons. Sadly, given US Supreme Court rulings on the issue, it might take a constitutional amendment.

      --
      Loose lips lose spit.
    14. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by camperdave · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am never a fan of government regulations

      Government regulations are what keep you from dying every time you make toast, plug in the kettle, or turn on the TV. They keep you safe on the roads. They stop your house from falling in, from toxic chemicals being found in your food, and thousands upon thousands of other hazards that every day life throws at you.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    15. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "GOVERNMENT R BAD, CORPORATIONS R BAD"

      At least get it right, ok? Even if it does invalidate your whine.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    16. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      However, I am always opposed to new regulations to address a problem that appears to have happened largely because exisitng regulations were not being followed. If regulators have failed to enforce existing regulations, what makes anyone think they will enforce any new regulations?

      Because the lack of regulations, and the lack of regulatory enforcement, are closely related phenomenon. Both are the consequence of a government who, like you, viewed government regulation as a bad thing, and felt that industry was best left to itself. So they relaxed the regulations. And while they didn't succeed in getting rid of all regulations, that same philosophy carried over into the hiring and management of the regulatory body -- that the regulations they were supposed to be enforcing were not important, and industry should be given every benefit of the doubt that they were doing the right thing regardless of the letter of the law. Fundamentally, the the enforcers of the regulations didn't think the regulations should be enforced, and so they didn't.

      In other words, it was the anti-regulation philosophy that caused the regulations to not be enforced.

      You say that the problem was caused by the lack of regulation. But that presumes that the oil companies would not perform proper maintenance and safety procedures unless forced to. It presumes that the default case in the absence of regulation would be that BP shirked their responsibility and allowed this spill to occur. MMS needed to have prevented the spill which BP would have otherwise caused. Which is an accurate view of reality, but the opposite of the anti-regulation philosophy.

      So there are two ways in which the anti-regulation philosophy falls short. Blaming the lack of regulatory enforcement for the spill is a perfect example of how.

      And as to why anyone would think new regulations would be enforced? I think they would be, provided the enactment of new regulations -- which suggests a belief that regulations are important just like the repealing of regulations suggests a belief that they are not -- is coincident with a housecleaning of MMS and the hiring of people who are not of the anti-regulation philosophy and a director-level-on-down belief that yes, these regulations are important.

      Do I think this certainly will happen? Not at all. The firing of the MMS director is just the start of a long road I'm not sure they're going to walk down. However, arguing that because regulations we demonstrably need to make industry do the right thing may not be sufficiently enforced, is not a reason to not have the regulations! It's an argument to press the government to focus on making sure their agents do enforce them.

      If you're anti-regulation, latching onto the failure of MMS to keep BP as evidence of your cause is the last thing you want to do.

      Besides, compared to regular inspections of safety equipment and so on, simply regulating the need for relief wells to be pre-drilled in case all the other safety regulations aren't followed would be quite likely to succeed. Your general dislike of regulation does not outweigh the need for simple improvements like this.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    17. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by godefroi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More of the same, man, more of the same. It's all the same crap, packaged up in different colors and with a different label on top.

      --
      Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
    18. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by spun · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I didn't realize Bush W. was a Democrat.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    19. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by sznupi · · Score: 2, Informative

      BP's safety procedures are based on industry standards, which were so good that there had never been a spill in the 40 years prior to the BP spill. 40 years without incident, think about that.

      Heh, heh, heh...
      http://kyon.pl/img/16258,oil,map,.html

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    20. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      You'd think this would serve as exhibit A to silence all the "GOVERNMENT R BAD, CORPORATIONS R GOOD" nutcases in the USA today

      Not when there's so much money available to support the anti-U.S. Government movement in America.

      The last few cycles have been very very profitable for the biggest corporations. Wednesday's profit reports sent the stock market into a face-ripping rally. That means there's going to be even more corporate money out there that's going to be funneled into the anti-U.S. Government movement, thanks to Citizens United and the anti-U.S. Government Tea Parties.

      Why do you think there are so many politicians suddenly running on anti-U.S. Government platforms? They're courting the big money.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    21. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by natehoy · · Score: 2, Funny

      "GOVERNMENT R BAD, CORPORATIONS R GOOD"

      I'm confused. Make this simpler for me. Which group has four legs, again?

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    22. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Vancorps · · Score: 3, Informative

      Out of curiosity, where are you getting your information? You mean the last time there was a spill in the Gulf?

      The oil spill off the Australian coast in August last year would seem to counter your claim entirely. Their procedures were lax and probably are still lax because those procedures are expensive. I'm not sure why people are so quick to dismiss the Gulf spill as a series of calamitous events when there is a ton of evidence to the contrary. Maybe people just want cheap gas too much and are willing to ignore all evidence so they don't have to face any consequences.

      The sad reality is that oil is spilled everyday, Shell spills every year as much oil as the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska. Of course they spill it in Nigeria so no one cares.

    23. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by stanlyb · · Score: 0

      It will be very interesting to see if BP has the same sound safety procedures for the rest of his drills (no pun intended).... No matter the result, it will be very interesting article.

    24. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The evidence suggests that enforcing existing regulations would have prevented this spill from happening. Therefore this spill is a terrible argument for new regulations. The people in charge who want to use this spill to pass further regulations were the people in charge when the regulations were not being enforced.
      I love how its the fault of people who don't like government regulations that the people who favor government regulations failed to enforce the regulations.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    25. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Dogtanian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      After bankruptcy, any remaining cleanup costs would be passed directly to the owners of BP. Mansions, Yachts, Real Estate - All assets would be forfeit. Then they'd have to work in whatever capacity for the rest of their lives paying back the damage.

      You do realise that a significant number of pension funds, both in the UK and the US, make up a large proportion of the holding of BP? (I'm not sure if you were endorsing the view you stated, or just explaining the logical situation that would result from a "true" free market).

      While I agree with you (to some extent) that corporations should be more responsible for external costs than they are just now, it goes to show that the situation is more complex.

      In fact, it's been said that the reason for America's prosperity is that its relatively lenient bankruptcy laws (vs. those in other countries at the time) allowed people to make mistakes and start again, rather than risking leaving themselves in a hole they had no real chance of getting out of. (Then again, IIRC that was said by right-wing historian Niall Ferguson, so take it with a pinch- or tub- of salt).

      At any rate, if corporations' direct and indirect (*) owners were held to that level of responsibility, then nothing would ever be done by them for the reasons given above- matter of fact, their raison d'etre would cease to exist anyway.

      FWIW, it would make more sense to ensure beforehand that corporations held enough money to (e.g.) clean up the results of their mistakes before granting them a license for a particular activity- and not rely on taking their word for it. And where those working for the corporation (particularly higher up) blatantly flouting laws or regulations in an obviously criminal manner would be charged and prosecuted accordingly.

      But the logical conclusion of a completely "free market" approach would see granny and grandad having to "work in whatever capacity for the rest of their lives paying back the damage". The obvious conclusion is that many of those who argue for a "free market" would not- and do not- really want *that* free a market. :-)

      (*) If only "direct" owners counted, the real owners would simply hide behind some form of legal indirection to protect themselves.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    26. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      "GOVERNMENT R BAD, CORPORATIONS R BAD"

      The people who say that:

      a) Aren't nutjobs
      b) Sure as hell aren't political conservatives

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    27. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Overzeetop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since when did a corporate disaster become a federal crisis? BP scews up, BP cleans up. If we have a major earthquake or a large hurricane or massive flooding, there are federal agencies tasked specifically to address those.

      I don't even know why the federal government is involved, except to monitor the leases and hold the responsible people to pay for the cleanup.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    28. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I prefer the term "Republicrat". What he did to expand spending and government should earn him an honorary induction into the Democrat Hall of Fame. :)

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    29. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by amorsen · · Score: 1

      it would be insane to not expect things like this to happen.

      I agree completely. However, that doesn't seem to stop the onward march of twice-removed oversight. I doubt this disaster will change that, at least not for long. After all, BP is just one bad apple and all the other companies have a perfect safety record... Until everyone can see the opposite, of course, and then it's just another bad apple.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    30. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If regulators have failed to enforce existing regulations, what makes anyone think they will enforce any new regulations?

      Uhhm.,..ideology?

    31. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Teun · · Score: 1

      BP's safety procedures are based on industry standards, which were so good that there had never been a spill in the 40 years prior to the BP spill. 40 years without incident, think about that.

      I can see you have nothing to do with the oilfield.

      A whole industry exists around well blowout control, just google for wild well control.
      Then think a few moments about the fact most of these companies are based in the USofA even though there are much bigger oil producer in the world.

      There is a reason the international oil field sees their US colleagues as a bunch of cowboys!
      And when you combine these cowboys (Amoco) with the pea counters (BP) you get problems like in the Gulf.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    32. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should be more informed before you spout off.

    33. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      U.S. law does not apply in Australian waters. Australian law does. How about we stick to what we are discussing: U.S. Law.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    34. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Complex systems need checks and balances, just like our own government was initially designed with.

      Just because regulators didn't do their job doesn't mean regulation is a bad thing. It works fine in many other Western countries where they don't have so much corruption. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

      When regulators don't do their job, they need to be held accountable for it, preferably with long prison terms. The government has the highest responsibility to do the right thing for society, so if government regulators aren't doing their job, it's much like a cop not doing his job properly. A corrupt cop gets a harsher sentence than a regular civilian committing a crime, because the cop has more trust placed in him. Same goes for government regulators. If they screw up, they should have harsh criminal sentences.

      We, the people, need to hold our government accountable, so that they will police their members (the regulators), instead of just ignoring them or giving them a slap on the wrist. We've seen many failures of government regulators in recent years: the BP disaster, the financial disaster (where SEC regulators were spending all their time looking at porn), etc. What is the Executive Branch doing about these regulators? Not much.

    35. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When you set up a system where there are tremendous financial incentives to cheat, the chances are getting caught are almost nil, and even then the punishments will be laughable compared to the money saved by cheating, it would be insane to not expect things like this to happen.

      The only way to prevent reoccurances is to change the system. That will require changing the regulations.

      Exactly. There should be dire consequences for anyone caught cheating. It may be hard to catch people, but when they are caught, the sentences should be so stiff (like life in prison) that they'll think twice about abusing their position.

    36. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Vancorps · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, we were discussing industry best practices which the laws are supposed to be based on. The industry is lax and thus the laws shouldn't be based on the industry. Get it?

    37. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      You presume that additional regulations would fix the problem, when in fact they would be just as useless as our current regulations given the same level of enforcement. You yourself highlighted the problem - enforcement. What the industry needs first is vigorous enforcement of existing laws, and that requires a shakeup within our government.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    38. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And... it gives government inspectors more time to browse for porn while at work!

      Everyone wins!

    39. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Teun · · Score: 1
      Although I somewhat concur with your feeling I still see evidence the existing regulatory sytem did not work.

      At the same time I know BP or anyone else in the industry never wanted such an incident to occur and yet it did.

      As someone knowing the industry well I'd say one of the worst things we have been exposed to over the last 20 odd years are the 'managers' that did not originate in the field but came from various expensive schools.
      Basically the oil industry is now managed by a bunch of accountants that have only one guidance, the monthly and quarterly results.

      An incident like the present will be felt on the scale of many years and that's something these 'managers' have no concept of.

      Besides, they'd never be more than 2 years in the same position anyway.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    40. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can't expect entities to act contrary to the incentives around them out of a sense of civic duty or something

      This is absolutely true, and is why *other* rigs are still operating with alarms bypassed, corners being cut, and a large number of them are leaking RIGHT NOW. Look into how many thousands of gallons per day of dispersant is currently being used on other rigs, right now.

    41. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by jimrthy · · Score: 1

      Government regulations are what keep you from dying every time you make toast, plug in the kettle, or turn on the TV. They keep you safe on the roads. They stop your house from falling in, from toxic chemicals being found in your food, and thousands upon thousands of other hazards that every day life throws at you.

      Most of these regulations are written by the big players in whatever industry they're supposed to be regulating. Why would you think they're protecting your interests?

      Those regulations are to make people feel safe. And to actually keep those corporations safe when they screw up royally--they're the reason for that "recall formula" from Fight Club. (There are also a lot of other reasons for those regulations, of course, but those are the ones relevant to this thread).

      Then something like this happens (though never before, AFAICT on such a scale), and people never realize that government is incompetent to keep us safe. Something like this is one of the few areas where I'm willing to admit that government regulation may be appropriate (though I'm can't think of anywhere it's authorized in the Constitution, off the top of my head ), even if I doubt it will do any good whatsoever.

      But any new regulations need to be radically re-thought from the ground up. Something that actually has teeth that will bite the decision-makers when another disaster strikes due to negligence. Something not written by the usual suspects. Otherwise, we're just sticking our heads back in the sand.

    42. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by morari · · Score: 1

      Both are bad. I'm not quite sure which is worse, actually...

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    43. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Monchanger · · Score: 1

      The people in charge who want to use this spill to pass further regulations were the people in charge when the regulations were not being enforced.

      Strangeness. (1) I don't think those specific regulations were in place during this administration. It takes a long time to enact changes, and a shift in parties is not reason to rebuild the executive branch from scratch. Bush was wrong to politicize sub-executive hiring because it's bad governance. (2) If they were enacted recently, nobody said they weren't a mistake, requiring a change after discovering problems. The alternative, which you're proposing is the elimination of regulation, which was the philosophy of a minority of voters during the last election for president. If and when you get back in the majority, you can go back to deregulation and the destruction, we the current majority, find it wreaks. That's kind of what democracy is about, you get voted in and get to do things your way, sad as it might make you a month into his term.

      I love how its the fault of people who don't like government regulations that the people who favor government regulations failed to enforce the regulations.

      As clever as that may have sounded to you, it's plain wrong.

      Try this: if government regulators really cared for regulation, don't you think they'd regulate regularly? What you're saying is that all public sector employees are rabid liberals. That's an outlandish statement to make, unless you're one of those crazies who think liberals are everywhere and out to get them.

      No, they're influenced by things average human beings are influenced by. Money, power, stupidity, laziness, etc. That's what needs fixing- the ability for those to influence what government does to not do their jobs. What that takes I have no idea, but your being glib isn't helping.

    44. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The entire thread up to your comment talks about the BP spill and U.S. law, not laws in general. Your comment about a spill in the waters of another country under a completely independent set of regulations is irrelevant.

      They are discussing U.S. laws and regulation. You are making off-topic comments.

      Get it?

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    45. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you answered your own question. It also appears like the situation is outside BP's ability to clean up alone. with multiple private companies involved, it makes sense that there is a neutral leadership at the top. is the federal government neutral? well that's another whole bag of shit.

    46. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "b) Sure as hell aren't political leaders"

      Gotta keep fixing these things. The 'real' grassroots gets it. The leaders do too, but they get it put in their wallets. We get it taken out of our wallets.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    47. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Lord+Ender · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nobody understands economics. Not even the economists. There is a reason it is called "the dismal science."

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    48. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by hypergreatthing · · Score: 1

      More of the same, man, more of the same. It's all the same crap, packaged up in different colors and with a different label on top.

      So, for the slashdot crowd, it's like the different versions of windows?

    49. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Since the political stakeholders in the oil industry will always protect it, any regulation inevitably becomes an exercise in bureaucracy. BP will go through the motions, but it will never have to worry about paying the full cost of any cleanup, so it won't actually mean any of it.

    50. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This current thread you're posting in is descended from http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1730284&cid=33006020. In which Bigjeff5 posits that the problem is that they regulators waved BP through on following industry standards which are supposed to be quite good and would have avoided this spill. You can agree or disagree with that all you want. What you shouldn't do is jump into the conversation and tell people who have actually read the thread that their comments are irrelevant to the thread.

    51. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by spun · · Score: 1

      Can we change corporate policy by voting? No? Then you should have no trouble deciding which is worse.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    52. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by spun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Democrats have done more to reign in spending than any Republican ever has. Clinton balanced the budget that Reagan and Bush Sr. destroyed. When Democrats have been in power over the last 100 years or so, the GDP has grown by about 8%, on average. When Republicans were in power, it grew by n average of 0.4%. If you are generous and do not include Herbert Hoover, that jumps to a whapping 3%. Republicans seek only to plunder the national wealth for their corporate cronies. The Democrats, while certainly imperfect, are orders of magnitude better than Republicans. It is quite obvious who the lesser of two evils is.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    53. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by IgnitusBoyone · · Score: 1

      I see several tankers and only two rigs. You can't compare the two, but I know of several spills which are not on the list so for the benefit of the doubt.

      http://www.marinergroup.com/oil-spill-history.htm

      We can both drill through this and see how many rig spills have occurred. Its likely more then two, but way less then drunk ship captains.

      As a side note his big speech about 40 years was aimed at US Oil Spills which your image kind of supports.

      --
      Momento Mori
    54. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by IgnitusBoyone · · Score: 0

      I am never a fan of government regulations

      Government regulations are what keep you from dying every time you make toast, plug in the kettle, or turn on the TV. They keep you safe on the roads. They stop your house from falling in, from toxic chemicals being found in your food, and thousands upon thousands of other hazards that every day life throws at you.

      Citation Needed

      --
      Momento Mori
    55. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually that is underwriters laboratory, not the government, which keeps your toaster from killing you. Not that UL cares about you. They care about paying off on insurance policies.

      If the government would just make the oil drillers have say $100 billion insurance policy before drilling, the regulations would handle themselves.

    56. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      I'm not an Ayn Rand fan, but here the government made big mistakes as well:

      "In sharp contrast to Dutch preparedness before the fact and the Dutch instinct to dive into action once an emergency becomes apparent, witness the American reaction to the Dutch offer of help. The U.S. government responded with "Thanks but no thanks," remarked Visser, despite BP's desire to bring in the Dutch equipment and despite the no-lose nature of the Dutch offer --the Dutch government offered the use of its equipment at no charge. Even after the U.S. refused, the Dutch kept their vessels on standby, hoping the Americans would come round. By May 5, the U.S. had not come round. To the contrary, the U.S. had also turned down offers of help from 12 other governments, most of them with superior expertise and equipment --unlike the U.S., Europe has robust fleets of Oil Spill Response Vessels that sail circles around their make-shift U.S. counterparts.
      "
      Read more: http://www.financialpost.com/Avertible+catastrophe/3203808/story.html#ixzz0uXqOLNzS

      "Crucial offers to help clean up BP’s oil spill came “from Belgian, Dutch, and Norwegian firms that . . . possess some of the world’s most advanced oil skimming ships.” But the Obama administration didn’t accept their help, because doing so would require it to do something past presidents have routinely done: waive rules imposed by the Jones Act, a law backed by unions."

      http://www.examiner.com/x-7812-DC-SCOTUS-Examiner~y2010m6d14-Obama-blocked-cleanup-of-BP-oil-spill-by-Americas-allies-Failed-to-issue-needed-Jones-Act-waiver

    57. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      "The Dutch know how to handle maritime emergencies. In the event of an oil spill, The Netherlands government, which owns its own ships and high-tech skimmers, gives an oil company 12 hours to demonstrate it has the spill in hand. If the company shows signs of unpreparedness, the government dispatches its own ships at the oil company's expense. "If there's a country that's experienced with building dikes and managing water, it's the Netherlands," says Geert Visser, the Dutch consul general in Houston."

      Read more: http://www.financialpost.com/Avertible+catastrophe/3203808/story.html#ixzz0uXrz3l5t

      But Obama screwed it up too, with not waiving the Jones act, and by giving in for unions: (but that of course doesn't imply that government has to screw it up, does it? Just look at Netherlands.)

      "The Americans, overwhelmed by the catastrophic consequences of the BP spill, finally relented and took the Dutch up on their offer -- but only partly. Because the U.S. didn't want Dutch ships working the Gulf, the U.S. airlifted the Dutch equipment to the Gulf and then retrofitted it to U.S. vessels. And rather than have experienced Dutch crews immediately operate the oil-skimming equipment, to appease labour unions the U.S. postponed the clean-up operation to allow U.S. crews to be trained."

    58. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Government regulations are what keep you from dying every time you make toast, plug in the kettle, or turn on the TV.

      As someone else pointed out that is Underwriters' Laboratory

      They keep you safe on the roads.

      You know, I'm pretty sure my parents drove before there were government safety regulations for cars, the only auto related injury either of them ever suffered was in a car with government mandated safety features

      They stop your house from falling in,

      the house I grew up in was built before government mandated building codes and the roof never fell in. There is something to the toxic chemicals being found in food argument you make, but I hope you never complain about the lack of local options for getting your food, a lot of those went away because they could not afford to meet government inspection rules.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    59. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      That's fine, but don't claim that the solution to a problem caused by failure to enforce existing regulations is to enact more regulations.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    60. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The evidence suggests that enforcing existing regulations would have prevented this spill from happening. Therefore this spill is a terrible argument for new regulations.

      The evidence suggests that some factors would have been prevented by enforcement of existing regulations, and other factors that existing regulation would not have prevented. You can argue that sufficient factors would have been eliminated to prevent the spill in this case, ergo no new regulations are needed. However if you're actually interested in preventing future spills, you can't act like every future situation will always be exactly like this one, and must learn from all the deficiencies, including those which are not covered by existing regulation.

      There are no regulations whose enforcement would have changed the scenario when a spill occurs from months of waiting for the relief wells to be drilled. That absolutely should change.

      The people in charge who want to use this spill to pass further regulations were the people in charge when the regulations were not being enforced. I love how its the fault of people who don't like government regulations that the people who favor government regulations failed to enforce the regulations.

      The MMS agents who failed to apply what regulations remained were appointed and directed by an aggressively anti-regulation Administration. You can blame Obama for either not realizing or choosing to fix the problem within MMS, and that is a completely valid criticism that I think should be remembered. Yet that still involves accepting that the anti-regulation philosophy endemic within MMS was foolish and needed to be fixed.

      MMS was acting as your philosophy -- and obviously the philosophy of the last administration -- would have them act by not regulating. You can try to pass blame around for that reality however you want, it only emphasizes how obvious a mistake that was.

      Because at the end of the day, no matter who you blame, it still remains true that it is the anti-regulation let-industry-police-itself philosophy that was tried, and found woefully inadequate.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    61. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

      Your data does conclusively show that your parents were injured in a car with safety features in the past. Extrapolating this to the maximum of its applicability, we can assume that car safety regulations are useless to everyone at all times, provided that they are your parents and the current date is some time before today.

      I've sent a letter to my congressman urging him to ease safety regulations for cars belonging to your parents from 1960 through yesterday afternoon.

    62. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Omestes · · Score: 1

      The 'real' grassroots gets it.

      And who might those be? Its been such a long time since I've seen a real, 100% authentic, grassroots organization. Sure, some of them start out grassroots, but that only lasts long enough for someone to realize that their is money in it, or that they have a pool of people ready to be manipulated (see both the "green" and "tea party" movements).

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    63. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by KGBear · · Score: 1

      It must feel good to always know the answer.

    64. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      You presume that additional regulations would fix the problem, when in fact they would be just as useless as our current regulations given the same level of enforcement. You yourself highlighted the problem - enforcement. What the industry needs first is vigorous enforcement of existing laws, and that requires a shakeup within our government.

      That's kinda funny, because I expressly stated that new regulations will only work if there is a major house cleaning in MMS and all the corrupt agents and administrators replaced with people who believe the regulations are important, and thus enforce them.

      That's okay though, because it means we actually agree completely. Though I do think this incident reveals deficiencies in the regulations themselves, the most important thing is that those regulations must be enforced by an agency who is actually motivated to enforce them.

      MMS was operating under an anti-regulation philosophy such that if they had the choice they would have eliminated the regulations entirely. Instead they did the next best thing and didn't enforce them. It's utterly hilarious that anyone would argue that the consequent disaster is an argument for the anti-regulation philosophy.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    65. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      You must have missed this part of the article, Score Whore:

      These results are of course limited in scope; it’s hard to tell what will happen over the coming decades (or even, as the article points out, in the general election campaign as opposed to the primaries)

      If you believe that unions spend more money on elections than the entire corporate sector, you'll believe anything.

      Also, be aware that's just "independent" spending, which means spending that has nothing to do with electoral races, like putting up a pro-union billboard or a billboard that shows a picture of President Obama with a hammer and sickle. That kind of stuff. Think about the "soft" contributions of PACs and "think tanks" and donations to the national party committees, and the kind of third-party politicking that the Citizens United case was about.

      The Washington Post article you linked to broke down 24 million in donations. This year, nationwide, there will be tens of billions spent on campaigns, some estimates are as high as 40 billion. Carly Fiorina in CA will spend over a billion dollars herself trying to buy the California senate seat. By far the majority of that money comes from corporations. The amount unions spend on political campaigns is a tiny fraction of what corporations spend. Even Sarah Palin's political "action" committee, "SarahPac" which is supposed to be a grass roots organization, gets more than 90% of its money from corporate "sponsors".

      Oh, now I get it. Read a little further into the article on this right-wing Volokh site. It's not about campaign donations at all. It's about spending on non-electoral political action. It's the kind of article that's meant to get a certain idea into the heads of people who aren't paying attention. No wonder that number seemed so low. It has nothing at all to do with political donations to candidates.

      Good try though, Score Whore.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    66. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No, the solution is not more regulations which will be ignored, the solution is much stronger enforcement, and new laws providing for much harsher penalties for regulators who break the law (whether willfully or through negligence).

    67. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by cparker15 · · Score: 1

      What about those of us who say, "GOVERNMENT IS BAD, CORPORATIONS ARE BAD"... you insensitive clod?

      --
      Have you driven a fnord... lately?

      You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.

    68. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. But, getting deeper is where the insurance companies step in. They would demand tighter oversight by private, reputable regulators, unlike the possibly corrupt government officials. Those bureaucrats had nothing to lose but their jobs, and that is indeed all they lost. If there were a credit rating for regulators, then the US government would have a very low rating.

    69. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      You wrote 'grassroots organizations'. I wrote 'grassroots'. Two different things.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    70. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you just highlighted why (most) governments are bad. They are terribly inefficient and bloated entities, populated with many people with little sense of responsibilities combined with job security who seems to place their own interests above that of the public and country. Take BP, for example. Despite the problems you mentioned, BP Deepwater Horizon won an award from the MMS for safety record. Obama administration granted BP a waiver of environmental regulations.

      Big governments are bad, corporations may be bad, (big governments x corporation) is evil.

      Or if you want to talk ideologies:

      Socialism is bad, capitalism may be bad, corporatism is evil.

    71. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Stop listening to the whackjobs at Fox News or turn off the radio when Rush Limbaugh is spewing his bullshit and have a look at the following chart :

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

      Now, what were you saying about Democrat spending?

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    72. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by SendBot · · Score: 1

      Government regulations are what keep you from dying every time you make toast, plug in the kettle, or turn on the TV. They keep you safe on the roads. They stop your house from falling in, from toxic chemicals being found in your food, and thousands upon thousands of other hazards that every day life throws at you.

      Go find some fda-approved orange soda with sodium benzoate and tell me how much benzene you feel safe drinking. Tell me about how much safer america is by decades of relaxing fuel efficiency standards and making us dependent on foreign oil. I'm sure all the car exhaust I breathe while biking is good for my health too. Tell me why I used to pay so much for car insurance that refused to replace my unsafe windshield that I couldn't afford to replace myself because I had spent all that money on car insurance. Tell me why government regulations allow credit companies to tarnish my record when the bank screws up, but their access to credit isn't affected when they unlawfully withhold money due to system malfunctions. Tell me about how government corn subsidies are making food generally more affordable and nutritious. Tell me about how the lack of real police oversight (and prosecuting people with the nerve to record police interactions) make the citizenry safer.

      This is your opportunity to make me feel all warm and squishy about the government acting as Big Nanny. Go for it!

    73. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      No, it's a curse, because so many other people think they do that nobody listens.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    74. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bull. People mostly did fine at those activities without the government regulations. Where there were problems, there were big uproars, and the issues got better. Regulations often appeared around the same time, but do not mistake correlation with causation. There are plenty of motives for things to get fixed outside of a regulatory framework, when enough people start making a big stink about it. The politicians tend to cluster around the big stinks (I think they're related to flies), because it provides them a source of power to be able to claim they fixed things. Whether or not they're fixes helped in any way.

    75. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      after 8 years of Bush, as opposed to a different version of reality where Gore was handed the election by fiat or Kerry won Ohio, I am dumbfounded that anyone with an ounce of logic in their brain would still push the uniparty crap.

      personally I think the uniparty idea sprouts from a rationalization of those too lazy to get involved.

      maybe the two parties are center-right and stupidly-right, but one does not equal the other.

    76. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      This intrigues me. I want to argue it against my dad, a staunch republican. However: when you say "When Democrats have been in power over the last 100 years or so", what specifically do you mean? Is it "President == Democrat", or is it more of a majority from the 3 circuses? (And, how do you count the third circus, the Supreme Court?) Thanks. If you have a link to further analysis I'd also appreciate it.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    77. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhh.. My post was an example of equal opportunity.. the problem of insulated ideology does not only come from the right. in fact I'd argue that thinking in terms of 'left' and 'right' is part of what causes the problem in the first place.

    78. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by hitmark · · Score: 1

      profits are private, expenses are collective.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    79. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How to lie with charts.
      1.500.000 Tons / 68.000 Tons = 22
      (216pixels*216pixels) / (16pixels*16pixels) = 182

    80. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      The Clinton "surplus" was a myth. Every budget that he signed required the government to borrow money. The total government debt went up every year, even in years when the budget was supposedly balanced. There are basically 2 forms of government debt: what it owes other people (people, institutions, foreign countries), and what it owes itself. The reason for the claim of a surplus is that under Clinton, the intragovernment holdings, or what the government owes itself, went up. Essentially, the funds from the Social Security lockbox, were taken as intragovernment holdings, and were used to pay down debt held by the public (individuals, foreign governments, institutions, etc).

      I certainly am no fan of the Republicans either, as I certainly tried to make clear in my other post. Both parties are spending us into the poorhouse.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    81. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      You taunt me for allegedly listening to Fox & co, and then quote a Wikipedia article? Hey, I like Wiki as much as the next guy, but for actual data, I prefer to listen to the good folks at the US Treasury.

      Goverment spending and total debt went up every year, including during the Clinton "surplus" years. I assume that when the news networks were trumpeting the triumph of Clinton's allegedly balanced budget, you bought it hook, line, and sinker?

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    82. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      That's okay though, because it means we actually agree completely.

      Mostly, yes. I am for sane, rational regulation and enforcement, with additional regulations only as the result of careful, thoughtful engineering, and disaster reviews. I apologize if I read your post to mean something other than you intended.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    83. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by morari · · Score: 1

      I'm not entirely convinced that we can change government policy by voting either.

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    84. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Actual data? The Wikipedia article list the sources, which are from the Federal Budget.
      If you can find a link that does as informative a breakdown of the data, pass it along.

      Here's another non-gov link - this one on presidential deficits : http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

      The Treasury links provide data but no analysis - that's why I prefer external sites.
      I wasn't paying attention to the news networks on Clinton's spending - I looked at the numbers.

      Federal spending is an important indicator but it doesn't tell the whole story. What matters more is the impact of that spending on the GDP.
      By that yardstick, Democrats again fare better than Republicans.

      So, overall, Democrat presidents have contributed far less to the total debt than Republicans, especially in recent decades, yet they take the heat for it.
      We'll have to see the effect of the Obama administration on those statistics. It would be a real shame if he turns out to be a single-term president and I don't think he can make a turnaround from the impact of the economic meltdown by the end of his current term.

      And you need to come up with a different term than Republicrat for George Bush. Not only are you wrong about Dems vs Reps on spending but Dubya was in a class all by himself.
      How does "Dubyite" strike you?

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    85. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      The US Treasury data is as close to a primary source as you can reasonably get. Wikipedia mangles the numbers and compares them to GDP, etc. If the question is "Did Clinton really have a surplus?", I'd rather have unadulterated numbers straight from the source, and do my own basic analysis.

      We'll have to see the effect of the Obama administration on those statistics ... I don't think he can make a turnaround from the impact of the economic meltdown by the end of his current term.

      I think you strike at the heart of it here. And frankly, by that measure, every President has inherited (and received either blame or praise for) an overall fiscal situation they can do little to influence.

      • Reagan inherited a ridiculous mess from Carter.
      • Clinton inherited an economy that was already emerging from trouble under Bush 41.

      I could go on, but the point is that the annual GDP is largely a lucky or unlucky result of an economy the POTUS does not directly control, whereas spending is something that their name is directly attached to.

      And I think both of us are being a little narrow in defining the whole of the Republicans or Democrats by the Presidents they have produced. The truth is that much of the fiscal damage is done at the Congressional or State and local levels, and when I look at the politicians in those positions (I live in Massachusetts, so I see lots of Dems tax-n-spend), I see Democrats spending like mad, with Republicans close on their heels.

      How does "Dubyite" strike you?

      I think we have a winner. I'm going to start using that.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    86. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by mpe · · Score: 1

      http://kyon.pl/img/16258,oil,map,.html

      Strange map which omits a sizable part of the planet.

    87. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      ...keep you safe on the roads. They stop your house from falling in, from toxic chemicals being found in your food, and thousands upon thousands of other hazards that every day life throws at you.

      Man I loved Fight Club.

    88. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by eth1 · · Score: 1

      Screw life in prison. 11 people died, to say nothing of the wildlife and environmental damage.

      The bodies of those responsible for any fraud should have been part of the junk shot.

    89. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is quite obvious who the lesser of two evils is.

      Yeah, that will be the third parties (Libertarian, Green, and Reform) not the mainstream parties(Republicrats and democans)

    90. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Screw life in prison. 11 people died, to say nothing of the wildlife and environmental damage.

      What could you possibly do to someone that's a worse punishment than life in prison? Decades of torture in a prison camp, perhaps, but that's about it. Killing someone is letting them off easy; there's a reason people commit suicide, because it lets them quickly escape the agony and misery of life.

    91. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by spun · · Score: 1

      I'm referring to a New York Times piece from six months ago or so, sorry, I tried google but can't find it.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    92. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither of the parties have rational, reasonable politics, therefore they're essentially "more of the same".

    93. Re:They didn't fix a lot of things by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Why we can't include them? It's all industry standards. Also from, basically, non-US oil company...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  5. Safety List by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

    Didn't Java's license agreement used to have a clause saying you wouldn't use it in air traffic control systems or medical devices or stuff like that? I'm not saying this is a Java issue, just using it as an example. Safety control systems, especially those where life and limb, as well as massive amounts of money, are at steak aren't the places to be cutting corners and using commodity products rather than purpose-built and well-tested systems.

    1. Re:Safety List by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes; steaks cost massive amounts of money, but what does that have to do with what's at stake?

    2. Re:Safety List by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      life and limb [...] at steak

      Hannibal, is that you?

    3. Re:Safety List by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't know about that, steak from a used up dairy cow can be had for fairly cheap, though at that point the quality is at stake.

    4. Re:Safety List by dasdrewid · · Score: 1

      ...those where life and limb...are at steak aren't the places to be cutting corners and using commodity products rather than purpose-built and well-tested systems.

      mmmm...huuumaan steeeaaak...

      --
      No trespassing. Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
    5. Re:Safety List by Massacrifice · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't want my life or limbs to be at steak on this otherwise meaty issue.

      --
      -- Home is where you eat your heart out.
    6. Re:Safety List by deapbluesea · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Safety control systems, especially those where life and limb, as well as massive amounts of money, are at steak aren't the places to be cutting corners and using commodity products rather than purpose-built and well-tested systems.

      Yes, that's why the nextgen ATC system for the US is being written in C++ (secure if you know how to herd cats effectively) (http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/202907.asp), instead of Ada (secure unless you ask a bunch of C++ programmers to write in Ada), whilst the UK is writing theirs using Ada (http://www.drdobbs.com/embedded-systems/199905389;jsessionid=QQKCSEKZREME5QE1GHPSKH4ATMY32JVN) . One of those two is well proven in safety-critical systems. The other is used to write Windows. I wonder which was used for the Deepwater Horizon?

      --
      Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
    7. Re:Safety List by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Yet most do.

      Honestly it's utterly appalling the quality of software found in many commercial and industrial critical systems.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:Safety List by camperdave · · Score: 1

      "Milk 'em 'till they're dry, then eat 'em." Hmmm... Where have I heard that strategy before?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    9. Re:Safety List by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think C++ can't be used in safety-critical systems you don't know what you're talking about.

    10. Re:Safety List by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, C++ can be used in safety-critical systems. But if you think that it should be used in safety-critical systems you don't know what you're talking about.

    11. Re:Safety List by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Any language can be used in safety critical systems, just as almost any tool in a toolbox can be used to drive in a nail. That doesn't mean it's a good idea.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    12. Re:Safety List by lgw · · Score: 1, Informative

      Ada is a language that allows competent programmers to write safety-critical code. It's not idiot-proof, but average competance and dilligence will see you through.

      C++ can be made as safe as Ada, but only if ou have a few top-notch coders to build some basic libraries for everyone else to use - basically, to re-invent Ada in C++.

      So why would you use C++ for a project like this? You might if you just couldn't find enough comptenent Ada programmers, but you could find a few great C++ coders. I don't have any direct experience with the Ada job market, but from what I hear it's fading fast, while C++ has been very steady for 15 years (in absolute figures, not as a percentage). So this might actually make sense, if they're just adapting the project to the available talent.

      There's little-to-no C++ in "Windows" BTW. The kernel stuff is written in C, and even asking why C++ isn't used might provoke violence (and the kernel stuff is really pretty solid: Dave Cutler knew his stuff, and few of the security flaws have been kernel-related). Office was developed mostly in VBA, with a bit of C, but now most of the work is in C#. Perhaps by "Windows" you meant "Internet Explorer"? How un-geeky of you.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    13. Re:Safety List by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 1

      My guess? Visual Basic.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    14. Re:Safety List by jimrthy · · Score: 1

      Yes, Java's license used to have a clause like that in there.

      So did Windows NT's.

      No idea about anything resembling modern systems. But it wouldn't surprise me a bit...those aren't designed to be RTOS components.

    15. Re:Safety List by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Perhaps by "Windows" you meant "Internet Explorer"? How un-geeky of you.

      By "Windows" I presume that he means everything that ships in the box which says "Windows" on it. Which would include IE. And also WMP, and IIS. And even .NET, these days. And that's a lot of C++ already.

      But even for the OS/DE itself - ole32.dll is C++; shell32.dll is C++. I'm sure there are plenty more.

      . Office was developed mostly in VBA

      You can't possibly be serious...

      , with a bit of C, but now most of the work is in C#.

      Actually, no, it's mostly C++, with a bit of C# these days.

    16. Re:Safety List by Bungie · · Score: 1

      The programming language has nothing to do with the security of the system, it's the quality of the programmers. They could code the entire thing in QBASIC and still have a secure and stable system if they know what they are doing. I doubt they are using a bunch of greenhorn C++ programmers, so it won't be like herding cats for them.

      I don't know a lot about ADA, but I do hear that it is better suited for embedded systems, and (as you mentioned) is more proven in those scenarios. It also has a lot of built in checking which would probably make securing it easier. It doesn't mean it's the only choice however. There must be a reason for them to decide on C++ (I hope).

      Windows btw is written mostly in C. C++ is awkward for writing operating system kernels and core API's, so it is generally not used for that (although it can be done). If you look at Charles Petzold's "Programming Windows 95" you will not see any C++ code in the whole book. All of the Win32 API's are built around C but are made easier to use with C++ wrappers like MFC.

      --
      The clash of honour calls, to stand when others fall.
    17. Re:Safety List by Bungie · · Score: 1

      VBA is just the macro language. Developing an Office application in VBA would be a project of gargantuan magnitude. that kind of project would be difficult even with full Visual Basic 5/6. I don't think VBA can be compiled into an application either. I would assume most of the Office apps are written in C++, and expose their VBA interfaces using COM.

      People forget how heavily COM is used in Windows too. It hides the component's underlying implementation so components can be written in any language and used in any language that can query the component's interfaces. Of course, the layer where COM is implemented is far above the kernel, HAL and base subsystem libraries which are done in C.

      --
      The clash of honour calls, to stand when others fall.
    18. Re:Safety List by deapbluesea · · Score: 1

      The programming language has nothing to do with the security of the system it's the quality of the programmers.

      I agree with you that better programmers yield better security, and I also agree that no language has built in security to a point. However, a collegue of mine did an analysis of the administrative policies in place for the US ATC system and found that of over 200 rules, all of them were things you can do with the language, but for this program you shouldn't do them. Of those 200+ rules, only 2 of them were necessary in Ada if you use the spark code checker (which technically is just an automated method of enforcing rules, but even then, the subset of the language that is ruled out is about 10 rules, not 200). Unfortunately, his work is not published, so I can't post a link to it....

      I don't know a lot about ADA, but I do hear that it is better suited for embedded systems, and (as you mentioned) is more proven in those scenarios. It also has a lot of built in checking which would probably make securing it easier.

      Ada enforces strict typing, strict bounds checking on arrays, strings, etc, strict pointer types (yes, a pointer to a certain string type is different than a pointer to a different string type). It does not allow things like arbitrary pointer arithmetic. Any type casts must be explicitly made, and therefore the programmer has to justify it (policy, not program issue, but very easy to find and check). It is really a very secure language in many respects. That's not to say it can't behave badly, it is just much harder to make it behave badly, and you have to really think about it to get there.

      It doesn't mean it's the only choice however.

      Agreed. I'm not trying to be a language nazi, just advocating for a tool that is far better for the given application.

      There must be a reason for them to decide on C++ (I hope).

      The only reason I know of is that Ada programmers cost more because there are far fewer of them. Of course, there are also many studies showing Ada development takes about half the time of equivalent C++ development due to fewer upfront bugs and many fewer things to check in debugging, so a behind schedule and over-budget project may have been avoidable using slightly more expensive programmers.

      Windows btw is written mostly in C.

      Right you are. I'm not much of a C fan, so I usually wrongly conflate C and C++ even though I know they are as different as night and day in many respects.

      --
      Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
    19. Re:Safety List by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      Yet most do.

      Honestly it's utterly appalling the quality of software found in many commercial and industrial critical systems.

      The quality of that software makes what MS writes look like gold in comparison.

  6. Egregious by eclectro · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There are faulty engineering and management decisions every step of the way when producing this well. This is not the first disaster for BP that ended in the loss of life. The question is why is there not criminal prosecutions for bad engineering that leads to the loss of life? Why is it that only people with guns who kill people get criminal prosecutions?

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    1. Re:Egregious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      BP paid 20 billion dollars to avoid the criminal charges.

    2. Re:Egregious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because corporate lobbyists would ensure that the law holds the engineer accountable (the one who makes $60k/yr) while the corporate leadership cuts corners in the implementation. In IT, this issue is already a serious problem thanks to the ignorant expectations of technology by the public.

    3. Re:Egregious by gbjbaanb · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is not the first disaster for BP that ended in the loss of life.

      What's it got to do with BP? The rig was owned and operated by a company called Transocean. BP (and others) just leased it off them to do the drilling (and no BP employee was involved in the actual work).

      Incidentally, the company working on the well head was a company called Halliburton. They were pumping cement into the well to prepare it when things went bad.

      and at the end, its a group of companies, all blaming each other and each one trying desperately to avoid paying out. BP, to its credit, has accepted responsibility even though its almost certainly not to blame. Perhaps the US government won't be able to blame the Swiss-located Transocean (for tax reasons, 50 Transocean people work in the Swiss HQ, whereas the rest work in the USA - all 26,000 of them).

    4. Re:Egregious by quickpick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The question is why is there not criminal prosecutions for bad engineering that leads to the loss of life? Why is it that only people with guns who kill people get criminal prosecutions?

      IMNL but be very, very careful where you are going with this. I submit this as an example: If you built a machine and it happened to be involved in the death of several people a prosecutor could argue that your machine was 'bad engineering' and if they found sufficient evidence that people disagreed with you and were able to convince a jury of this you would end up in jail. Now if you were in a project where everyone was in agreement that it was a good idea then he could potentially still argue collusion. I'd imagine that you would have 'tolerances' but even these could possibly be argued as bad engineering, because why would you unleash upon the people a machine that statistically would kill a certain number of people?
      If all we do is prosecute failure then no one would be willing to risk their lives to innovate. The only real loss here is if the industry learns nothing and repeats its mistake.

    5. Re:Egregious by Zironic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wouldn't that be what a jury of your peers is for? If a prosecutor can convince a jury consisting of engineers that you deliberately cut corners and followed bad engineering practices causing loss of life then I think it's reasonable you should be punished for causing death (I can't remember the proper term for accidental manslaughter right now)

    6. Re:Egregious by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      From most of what I've read, the subcontractors in question (Halliburton and Transocean) were doing the work, but BP had full control over the operations.

      The flow was something like this:
      Halliburton or Transocean: That's a bad idea, we don't recommend that.
      BP: Do it anyway.
      H/T: OK...

      Although the question is at what point H/T should have said, "Hell no!"

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    7. Re:Egregious by abigsmurf · · Score: 0

      These things go 'all the way to the top' every time because it's the nature of a large business for decisions to get passed down a chain.

      Usually at some point there's a subtle break where an employee decided to interpret a decision or made a choice indepentdently other how to go about a task. Is it really likely the Head of a huge company directly made a decicion on 1 of 1000 safety measures on 1 of 1000 (numbers made up) of their oil operations?

      Then there's the sheer size of corporations. You could have a brilliant set of safty standards which makes the chance of an accident insanely low. However your company employs 100,000 people, eventually you'll get a perfect storm where perhaps one safety measure fails, another isn't obeyed and someone dies.

      There may not have been anything especially wrong with the level of safty overall at an organisation but an enquiry finds that this unlikely accident could've been prevented if they'd forseen the possibility of it occuring.

      Should the boss of that company, face criminal charges? Would you want to be the boss of a company knowing that, no matter how much attention you paid to safty, something could still go wrong and you'd wind up in jail if one of your 100K employees had a serious accident?

    8. Re:Egregious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because the Terry Childs case really taught us to trust the decisions of "a jury of your peers".

      Or the fact that juries usually do not consist of engineers.

    9. Re:Egregious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I found this episode of 60 minutes quite interesting:

      http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6490509n&tag=api

      Apparently, BP was putting on a lot of pressure to do things quickly, since they were running behind schedule and it was costing them money.

      Specifically, on the day of the accident, there was an argument between representatives of Transocean and BP on how to close the well (in preparation for later exploitation by another ship). Transocean was in favor the slower, safer procedure. BP wanted things to be done more quickly. They did it the BP way, which was the point when the accident happened. So, according to this report, there were BP emplyes on the Deepwater Horizont, and they influenced the procedures by pressuring their subcontractors.

      According to the report, several other things had to happen as well in order for things to go wrong so badly, but I would not so easily let BP of the hook.

    10. Re:Egregious by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 1

      Why is it that only people with guns who kill people get criminal prosecutions?

      They don't have as strong of a lobbying group nor make the kind of campaign donations as "the people who kill w/o guns" do.

    11. Re:Egregious by DaveGod · · Score: 1

      There are faulty engineering and management decisions every step of the way when producing __________

      Fill in the blank with pretty much anything on this scale. Or most things on any scale. The difference is how they are controlled. The mechanisms, physical, on paper, whatever, that are in place to minimise and control risk.

      IANAL, but my understanding is control is also the central consideration when it comes to legal issues. In the UK the first corporate manslaughter prosecution was in connection with the Lyme Bay canoeing tragedy, which has some good write-ups for an understanding of the topic (at least in the UK, but reasoning is largely universal logic).

    12. Re:Egregious by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 5, Informative
      Seriously, stop using Terry Childs as a posterboy for "Wronged Geek". He was an obstinate, self-serving asshole.

      Protip for all you people saying "They could have reconfigured the routers, etc." (on Childs refusal to hand over passwords) - not so much.

      Why? Because Childs had either disabled serial consoles, disabled password recovery, or configured devices to -never- save configuration, only to run in RAM.

      Well, shit, you say, restore the config from backups. Guess what, SF owned no backups of the configuration files, or network maps. The only configuration files Childs kept were on his personal laptop, encrypted with a key known only to him, and configured such that his laptop was the only device capable of updating configs. Network maps? Same. Sitting on his personal laptop. Nowhere else.

      The guy viewed SF's network as his personal playground, and believed no-one else worthy to take the reins of it - guess what, he had no authority to decide that, and when he got nicely obstinate about it, he crossed a fairly clear line in the sand.

      Stop the martyred geek defending valiantly our security creed. It bares little resemblance to reality.

    13. Re:Egregious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then Halliburton and Transocean share in the liability.

    14. Re:Egregious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The loss is the 11 people who died and the millions of people who've lost their livelyhood, not to mention the environmental devistation. True if the industry learns nothing that is a travesty, but that does not define the loss. Sometimes it takes a desaster of immeasurable proportions before people understand the consequences of their decisions. EG: an unsafe crosswalk. Sometimes it takes an accident with a pedestrian before the city planners make that crosswalk safe.

    15. Re:Egregious by Monchanger · · Score: 1

      Morally, yes. But you can't sue them because they were "bad".

      Legally it was BP's operation and based on what I've heard they approved what its contractors did. It can't hide behind them, but they can try behind it.

      Legality is all that matters as far as government is concerned. You can boycott and campaign against both companies on moral grounds.

    16. Re:Egregious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kudos to you for pointing this out. My wife works for BP and told me what you just pointed out right from the start. It's been interesting to see what people/the media will do when someone steps up and takes responsibility.

    17. Re:Egregious by shadowofwind · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What's it got to do with BP? The rig was owned and operated by a company called Transocean.

      This is a common legal and accounting ploy: subcontract everything to other companies, then you're not responsible for anything, even though you're in charge of everything.

      I recently worked for a company, run incidentally by the spouse of a BP chief executive, that sells a medical product for applications that the product can not legally be sold for (in the US). Its way around this is to create three companies, one for engineering, one for distribution, and one for marketing. That way, the parent company claims that its selling nothing illegally because it distributes nothing, but only provides information. And the distributor claims that it does not target its product for the illegal applications, since it merely distributes. And the engineering company evades FDA engineering process requirements by saying that it merely distributes the product made by the engineering company, which ignores the regulations because it is ostensibly not subject to regulation since it is not the distributor, and it doesn't have a distribution operation that can be shut down. But all three companies are essentially the same company, run by the same people. The 'ethic' involved is that if you haven't yet been sued successfully, or shut down by regulators, then its all good.

      At least Halliburton and Transocean have a separate existence from BP. But BP is still responsible.

    18. Re:Egregious by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      According to legal experts on NPR a month or so ago, there will certainly be criminal prosecutions, it just takes a while for all the evidence to be gathered and charges to be prepared.

    19. Re:Egregious by darkmeridian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Transocean was not an independent contractor. BP directed the Transocean employees on what to do. The Transocean employees sometimes told the BP executives that they were risking a failure of the well, but their concerns were vetoed. Decisions such as the choice of casing, what material to use to plug the well, and whether or not to try to fix the safety equipment were all made by BP and executed by Transocean.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    20. Re:Egregious by hedge49 · · Score: 1

      Transocean was contracted by BP to drill the well. BP would have been the seller of the crude from the well. BP was technically contracting the labor and equipment for their benefit, and was ultimately responsible for evacuating the heavier drilling mud from the hole after the concrete seal (that later failed) had been placed at the bottom of the cased portion of the well. Mud withdrawal was a BP decision by their PM on the platform, and because seawater is less dense than mud, it was less able to resist the upward pressure in the well. The well casing was forced upwards within the wellshaft, and apparently was contorted enough to send metal shrapnel upwards into the shutoff valve, bricking it. In other wells, seawater works. In this one, they went through strata of 'unconsolidated' rock that made for a less well shaped hole, and for lateral loss of huge amounts of mud into cracks in the formation. It seems to me like a perfect shitstorm, where the safety valve used did not include an acoustic shutoff, the formation, besides being deep, was fractured and relatively unstable, and they pulled the mud out of the hole, assuming the seawater would hold down the pressure.

    21. Re:Egregious by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      What's it got to do with BP? [dailymail.co.uk] The rig was owned and operated by a company called Transocean. BP (and others) just leased it off them to do the drilling (and no BP employee was involved in the actual work).

      I assume you've never heard of due diligence? If BP leased it from TransOcean, BP is just as guilty, if not more so, than TransOcean. BP has the duty to ensure the rig is operated safely, unless TransOcean was actively lying to BP about how things were going (and we know that's not the case, as BP was making the majority of the "safety" decisions).

      If I worked at a bank and our Online Banking software went tits-up and, in the process, royally screwed up every customer's bank account balances, I wouldn't say "Oh, well that software is actually just licensed from some other company, go complain at them". WRONG. The bank's name is all over the Online Banking product, they touted it as "theirs". BP owns this mess.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    22. Re:Egregious by Phillibuster · · Score: 1

      BP, to its credit, has accepted responsibility even though its almost certainly not to blame.

      Just like the companies whose foreign factories run sweatshops and use child labor aren't to blame? If it's BP's well, they have a responsibility to ensure the other companies they hire operate in a responsible fashion, even it it entails having a full time BP employee stay on the rig to inspect and monitor what's going on.

    23. Re:Egregious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It all comes with the territory, that's why BP was given a permit to extract oil, not Transocean. In every way possible, BP is responsible, this is crystal clear, and BP obviously knows it. The whole situation isn't just some silly coincidence, this is how BP works. Because they operate by contracting outside tools and labor does not change a thing, other than cutting taxes and deflecting certain risks. If BP wants to turn around an sue Transocean, that's their own prerogative. They wont because it will be too much like suing themselves. In addition, BP is clearly the company setting the motivations, calling the shots, and collecting the billions.

    24. Re:Egregious by newdsfornerds · · Score: 1

      Hear, hear! How is this not at least felonious criminal negligence? I guess the thinking goes, "if we prosecuted suits for making 'mistakes' it would 'stifle innovation.' " Oh noooooos. Oil companies might take fewer risks! And that would be a bad thing?

      --
      Damping absorbs vibrations. Dampening is caused by moisture.
    25. Re:Egregious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Except for the fact that it was 99% BP's fault.

    26. Re:Egregious by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      If I get drunk and have an auto accident that kills someone I'll go to prison for negligent manslaughter, but if a corporation kills people after repeatedly breaking laws that cause the catastrophe in the first place that kills two dozen people, nobody goes to jail.

      Something's wrong with this pucture. People from Anker West Virginia Mining company shoould be in prison for negligent manslaughter, as should people from BP and the other two corporations involved in the BP disaster.

      Someone should be in prison. I guess murder is legal if you're rich enough.

    27. Re:Egregious by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      EVERY SINGLE human endeavor has accidents, bar none. Cheap and quick human endeavors have accident, multi-million-dollar industry investments like BP have accidents, highly-over-engineered government investments like NASA have accidents.

      Accidents are an inevitable fact of life.

      And industry on this scale is an inevitable consequence of capitalism.

      Therefore, accidents like this are an inevitable consequence of capitalism.

      It goes hand in hand with the fishing to destruction of the Novia Scotia cod banks, with the desertification of the Sahara, with the deforestation of the Amazon, with the giant Dead Zone in the gulf from fertilizer eutrophication, with the Bhopal disaster, with the Boston Molasses disaster, with the logging to extinction of the Easter Islanders.

      That said, I depend on capitalism, and I agree that negligence should be prosecuted. But all this will do is slightly reduce the rate of disasters. It won't stop them.

      I think our way into the post-apocalyptic future we see in films won't come through a global war, or zombie invasion, or epidemic. It'll happen one step at a time through this kind of capitalism accident.

    28. Re:Egregious by maxume · · Score: 1

      The tone of your comment is strange, BP wasn't subcontracting to Transocean as some sort of legal or accounting ploy, they were subcontracting to Transocean because it was cheaper than building and operating their own rig. And it is quite clear at this point that the contracts were structured in such a way that BP was responsible for what went on, they have had little to no success trying to recover money from the subcontractors.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    29. Re:Egregious by emarkp · · Score: 1

      What's it got to do with BP? [dailymail.co.uk] The rig was owned and operated by a company called Transocean. BP (and others) just leased it off them to do the drilling (and no BP employee was involved in the actual work).

      That was what I thought at first, but later I heard there was a BP rep on the rig telling the workers to ignore safety concerns. That wouldn't make BP entirely responsible, but it certainly would include them in the blame reasonably.

    30. Re:Egregious by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      Yes, I went slightly off topic and wasn't very clear about what I meant.

      Often subcontracting looks good on a spreadsheet or in a power point presentation because the true costs are hidden. And corner cutting is often part of what enables the contractor to do things more cheaply.

      So yes, BP may not have been trying to evade paying potential legal costs, and I agree that it will stick to them in any case. But I do think BP was trying to evade the true costs of their operation. And that kind of behavior, where orders are given from the top without accepting responsibility for how those demands are being met, is especially easy with contracting relationships.

    31. Re:Egregious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For that matter, why aren't there criminal prosecutions for doctors whose patients die during surgery? How about the fact that they are if it can be shown to be a case of deliberate murder or criminal negligence? Other than that, although they might face a civil suit for malpractice, criminal charges are usually out of the question. Is it just? Honestly, maybe not always. But consider your own job. Have you ever screwed up? Would you like to go to jail for that screwup? People who hold other peoples lives in their hands should take their jobs seriously. They should do their very best to make sure they don't make a mistake. But if the sword of Damacles is constantly hanging over their head, that's probably going to make things worse instead of better. For one thing, there's the increase in stress. For another, no-one will want to do a job where people keep getting sent to prison for not doing a good enough job.

      Still on the medical example, what do you think the chances are that a surgeon at the end of their career has never lost a patient because they messed up during an operation somehow? Would you think 5% of retiring surgeons have lost a patient that way somewhere in their careers? 10%? 20%? 50%? 90%? After thousands of surgeries, there's almost bound to be an accident in there somewhere. Then consider how many people that surgeon will have saved over their career. Could be thousands of people who went on to survive for months more, years more, lifetimes more because of the surgeons actions. Now imagine that the surgeon couldn't treat those people because she was in prison. Sure, another surgeon could have done the surgery instead. Oh, except they were in prison too. A third surgeon could do it... except he dropped out of med school and became an actor because they don't get sent to prison when they flub their lines.

      And that's the problem with zero tolerance rules. They sound great to people who don't live in the real world, but in the real world, they just create injustice and strife. Ultimately, you have to decide whether, if you were sick and needed a risky, complicated, dangerous operation, you'd want to risk dying in surgery with a doctor who won't go to jail if you die or if you'd rather simply die because no free doctor is willing to take on the risk of trying to save you and the ones who would be willing to take the risk are all in prison.

      All that said, I think anyone who actually committed fraud leading to the deaths of those people on the rig and the destruction of the environment in the Gulf of Mexico should rot in prison for a good long time. Screwups and even incompetence are one thing, making such ridiculous gambles just to squeeze out that little extra bit of profit is another.

    32. Re:Egregious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that only people with guns who kill people get criminal prosecutions?

      The same reason why Sony isn't prosecuted when someone uses one of their Blu-Ray drives to pirate Avatar; the fact that a perpetrator may have used a S&W to shoot up the shopping center is not the fault of S&W. He could have just as easily used a Colt, H&K, Glock, Walther ad nauseum, or a flippin' axe, for crying out loud.

      Several commenters have opined at some length regarding regulations: were there enough, should there have been more, would it have helped if they enforced the regulations on the books, blah blah blah. There are a few things that should be kept in mind.

      1. The current Presidential administration gave BP and Transocean its approval. Now, just what that approval meant precisely I don't know for certain, but there had to be knowledge at some level within the Administration of the problems that had been plaguing the project for a long time. Collusion between MMS and BP has already been mentioned, so I won't bore everyone again.

      2. This Administration has a penchant for ignoring laws and regulations that it just doesn't like, or that stand in the way of their agenda (immigration and Arizona, anyone? or the tax troubles of the current SecTreas?). More regulations in this case are going to become a millstone around the necks of the entire petroleum industry, not just BP (we do have Constitutional prohibitions against making laws affecting only certain entities, though I doubt that'll mean anything to this Administration). That means that the prices we pay for things will go up. Not just certain goods or services; everything will become more expensive. Anything that uses plastic, which, as I'm sure everyone here knows well, comes from oil. That includes medial devices, medications, transportation, energy, computer and electronic technology, telecommunications. You name it, it'll get more expensive. We really don't need that right now, given the current state of our economy.

      At this point, they've just barely stopped the leak. They still have more work to do to make that permanent, and then BP and US.gov can waste^H^H^H^H^Hspend their time and our money trying to figure out what happened, and lay appropriate blame.

      P.S.: that $20bn recovery fund that BP set up is a good idea, but they were forced into it by the federal government. I believe that's a "bill of attainder", and that's illegal according to the Constitution, Article I Section 9 Paragraph 3. Didn't I say something about this Administration ignoring laws that are inconvenient?

    33. Re:Egregious by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Yea, you know what, hang the management of all 3 companies.

      I don't give a flying fuck who was the final 'at fault' person, they are all involved. If you only go after one they just figure out a way to make a shell company to hide the dangerous stuff in.

      Fuck that.

      Take them all out, with some sort of punishment that will make them consider what they are doing rather than saying 'if I get caught, I'll just loose 15% of my 750 million'.

      Public hanging.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    34. Re:Egregious by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The problem with these grand disasters is that there's never one person to blame. Let's run down the list:

      - Operator who ran the drill pipe through a seal in the BOP
      - Engineer who designed a BOP which couldn't cut through the join in the drill pipe
      - Engineer who made modifications to the BOP which caused the control panel to become useless
      - Systems designer who thought that the BOP should only self trigger after 3 separate loss of connections to the surface rig
      - Manager who decided to go cut the budget of the operation. - Engineers / operators who decided to go ahead and not properly seal the well when BP told them it won't.
      - Transocean who leased the rig knowing that the BOP had restrictions that could cause loss of life

      And these are just a few of the ones I can remember and the official investigation isn't even in the way. So who do you hold accountable? Many of the individuals above could possibly have exclusively prevented the disaster, and as such any single one of these decisions is unlikely to be deemed faulty as it is standard practice in process safety to work on a risk ranking basis. Nearly every disaster that results in multiple fatalities including this one is not the result of a single failure but a complete system breakdown.

    35. Re:Egregious by toby · · Score: 1

      "Why is it that only people with guns who kill people get criminal prosecutions"

      But that is not true at all. Being a cop or a soldier is a license to kill.

      --
      you had me at #!
    36. Re:Egregious by toby · · Score: 1

      "they just figure out a way to make a shell company to hide the dangerous stuff in"

      There are good precedents for this. Look at what happened after Bhopal (another non-accident that has striking parallels to Macondo well explosion).

      Watch in slow-motion, the astonishing sleight-of-hand that magically makes liabilities disappear:

      the UCC played strategy deftly unbeknownst to the learned Judges. It sought permission to sell its holding of 50.9 per cent in UCIL to an Indian company and use the proceeds to establish a trust, hospital, etc. The court approved it in May 1994 and the sale was put through by November 1994. It looked like a charitable gesture ... By this act of divestiture, UCIL had become a wholly Indian company. It had washed its hand off any Bhopal liability!

      At this stage, the GOI should have taken precaution. ...

      UCC itself would get out of the net in the next round. This was when it was taken over by Dow Chemicals in 2001. While this corporate change was taking place, there was no attempt to provide for the liability of UCC relating to Bhopal. Since UCIL had already been sold to an Indian group, Dow would not have bothered about Indian claims. ...

      Normally multinationals take cover under corporate veils where identities are obfuscated or jurisdictions confused. In the case of UCC, it was both. They took cover for some time and, when the going was good, they sold themselves in bits and pieces leaving no trail for liability.

      --
      you had me at #!
  7. How much did they save? by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I mean, the whole rig's cost is in the hundreds of millions (Wiki says $560 mil but google link said $350 mil). The whole disaster is in the tens of billions, ain't it?

    You'd think they would do anything and spare no cost to keep the fucking thing in working order and floating.

    Makes the $500,000 a day lease look like pennies.

    1. Re:How much did they save? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Deepwater Horizon is a perfect storm of greed, arrogance and ineptitude, by all parties mind you, and that includes the Federal government. It wasn't just BP, TransOcean or Halliburton who created this disaster, but crooked, incompetent bureaucrats who should have been doing their jobs, but seemed quite content to turn their heads.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:How much did they save? by jd2112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You'd think they would do anything and spare no cost to keep the fucking thing in working order and floating.Makes the $500,000 a day lease look like pennies.

      In the corporate word, the important thing is to save money no matter how mutch extra it costs.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    3. Re:How much did they save? by blai · · Score: 1

      A penny saved is a penny earned?

      I don't know...

      --
      In soviet Russia, God creates you!
    4. Re:How much did they save? by CoffeeDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hate to be a cynic but if you take the cost savings on cutting safety corners across all their operations (rigs, refineries, etc) for the time the company has been operating them, I bet they still came out on top and BP wouldn't change a damn thing about how they operate short of some regulatory body (lol MMS) forcing them to.

    5. Re:How much did they save? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's precisely what is wrong with business operations in the world today. Cut corners until the fatalities occur, then pay out the settlements.

      FWIW, VxWorks and QNX are often the RTOS of choice for the control systems on these rigs. They might have Linux or Windows boxes for front ends. All of the PLC systems are proprietary, of course, but they don't have screens that turn blue.

    6. Re:How much did they save? by abigsmurf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can always spend a bit more and make something a little safer. At some point you need to draw the line. How much should they spend before you'd deem they've spent enough? 1billion? 10billion? 20billion? Would you be happy paying $1 more for every litre for this to happen?

    7. Re:How much did they save? by silentbozo · · Score: 1

      There's a reason you don't want salespeople running a company.

      Sales Exec (upon being told that the company is losing a dollar for every unit they sell at current pricing): "That's ok, we'll just make it up in volume!"

      The (un)funny thing is that to salespeople, THIS MAKES SENSE - their bonuses are typically based on the amount of sales, not whether the sale actually made money...

    8. Re:How much did they save? by Target+Drone · · Score: 1

      In the corporate word, the important thing is to save money no matter how mutch extra it costs.

      It's funny but true. As a CEO it makes sense to role the dice, cut costs and rake in a huge bonus. The odds are in your favour that it will work out. But on the off chance you loose then just take your golden parachute and move on to another company to try it at.

    9. Re:How much did they save? by lsappserver · · Score: 1

      I recently read "All the Shah's Men" by Kinzer. It details the history of Anglo-Iranian oil company (today's BP). BP started in colonial era of England. They were arrogant while they were exploring and extracting oil in Iran. According to the book they wouldn't even build housing or roads or any medical facilities for Iranian laborers. However they built most of the comforts for the British officers and workers. Read the book if you can and the current BP will not surprise you at all.

    10. Re:How much did they save? by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Indeed. A blog I follow discussed the motivation behind (and the math which shows that it's a mathmatically better choice) employees cutting costs because they have no stake in the operation. (http://greedygoblin.blogspot.com/2010/07/risky-companies.html -- yes, I realize it's a WoW blog.)

      Basically, he says that while the company wants to spend the money on preventative maintenance (e.g., $1M cost) in order to avoid the low-risk/high-cost catastrophic event (e.g., $1B damage), the individual employee does not. Because they aren't held responsible for a portion of the damages from a catastrophe, their options are:

      - Save $1M and get a raise
      - 1% of the time, incur a massive cost on the company, and lose their job.

      This boils down to a guaranteed zero raise if they spend their budget on maintenance or other disaster-prevention, versus (potentially) a raise which is very unlikely to have any bad effects on them. When you combine that with people's tendency to underestimate the likelihood of catastrophic events (or, overestimate their ability to avoid them?), we find that many people have numerical motivation for skimping on things which are normally seen only as Costs.

      Thank goodness for ethical engineers, who are looking out not just for themselves but for their company, customers, and neighbors.

    11. Re:How much did they save? by Xarin · · Score: 1

      Since the ocean rig is a navigable vessel, they may only be liable for the salvage value ($27 million) under maritime law:

      http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/transocean-claims-maritime-law-to-limit-its-liability-in-oil-spill-case-93715234.html

    12. Re:How much did they save? by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am not an geologist or a drilling rig operator or a CEO of a multibillion dollar company (IANAGOADROOACOAMDC) but I would at least ask that they have their equipment in working order. Given the state of BP's stock, I'm sure the stockholders would appreciate that, too (at least in hindsight anyway).

      Computers should be working. BOP should be fully functional. They should have disaster plans from the getgo instead of trying to think of stuff on the fly or using failed tactics from the 30 year old Ixtoc spill just to look busy.

      To use a car analogy, I'm not asking you to walk. I'm asking you to have working brakes, lights, windshield and windshield wipers, seatbelts, to not drive recklessly, and to have the physical capacity to drive.

    13. Re:How much did they save? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much should they spend before you'd deem they've spent enough?

      I'd say they've spent enough when their contingency plan isn't a BOP with a 45% failure rate.

    14. Re:How much did they save? by Facegarden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I mean, the whole rig's cost is in the hundreds of millions (Wiki says $560 mil but google link said $350 mil). The whole disaster is in the tens of billions, ain't it?

      You'd think they would do anything and spare no cost to keep the fucking thing in working order and floating.

      Makes the $500,000 a day lease look like pennies.

      They normally do spare no cost keeping these things going.

      My company sells some sensors to oil rig people, and the way it works is that they have a limited equipment budget, but an unlimited repair budget. Yeah. Unlimited.

      They are smart enough to buy some spares, but when something critical breaks and they don't have a backup, they will spare no expense to get it fixed. They've had something break on them in the middle of the night, so they put it on a helicopter, flew it to the mainland, and paid our partner in texas to drive 2 hours to meet them with his repair truck, fix it and drive home, and then flew it back. At like 3am.

      Which is impressive, and makes sense given how much money these things are worth and how much they cost.

      Which makes me wonder why their computers weren't fixed sooner.

      The problem is, when our sensors break there's no "bypass mode", so they *have* to be fixed or they can't do anything.

      With the computers able to be bypassed, people can ignore it until it becomes a problem.

      With whats at stake here, critical safety systems should *not* have a "bypass" mode, I would think.

      These people also understand when a mechanical tool is broken, it needs to be fixed. Computers are somehow very "mysterious", so there is a lack of understanding that could be a problem too.
      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    15. Re:How much did they save? by newdsfornerds · · Score: 1

      Those rigs don't float; they stand on the ocean floor. Your point is good though and actually I agree with you 100%.

      --
      Damping absorbs vibrations. Dampening is caused by moisture.
    16. Re:How much did they save? by Monchanger · · Score: 1

      Considering what this type of spill will end up costing them, it's probably a safe bet they did not spend enough even without hindsight. Especially considering this was only a matter of a limited schedule delay and poor leadership decision making.

      We're not talking about a minor worst-case scenario, such as a single death preventable by having three supervisors triple-check a rig worker's harness, tragic as a single death is. This is was far more deaths and drastic financial (corporate), economic (national) and environmental damages. With such a potential outcome, increased investment in safety measures is warranted until such a point that either (1) the threat is sufficiently mitigated, (2) the activity is cancelled on account of an unacceptable level of risk.

      Remember that nobody is forcing these companies to drill at that depth- it's a business decision that they chose to undertake despite this risk, and the fact that they're complaining about Obama's moratorium just says they've either ignored or accepted this now-pretty damn obvious risk. I don't expect the level of certainty which NASA strives for and there's room to cut costs as unjustifiable, but this does't seem to be such a case and they're responsible for their poor judgements.

      $1/litre doesn't make sense considering the elevated risk in this type of extraction and that it represents a small percentage of global consumption for which prices would increase in proportion. And if I had the option to vote on the matter, yes I'd prefer the more expensive petrol as I advocate conservation over quantity.

    17. Re:How much did they save? by youn · · Score: 1

      That sentence is brilliant :)

      --
      Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
    18. Re:How much did they save? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IGiven the state of BP's stock, I'm sure the stockholders would appreciate that, too (at least in hindsight anyway).

      Bought at 29 (missed the low around 27). Looking good! Thanks for asking.

    19. Re:How much did they save? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Look some more. Deepwater Horizon used an actively managed thruster system for station keeping, it was free floating (except for the drilling casing).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    20. Re:How much did they save? by uncqual · · Score: 1

      When I've seen this sort of thing (nothing of this magnitude fortunately) in corporations, large and small, it turns out that the big boss puts a focus on "cost containment".

      Middle managers implement policies to try to effect this and these policies include explicit and implicit budgetary and cultural incentives for lower management to cut costs and raise revenues.

      Individual contributors then feel pressure when they threaten to screw up their manager's or manager's^2 bonus by spending money to address what seems like, but is not provably so in isolation, a risky situation.

      A few individual contributors will complain - sometimes for moral reasons, sometimes because they fear being scapegoated if the risky situation blows up (or, perhaps, in the case of an oil rig, they fear dying!). However, most individual contributors give up pretty quickly - or they risk being un/underemployed. Many individual contributors are that because they either are not good at presenting effective business arguments or just don't want to so their messages don't get through as well as they could.

      Unfortunately, much of the griping about "we should do this" or "we must do this" or "we shouldn't do this" from individual contributors is, frankly, ill-informed because it doesn't take into account the full cost/benefit analysis or overlooks critical considerations. The problem is the management chain needs to sort these out effectively to identify the real valid warnings. The din of the invalid warnings makes it easy to miss the valid ones -- or just get callous to all complaints. Of course, in the glare of retrospect, we see the single email that warned of the thing that DID happen but we don't see the other 100 emails with either invalid warnings or warning of risks whose costs are manageable, understood, and already accepted that had to be filtered through to find the one that did matter.

      A middle manager may be aware there's a small risk of complete disaster and may even understand that would be the end of her job and possibly her chosen career -- but they also may believe that the odds of a disaster is quite tiny. They also realize that if they fight to fix every such problem, once it's fixed it's impossible to prove that it "saved the day" (so they get little credit for it) but they are dinged (including possibly relieved of their job in the next round of layoffs but more likely just never promoted and subject to crappy raises forever) for the cost of the fix just because it came out of their budget.

      As well, sometimes managers/individual contributors do make a decision to save money at a small increase in risk -- and in isolation, the decision is actually a sound decision because there are plenty of backup systems/safeguards in place that will prevent the cost cutting from actually creating a problem if things do go wrong. The problem occurs when the managers of all those backup systems/safeguards make decisions here and there that are also, independently, valid but collectively result in a cascading failure.

      In software, I've seen this sort of thing happen in simple release cycles. One group is responsible for development and turning over a quality product to the Feature Test Team. The Feature Test Team is responsible for testing the feature and then hands it off to the Release Test Team. The Release Test Team then is responsible for testing the system and certifying it for release. Unfortunately the exact responsibilities for quality become a bit fuzzy so the Developers, Developers, Developers [jump up and down, sweat, and pump fists here] cut unit testing short because, after all, the Feature Test Team is responsible for testing the entire feature. The Feature Test Team, under time [i.e., cost] pressure, doesn't thoroughly test some of the interactions of the feature with existing features on the theory that the Release Test Team will take care of that anyway (after all, the new feature IS part of the "Release" as are the pre-existing features - and in the

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    21. Re:How much did they save? by TheSync · · Score: 1

      perfect storm of greed, arrogance and ineptitude, by all parties mind you, and that includes the Federal government

      I think if everyone involved truly understood the downside risk of a major blowout, they would have cut less corners, but like the mortgage meltdown, it was a black swan event. A horrible costly outlier that is perfectly obvious...after it happens...but before it happens, even the smartest people in the room would not think it could happen.

      Now there will probably never be as bad an event in deepwater drilling because everyone will be on the look out for it, and even if it does happen, they will be able to get in and fix it faster.

      No one is ever going to rate mortgage-backed CDOs as "AAA" again either...

    22. Re:How much did they save? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Wikipedia page on Transocean shows that they own 25+ rigs similar to Deepwater Horizon. If all 25 are rented they are making $12,500,000 per day. If they lose one they can build another one with just short of one years gross.

    23. Re:How much did they save? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, but all those cost money. If you never get a red traffic light or drive in the rain, all the money you spent on wipers and brakes is wasted, no? And the shareholders will crucify you if you spend money you didn't have to - Ruins the rate of return per share, doncha know?

      AC

    24. Re:How much did they save? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Your numbers are wrong somewhere.

      If it cost 600 mil, but they lease it for 0.5 mil/day. Then they would have saved money by buying it outright since in 120 days would pay for it ... and they've been using it for well over 120 days.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    25. Re:How much did they save? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Or maybe its my numbers, ignore me, apparently I'm too stupid to add in the required zeros.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    26. Re:How much did they save? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I think if everyone involved truly understood the downside risk of a major blowout, they would have cut less corners,

      What makes you think that would change anything? These are people who can afford to have someone move their yacht to cleaner waters for them. If they gave a shit about the environment they wouldn't work for Big Oil, Halliburton, or Big Government anyway!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  8. Cutting corners is the name of the game by plopez · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cutting corners is the corporate way. I have seen so much "Mickey Mouse" stuff at places I've worked it disgusts me. Untrained workers, electrical boxes in pools of water, large pumps at refineries held in place by 4 bolts rather than the six bolts which were intended to be used etc. But of course, none of these problems are the CEO (or board members) of BP's fault. They only take credit when things go right. Avoiding responsibility is the name of the game.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    1. Re:Cutting corners is the name of the game by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Of course, government isn't blameless on the other side - spending money seemingly without regard for the fact that it's real money.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    2. Re:Cutting corners is the name of the game by castle · · Score: 1

      Part of the problem *is* that it's not real money.

      Overall it's just chits of debt to the federal reserve, if it were real money, you could run out, thus providing a sustainable feedback mechanism which would probably lessen the bad things that "capitalism" is being blamed for in this case, and others.

      Corporations themselves rely on the states that define them. Liability shields and incestuous dealings with regulators (revolving doors and their attendant failures of regulatory oversight) abound in many industries.

      In this instance you'd think the ridiculously low quality computers would be detected by the frequent audits of the private backers of the endeavor, if those backers had any sense. BP being a multinational plays by all the rules on paper, shit happens, since they just rent the land from the government, the landlord gets to pay the bills / suffer the consequences with little to no recompense when it all goes to hell.

    3. Re:Cutting corners is the name of the game by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It's hard to think of it as real money when you can print more of it if you run out.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Cutting corners is the name of the game by plopez · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      you're off topic. monetary and budget policy isn't what my post was about.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    5. Re:Cutting corners is the name of the game by seriesrover · · Score: 1

      And the ever present demand of lower consumer prices is whats ultimately pushing that. For the overwhelming majority of people, cost of goods, is the determining factor of what, and how much, they buy. No one is blameless in our society - corporations are driven by what the consumer demands, and what they demand is the lowest cost without thinking what that means in terms of quality. For the oil companies, that means he who can deliver gas at the cheapest price [as an example] wins.

    6. Re:Cutting corners is the name of the game by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Ya, seashells and other bits of stuff you pick out of the ground are a vastly superior currency.

    7. Re:Cutting corners is the name of the game by Chih · · Score: 1

      Ya, seashells and other bits of stuff you pick out of the ground are a vastly superior currency.

      Where do they get the metals to mint those coins? Surely not this inferior ground you speak of

      --
      For best results, avoid doing stupid things.
    8. Re:Cutting corners is the name of the game by randyleepublic · · Score: 0

      I like your sig! All we have to do to free ourselves is make one simple change: end fractional reserve banking. Completely. Forever. Society becomes a utopia practically overnight. It really is that simple. No one believes me. "It couldn't be that simple." It will never happen.

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
  9. Don't throw Bill under the bus by Crispix · · Score: 1

    If it turns out these crashes are Windows blue screens, the media will jump all over Microsoft. But considering everything else we're heard about this poorly run oil rig, it just as easily could have been poor third party/custom software or faulty hardware causing kernel panic, and have nothing to do with MSFT.

    1. Re:Don't throw Bill under the bus by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      I really, really, want to find out if it's windows. I know someone that works for Microsoft and one of my greatest joys in life is sending him links to things like this... and this would be the best one yet.

    2. Re:Don't throw Bill under the bus by mopower70 · · Score: 1

      You have a sad and very small little life. And this from a Linux guy who actually lives in a basement. (sure, it's my own, but still...)

    3. Re:Don't throw Bill under the bus by ch-chuck · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not only that, but buried somewhere deep in the multi page EULA that nobody reads is the clause, "company shall not be held in indemnity for losses to person or environmental damage from deepwater oilwells bursting into flame due to defects in software, other than the cost of replacing defective media".

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    4. Re:Don't throw Bill under the bus by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      He works for Microsoft's sales department. He proselytizes like he's the pope or something. Trust me, it's great fun.

    5. Re:Don't throw Bill under the bus by icannotthinkofaname · · Score: 1

      While what you say is completely true, if it is Microsoft, I'm not sure if the company will ever recover from the resulting poor public image. I imagine that if it was a Microsoft bluescreen, the anti-Microsoft battle cry would turn into something like this:

      "Don't use Windows! It has the potential to cause an apocalypse when it crashes!"

      --
      Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
    6. Re:Don't throw Bill under the bus by Beelzebud · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      It might be fun, but you do lead a very sad, small life if you use something like this to stick it to Microsoft. People died, and an ecosystem was destroyed. I guess anything to score points for Linux or Mac or whatever sociopathic cause gives you great fun...

    7. Re:Don't throw Bill under the bus by Patman64 · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, I'm sure if he worked for Apple everyone here would be giving you a high five. ;)

    8. Re:Don't throw Bill under the bus by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 3, Informative

      If it turns out these crashes are Windows blue screens, the media will jump all over Microsoft

      Well, before all the Microsoft Haters pile on, according to this the Control System in place was something called Cameron Multiplex Control System, which I've also seen referred to as Cameron MUX and CAMITROL. I am not pretending to be an expert in these things, just thought I'd share what little Googling turned up.

      In short, it looks pretty unlikely that there's going to be a red hot poker headed toward Redmond over this.

    9. Re:Don't throw Bill under the bus by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Funny thing... when my monitor has no video signal, it shows a blue screen for a bit, then goes black.

      My TV does the same thing if I tune to one of the external input channels.

      Windows isn't the only device in computers and electronics that produces a blue screen; In fact, Windows is less likely than the other possible reasons*.

      * Speaking of which, didn't MS eliminate the BSOD in favor of the RSOD (Red) or BlSOD (Black) in newer Windows versions?

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    10. Re:Don't throw Bill under the bus by Wolfraider · · Score: 0

      And people wonder why open source is sometimes looked at like a little kid trying to play in a big world. I like open source and I try to push it as much as I can, it's people like this that makes it look bad.

    11. Re:Don't throw Bill under the bus by psergiu · · Score: 1
      --
      1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    12. Re:Don't throw Bill under the bus by karnal · · Score: 1

      Man, you must be the life at ALL of the parties.

      --
      Karnal
    13. Re:Don't throw Bill under the bus by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 0

      That appears to be a configuration and monitoring tool for the NUFLO flow rate meter, not the control system.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    14. Re:Don't throw Bill under the bus by mevets · · Score: 1

      Why would the media jump all over Microsoft? They never do. People don't expect PCs to work.

    15. Re:Don't throw Bill under the bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes Vista and higher use a black screen when the system crashes because the blue screen had a bad rep. I have gotten a blue screen in Windows 7 though, when the BIOS was not fully ACPI compliant.

  10. Saliva from Slashdot fouls Gulf by istartedi · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dateline -- Louisana. Several millions of barrels of saliva from FS/OSS zealots on Slashdot fouled the gulf today when they thought maybe, just Mayyybe, Microsoft might have somehow, have tenuously been connected to the previous oil spill. A foul stench of stale beer and tacos was reported along miles of beaches in Alabama, and was headed for Florida this evening.

    In other words, sheesh! How speculative and sensationalist can a headline get?

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:Saliva from Slashdot fouls Gulf by mopower70 · · Score: 1

      For all intents and purposes, you've shot your credibility to determine what's a valid word and what's not right in the ass.

    2. Re:Saliva from Slashdot fouls Gulf by OFnow · · Score: 1

      whoosh...

    3. Re:Saliva from Slashdot fouls Gulf by kevinNCSU · · Score: 2, Funny

      Billy Joe! We done caught another grammar nazi in the sig trap out back! Get the gun right quick!

    4. Re:Saliva from Slashdot fouls Gulf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For all intents and purposes, you've shot your credibility to determine what's a valid word and what's not right in the ass.

      That's ok; GP is a proctologist. When it comes to asses, he knows what's right and what's wrong.

    5. Re:Saliva from Slashdot fouls Gulf by istartedi · · Score: 1

      Literal LOL. You made my day.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  11. Re:not getting the picture 'normal' now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is COPYPASTAAAA

  12. Even more corners cut? by dave562 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Given that the entire disaster seems to have been the result of cost and corner cutting on a massive scale, it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't bother to buy hardware on the Windows HCL, or if they were using cheap hardware with unsigned drivers.

    1. Re:Even more corners cut? by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      Since they were already ordering replacement hardware, it was probably defective or damaged hardware.

    2. Re:Even more corners cut? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Nice speculation. Whilst I don't expect the article to be read, even the summary adds (albeit as an afterthought) that there is absolutely nothing to suggest it was a Windows BSOD.

  13. For any critical computing, by wholestrawpenny · · Score: 1

    you'd be an idiot not to use anything but a real-time operating system (RTOS). If they use a windows, mac, or linux box for this, then they're idiots and should be held liable. Chances are it's a PLC though, especially for industrial work.

  14. Interesting by Shulai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nobody is bashing Windows so far, yet it seems to be what the editor look for when he wrote the headline. Has Windows improved enough that nobody try to make fun of it anymore, or slashdotters are already older and more mature?

    1. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we all got tired of retarded editors trying to blame Windows for everything. The FUD gets old, and personally I haven't blue screened ever since I installed Windows 7, and only blue screened once on my install of XP that lasted 5 years.

      The blue screen jokes were a lot funnier in the pre-2000 days.

    2. Re:Interesting by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      Probably not.

      I reckon it's more of abject horror at the thought that they didn't have a replacement, if not on hand, readily available to drop into place.

    3. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has Windows improved enough that nobody try to make fun of it anymore, or slashdotters are already older and more mature?

      Nah, it's just more fun to mock the iPad right now.

    4. Re:Interesting by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      No and No.

    5. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it could be neither; maybe it's just that this whole ordeal is so big a fuck-up that most people aren't in a mood to make the usual jokes.

    6. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or it is you that is out to bash slashdot editors. There is a note below the summary that says there is no proof this is a Windows BSOD. Wtf are you going on about? Or did you just read the headline and not the summary/story

    7. Re:Interesting by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nobody is bashing Windows so far[...]

      Don't worry, the "journalists" at Boycott Novel have that covered: Microsoft Windows BSOD Caused Deepwater Horizon Disaster.

      Here's the summary, as provided by the site itself: Blue Screen of Death caused a crucial computer system not to prevent the biggest disaster of the 21st century . So yes, they are in fact claiming that it was a Windows failure that actually led to the explosion and oil spill.

      I had thought that they had reached the limit of over-the-top claims when they tried to imply Microsoft caused Reiser to murder his wife, but they sure proved me wrong on that!

    8. Re:Interesting by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Even if Windows had a BSOD it would not hurt anything. Control systems and especially safety systems don't run on Windows, they run on dedicated hardware. All the windows box is there to do is monitor what is going on with the control systems and make any configuration changes if necessary. Most of it is going to be automated, with logic running on the controllers themselves, but most of those can be overridden from the console.

      The BSOD could be caused by windows, or it could be caused by the control system software running on the machine. Either way it doesn't matter, you can bring the controls software up on any machine on the network and you're back in business. Worst case scenario you lose visibility for a couple of minutes, which is about as long as it would take to recognize that conditions are changing to where a problem could be mounting.

      Bypassing alerts is also common, though it usually isn't done in safety systems (which should be any controls relating to any part of the system that could potentially put the system in an unsafe condition) unless you have a very, very, very good reason. And no "the alarm is annoying and it won't shut off" is not a good reason. It sounds like they may have bypassed a critical alarm, or the part of the system that the alarm was for was not classified as safety critical when it should have been.

      So it could be the operators and their supervisors fault (whoever told them to bypass the alarm) or it could be the engineering group that set up the system and didn't designate that particular part as safety-critical and make it part of the safety system.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    9. Re:Interesting by Lakitu · · Score: 1

      Because it's obvious it had nothing to do with Windows -- the Transocean guys were just placing their left hand on the closest part of the iConsole and inadvertantly dropping the connection to the sensors. They were still getting 4 bars most of the time though, so it couldn't be a signal problem!

      Little did they know.

    10. Re:Interesting by tenco · · Score: 1

      There are more causes for a BSOD than "bad job from MS". Like faulty hardware.

  15. the regulators were the regulated by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the regulations don't matter in this case. i'm glad you admit we need some regulations, but the real issue here is regulator==regulated

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/22/AR2010072205133.html?hpid=topnews

    His statement came after Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) asked about a Washington Post article that reported that dozens of former Interior officials had crossed over into the oil industry and that three out of four industry lobbyists had once worked for the federal government.

    The rate is more than double the norm in Washington, where industries recruit about 30 percent of their lobbyists from the government, according to data from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. With more than 600 registered lobbyists, the industry has among the biggest and most powerful contingents in Washington, The Post reported.

    the lobbyists, the interior officials, the corporate assholes: all the same people

    all the same smoochy same golf hole playing same bar attending backslapping crowd of assholes

    that's why we had the disaster in the gulf

    you can pass all the regulations you want, it doesn't matter if the ones who are supposed to be policing the industry ARE the industry

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:the regulators were the regulated by bmajik · · Score: 1

      we have very different ideologies about things, but i agree with you entirely regarding the content of this post.

      The regulators are in bed with those whom must be regulated. The amount of "regulating" going on is obviously going to be a joke.

      But this isn't unique to the oil industry.

      Why is it that regulators cycle in and out of the industries that they are supposed to regulate? It's a bit of a problem -- to be a really good regulator, do you need to be as knowledgable and as clever as the people you're regulating? In which case, why wouldn't you work for them where the money is better?

      Regulation, in practice, is almost _always_ about brokering political power. The little guy doesn't get protected.

      I'm not sure how you fix this problem because it is one of incentives. Someone who actually is harmed by BP has plenty of incentive to pursue damages against BP. Someone who merely has to "regulate" them doesn't. The incentives are much better for the regulator to accept bribes, look the other way, and expect a cushy industry job when he revolves back out of government service.

      Instead of trying to front-load success via heavier regulation, why not put real teeth in how we let people go after companies (and governments!) for the disasters they create that harm people. And let's fix the tort system so that the huge payouts are reserved for gulf coasters who BP SHOULD compensate generously, instead of lawyers inventing class action suits that get settled, with customers getting $6 and lawyers getting $6 million....

      If you were to say "we're not issuing licenses for offshore drilling unless you show up on day one with a $10b bond that we hold onto to seed your cleanup fund -- and we get to keep the interest. When you're all done, and you've managed to not wreck anything and there are no claims against you oustanding, you get the bond money back", there'd still be takers. And the incentives might be a bit better to do a proper fucking job of it all..

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    2. Re:the regulators were the regulated by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I hereby propose that we hand over enforcement of our nations drug laws to the heaviest pot smokers we can find.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:the regulators were the regulated by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      It's actually common practice for Congress to go to and have them draft up a law. The Congressmen sponsoring the law review it, make changes here and there, and then put it up for a vote.

      That is how most of the copyright law has been written, for example.

      The fact is, most of the time Congress does not know enough about the industry they are trying to regulate to come up with a law that makes any sense. So they go to the experts - the industry reps themselves. This leads to an extremely tight relationship between Congress and Industry.

      The more heavily an Industry is regulated, the tighter the relationship with Congress. Oil being one of, if not the most regulated industry in America, it's no wonder the relationship is so tight.

      What's the solution? I have no idea. How do you know specifically what to regulate without significant amounts of experience in the industry? You need knowledge of the technologies, the processes, the culture, and the mindset of people doing the work in order to know where things are ok and where they need improvement. You aren't going to get that without lots of time on the Industry side of the equations.

      Maybe we need rules along the lines of regulators can be chosen from within the Industry, but once you become a regulator for the US government you are no longer permitted to work in that industry in any capacity ever again. That should cut out a lot of incentives for corruption if implemented right. You also need really solid leadership at the top, who can propagate good leadership down the ranks. That's really the only way to cut out the buddy-buddy behavior of regulators.

      Anyway, it's a problem without an easy answer simply because of human nature. Adding new regulations on the oil industry does nothing to address the real problem - the regulations are not being properly enforced.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    4. Re:the regulators were the regulated by number11 · · Score: 1

      Instead of trying to front-load success via heavier regulation, why not put real teeth in how we let people go after companies (and governments!) for the disasters they create that harm people.

      So we can hear BP say "oh, heh, we're really sorry but the subsidiary who was involved has gone belly up, we did own all of their stock but you know that stockholders can't be held liable for the actions of the corporation, so long suckers"?

      And let's fix the tort system so that the huge payouts are reserved for gulf coasters who BP SHOULD compensate generously, instead of lawyers inventing class action suits that get settled, with customers getting $6 and lawyers getting $6 million....

      So you're saying that companies that injure a large number of people a small amount should be exempt from punishment? I'm not particularly keen on how class action lawsuits work either, but until you can show me a lawyer who will vigorously pursue my $10 claim for the customary 1/3 cut of winnings and not ask for money from me upfront, I'm not convinced that there are any other alternatives.

    5. Re:the regulators were the regulated by Thing+1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      That would actually improve the situation.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  16. It was Windows NT by Fookin · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was watching the testimony and he stated that it was a Windows NT system and was constantly giving a BSOD. They had replaced and reimaged the HDD over and over but it still kept happening. There were new servers, workstations, etc standing by and waiting to be installed, but another problem creeped in. They were waiting for another ship to figure out a way to run the old software on the new machines. Once that other ship could get it working and document it, they would then do the replacement on their end. I'm guessing it was a Windows NT 4 workstation.

    1. Re:It was Windows NT by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 1

      Not blaming Windows here. But WTF? Who (in their right mind) uses a 12 yo OS to run mission critical operations? I could understand it if you were a small business in Africa and you only had access to something that old, but BP makes BILLIONS every year. Cheap bastards. Next thing you know, they'll admit to using control circuitry from the Apollo mission era in the emergency relief systems.

      --
      Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
    2. Re:It was Windows NT by Fookin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From what I recall, this rig had been in place since 2000 and hadn't been in dry dock since launch. My guess is that they wanted to run a tried and true OS that was compatible with all their systems / sensors / panels, etc and Win2K had just come out. I remember the place I was working at in 2000 was still running NT4 so it doesn't surprise me that they wouldn't have upgraded. I'd love to know why their IT staff didn't send a modern workstation with VMWare Player and a NT4 image installed to run the system. Would have saved a lot of pain and trouble ...

    3. Re:It was Windows NT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      does the whole thing come down to a single windows NT4 workstation? no.. That is like saying my arm got cut off because my protective gear failed. How about insted making sure that the protective gear didn't have to do it's job in the first place?

    4. Re:It was Windows NT by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 1

      Agreed. But the point is that there were solutions available. Were they perhaps "too costly", which seems to be the phrase of the day all around? VMware (for example) is really expensive as software goes, but still a drop in the bucket compared to the grotesque profit margin at BP.

      --
      Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
    5. Re:It was Windows NT by WillgasM · · Score: 1

      did anyone bother running memtest86?

    6. Re:It was Windows NT by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      But the point is that there were solutions available.

      Please describe in detail the solution they were using and all available alternative solutions.

      Also, show that this issue was caused by software and not, say, a bad SIMM or corrosion on a board.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    7. Re:It was Windows NT by tiptone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Care to take a guess as to what OS the space shuttles run? Hint: it's more than 12 years old, and considered very mission critical.

      --
      Please don't read my sig.
    8. Re:It was Windows NT by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      Not blaming Windows here. But WTF? Who (in their right mind) uses a 12 yo OS to run mission critical operations?

      Ah, but the devil you know is better than the devil you don't, even if the latter might be slightly less evil.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    9. Re:It was Windows NT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who (in their right mind) uses a 12 yo OS to run mission critical operations?

      Anyone who knows that every new OS comes out with a new set of bugs and limitations that may show up at the most inopportune time.

      For much of what I do for data systems, I run Red Hat 7. I know it runs, I have the configuration tuned to the hardware, and I have not been surprised by any odd behaviour for the last five years.

      I have one data system that I was forced to load Ubuntu 9.4 (I think, last one before 10) on. While the data collection software itself works ok, the system randomly shuts itself off and the 3G USB modem repeatedly disconnects and dissappears from the system. When it isn't completely dead, it is completely incommunicado.

      That system has cost more in debugging and travel time than three of the others combined. Who in their right mind uses 12 year old OS for mission critical operations? People who developed and debugged and certified their programs and hardware with that 12 year old OS and don't feel a need to spend the money for no gain.

    10. Re:It was Windows NT by westlake · · Score: 1

      I was watching the testimony and he stated that it was a Windows NT system and was constantly giving a BSOD. They had replaced and reimaged the HDD over and over but it still kept happening.

      Then maybe the problem wasn't with NT or the hard drive - but with other aging hardware in a marine environment.

    11. Re:It was Windows NT by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      I'll assume this is flamebait, but it needs to be said. The problem is not the age or version of the OS, it's the fact that commodity software is being used in a mission-critical setting.
      As for who would do something like that? NASA, obviously.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    12. Re:It was Windows NT by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Intelligent people who want to know that they aren't working with something brand new that no one really understands yet.

      You don't use cutting edge tech on safety equipment when the cutting edge tech is incredibly complex.

      You don't want retarded bugs in new software killing someone. You run something 12 years old, which is perfectly capable of doing the job and has been patched to all hell and back because its been used for so long by so many people.

      And really ... name one reason why NT4 isn't up to the job? Never versions of Windows, for the most part, are GUI enhancements and would offer no additional value, and a lot more bloat to the system.

      Intelligent people generally don't follow the bleeding edge of technology, its too much work and risk.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    13. Re:It was Windows NT by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Why not use it if it works?

      Probably the real problem wasn't Windows NT4 (which from my experience is an incredibly stable operating system). My guess is that they were still running it on some common off-the-shelf standard PC hardware from the NT4-era which was no longer trustworthy. It always amazes me to see some multi-million dollar computer-controlled piece of equipment that comes with a bog-standard Dell PC or similar that you know is only designed for a 3-5 year lifespan. You'd think for that kind of money they could spring for an industrial PC with ECC memory, RAID or even SSD, long-life power supply and fans, solid-state capacitors, etc., but nope. It even amazes me more when the equipment is designed to go into an extreme environment like a factory or an oil rig.

    14. Re:It was Windows NT by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 1

      Now, this was an informative and correct reply to my query.

      --
      Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
  17. BSOD by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

    For months, the computer system had been locking up, producing what the crew deemed the 'blue screen of death.'

    Of course now we have the black sea of death. :-(

  18. BSOD? by tautog · · Score: 1

    Black Sheen Of Death?

  19. That's why capitalism is broken by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A company we hired nearly destroyed the Gulf of Mexico... What's that got to do with us?

    One our business partners was rating these bonds as AAA when they were worthless, and we were busy making billions passing the bonds off as good investments... What's that got to do with us?

    The company we hired to dispose of this toxic waste is just dumping it in a river... What's that got to do with us?

    In effect, modern capitalism is a system of mafia thugs and their hired patsies who operate technically within the law, as long as they hire an agent to do their dirty work to take the fall. Any of the real costs can be passed off to the public, either though bailouts or just ruining the commons.

    1. Re:That's why capitalism is broken by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Agreed. In fact, as long as the big company has no liability it just turns into one big race for the bottom.

      Suppose you run a reputable oil-rig operations company. You'd like to have people outsource their rigs to you. You believe in safety and the environment, so you take all kinds of steps to avoid something like the BP disaster. What happens? Well, you go out of business. You have to compete against other companies that cut corners. Companies like BP don't care about the safety of your workers or the environment, since that is on you. Your competitors charge less, and that is all they care about. Sure, it isn't sustainable, but most small companies aren't sustainable. The company running the rig can pay out dividends while the money is there, and then fold when the lawsuits hit. Indeed, if you didn't run a disreputable company your shareholders would probably fire you (low dividends compared to peers) and replace you with somebody who would mismanage it.

      In other industries there is a clear assignment of responsibility, which cannot be outsourced. You can hire somebody else to do the work, but not to assume the liability. If Bayer sells a bottle of tainted aspirin, then they're liable even if they bought bad pills from a supplier. The only thing they're not liable for is what happens to the package after they sell it to the warehouse/store, although they are required to put the pills in tamper-evident packaging.

      Indeed, in many industries liability is personal. That's why certified engineers have to sign off on bridges - they are personally responsible for the design (but not necessarily the implementation). I think the EU does something similar for drugs.

    2. Re:That's why capitalism is broken by jimrthy · · Score: 1

      Anything resembling capitalism in this country died with the New Deal.

      And it wasn't all that close before that.

      This isn't just about regulations, either. As others have pointed out, it's about anything to do with central planning. Incentives, protection from liability, tax breaks, protective tariffs, minimum wages, etc, etc, etc.

      We've just all been raised to believe that America is basically a free market economy. Most of us never stop to question whether that's still the case.

      (Note: I'm not saying that I think a pure free market economy would necessarily be viable, or even desirable. I'm just sick of people making this particular mistake.

    3. Re:That's why capitalism is broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In effect, modern capitalism is a system of mafia thugs and their hired patsies who operate technically within the law, as long as they hire an agent to do their dirty work to take the fall. Any of the real costs can be passed off to the public, either though bailouts or just ruining the commons.

      This is true.

      Interestingly, if you s/capitalism/government/g the above, it's also true. Try it.

    4. Re:That's why capitalism is broken by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      That's why capitalism is broken

      Seen Russia lately?

      Oh yeah, it's Capitalism that's broken, not the massively corrupt government bureaucracy that we put in place to make sure companies don't screw us over.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    5. Re:That's why capitalism is broken by copponex · · Score: 1

      Russia's deficit is about 7% of GDP compared to our 60% of GDP. Or is there something more to an economy than it's public debt...

      (See what I did there?)

      http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/19/russia-eurobond-auction-markets-bonds-deficit-putin.html

      Moscow expects the budget deficit to hit 6.8% of GDP this year and wants to lower that to around 3% by 2012. Officials have not said exactly how much they intend to raise with the bond issue, or at what yield. But according to some reports, Finance Ministry officials are looking for a yield of 200 basis points above the benchmark German bund, (the 10-year yields 3.28% and the 30-year, 4%), to launch the bond in April at the earliest and to raise a total $18 billion this year, most likely in various tranches...

      The last time Russia issued a Eurobond was in 2000. It was two years after the country's infamous 1998 financial crisis which saw the country's export-dependent finances crumble after a huge drop in oil prices. In August 1998, Russia defaulted on its sovereign debt and suspended payments by local banks to foreign creditors.

      But it wasn't long before the devalued ruble helped boost exports, oil prices rose again and the economy was back on its feet.

    6. Re:That's why capitalism is broken by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. The unregulated free market economy is just as flawed as the communist economy - it assumes people will do what is right. A well-regulated economy should presume that people will do what is in their economic best interest, and the regulations should make that best interest fall in line with the best interests of society in general.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    7. Re:That's why capitalism is broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why capitalism is broken...

      Communists, Socialists, and Fascists (right-wing or left-wing) killed over 100,000,000 in the 20th century directly or via induced famines (food literally taken from the starving who produced it). You don't hear too much about "That's why government is broken". This disaster led to less than 20 deaths but billions of economic damage. They (BP, at least) are paying and have already committed ove 20 billion dollars. What is broken? That mistakes are made? That is to be expected. The cost of this disaster will figure into a lot of balance sheets and alter drilling going forward. It is too much for most companies to bear. Also, to be pedantic, if an industry is as mismanaged as this one, you ought not call it capitalism. It would make more sense to say, "That's why regulation is broken". However, you won't claim that because you don't like freedom (the essense of capitalism).

    8. Re:That's why capitalism is broken by copponex · · Score: 1

      Also, to be pedantic, if an industry is as mismanaged as this one, you ought not call it capitalism. It would make more sense to say, "That's why regulation is broken". However, you won't claim that because you don't like freedom (the essense of capitalism).

      Physician, heal thyself.

  20. My Learning Curve by b4upoo · · Score: 1

    I may have learned something. I always thought that Microsoft products generally were designed to wreck the human mind. Now it seems their software may have ruined the Gulf of Mexico and destroyed the economy of five states.
                  From the cup is half full kind of view that may mean that one Microsoft driven incident can wreak more havoc than a nuclear bomb.

    1. Re: My Learning Curve by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      I may have learned something. I always thought that Microsoft products generally were designed to wreck the human mind. Now it seems their software may have ruined the Gulf of Mexico and destroyed the economy of five states.

      If that is true, the engineers who designed and installed that system should be put in jail for willful negligence or some shit like that.

      But I can tell you that they won't be, because no idiot lets a Windows box (or Linux box or OSX box for that matter) - also known as a console - control valves and chokes and run meters and instruments. They use dedicated hardware with automation logic to control everything. All the Windows boxes are there for is to monitor the system from a birds-eye view and occasionally make manual adjustments when conditions require it (eg. manually open or close a valve because you are putting a well in test). You can certainly screw something up with the console, but it has to be deliberate (i.e. manually closing a valve that causes massive backpressure which causes a tank to explode - etc.). A BSOD is going to do the opposite of get you into trouble as far as the control system is concerned.

      A BSOD on the console would cause you to lose visibility of the system for a few minutes, which tends to be more of an issue during these big events like cementing a well or starting up a facility or whatnot, but it isn't a "oh my god, the console isn't working, we're all going to die" situation. In fact, if the automation equipment isn't set up to deal with those eventualities, then the operator console probably doesn't even give a critical alarm for them.

      The point I'm trying to make is that the Windows machines don't control anything, so it's pretty much impossible for a BSOD to cause a critical system failure. It's just not the way the systems are designed. Though, the Windows machine is there to help you catch a critical system failure that somehow made it past your safety system. If they let their operator lose visibility for more than 15 minutes or so because of a computer problem, then they very well could have been fucked by it. You can still hardly blame that on Windows directly. Machines break, you should have replacements/alternatives available to you in that time frame - especially on a rig.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  21. It was microsoft! by xmorg · · Score: 1

    So BP is not to blame! it was MICROSOFT!

    1. Re:It was microsoft! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were the rig workers gay and prone to sitting about in designer jeans drinking expensive cups of coffee? If so, I wouldn't then rule out Apple just yet...

  22. Just heard on CSPAN3 Mike Williams testimony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WINDOWS NT was what was running. He didn't state which version, but he stated it was very obsolete, so I'm guess 4 or earlier.

    He also stated that they had ordered replacement hard drives and replacement servers.

  23. This is nonsense by copponex · · Score: 1

    You can always spend a bit more and make something a little safer. At some point you need to draw the line.

    This isn't like they didn't spend extra money on 360 degree airbags for a car and parachutes in case it falls off a cliff. This is like they found out that the brakes were working intermittently and decided to do nothing about it. And when one of their employees questioned them, they told them to keep quiet.

    In the past, this was called negligence. I think today it's called business.

    1. Re:This is nonsense by abigsmurf · · Score: 1

      Car tires, even if replaced regularly are at risk of blowing out.

      If you suffer a blowout 6 months into a new set, spin out of control despite your best efforts and collide with another car, killing the occupants.

      Should you face a murder charge? Despite you replacing the tires you should know theres always a blowout risk. Blowouts happen all the time and frequently lead to accidents. If you had spent a bit more and got some run on flat tires, the people in the other car would still be alive.

    2. Re:This is nonsense by copponex · · Score: 1

      In this case, as with many modern cars, the sensor was saying TIRE FLAT. They turned off the sensor and ignored it.

      This is the very definition of negligence.

    3. Re:This is nonsense by Teun · · Score: 1
      No they didn't turn off the sensor.

      They disabled the automatic general alarm for when the sensor acted up.
      Meaning they still got the warning and could investigate before manually raising the general alarm.

      That's as such no problem because a good nights rest for the off shift is also a form of safety.
      The problem is that the sensors were hooked up to an unreliable system and that's why they got too many false alarms.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    4. Re:This is nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a stupid argument. It's based on the idea that blowouts are just bad luck. Luck is what you make for yourself. If you buy the cheapest tire possible and don't check your rims for bends and cracks and you don't periodically check to insure that they are holding air as they should, then unless you are very lucky one or more of your tires will lose pressure. When it does you will eventually work the sidewall to failure as the tire changes shape rolling through the contact patch area. Once the sidewall loses it structure you will have a tire failure and if you're really unlucky it will be a blowout.

      Me, I buy tires on the cheaper end of the spectrum for the class of tire I'm buying: Yokohamas instead of BF Goodrich TAs or Hoosiers. I send my rims to a highly regarded rim repair place to fix pothole damage and curb rash as it happens. I check pressures about monthly or certainly before any hard driving to insure that something hasn't changed. I haven't had a blowout ever and with those precautions outside of driving over a Marlin spike I doubt I ever will.

      The argument by analogy that this accident was just as unpreventable as a blowout on the highway is equally false for the same reason. The whole point of the quoted NY Times article was to say that Transocean, BP, and Haliburton took several shortcuts in the execution of this endeavor. This is very shortsighted given that the entire business of oil exploration and production is very risky.

      By your analogy, this accident is the result of putting nails into the tread, dropping the pressures of a couple of tires to 10psi, and then doing 100 laps of Watkins Glen at top speeds of 150 MPH.

  24. Actually it was ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linux running a Windows BSOD screen saver.

  25. Safety is too expensive by plopez · · Score: 1

    It gets in the way of CEO bonuses. Who cares about a few birds or shrimp fishermen anyway?

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  26. Bad Error Handling by ctchristmas · · Score: 1

    Must have been an empty catch around the OilWell.Plug() method.

    What did we learn kids? Always catch and log your errors. Notification emails are a good thing.

  27. SoX by freeweed · · Score: 1

    The regulators were tasked to check that the companies followed the procedures for checking their own operations.

    This, incidentally, is exactly how SoX compliance functions. And what makes it entirely worthless.

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    1. Re:SoX by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      SoX still works some because the simplest of forensic accounting will show the fraud. Sure, it may take getting turned in or such for them to investigate to that point, but it is easy to catch and will send people to jail. So those in charge will at least try. Well, for the next 5 years, then someone will wave the "large government" flag and get the laws changed.

    2. Re:SoX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This, incidentally, is exactly how SoX compliance functions. And what makes it entirely worthless.

      So the solution is to have the government constantly monitor every piece of information that passes through every single corporation in the country? SOX is self monitoring just like your taxes, sure you can try and skip out on the regulations or cheat the system, but once the government starts to investigate and you can't provide the numbers you will be screwed. This is enough to keep most companies in line with SOX.

      SOX is better than what they had before, which was nothing. Before SOX there were numerous scandals where people would just invent numbers or assets from nowhere and increase their stock value with no reprecussions.

  28. that's right! by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    we don't need nuclear industry regulation, we can just sue the nuclear industry into oblivion after they chernobylize a couple hundred thousand acres for 100,000 years!

    we don't need food and drug industry regulation, we can just sue a food or drug industry into oblivion after a couple hundred kids die of tainted food or drugs!

    we don't need school regulation, we can just sue the schools into oblivion after our kids wind up being abused idiots!

    feel me yet?

    the price of no regulation is the destruction of things that cannot be made up monetarily after the fact. you can't put a price on everything, especially something like the goddamn gulf of mexico. there's only one gulf of mexico, friend. put a price on the destruction of that ecosystem and tourist industry. its more than you can get in a courtroom, even from the oil industry, and some of it, like unique species, is priceless. no court case after the fact will bring some things back

    furthermore, wouldn't it be better and cheaper for the companies themselves to spend the $20 million to comply with regulations rather than $20 billion to clean up a large oceanic body?

    that's why we have regulations. in fact, bad regulations, and shoddy regulators, are still better than no regulations or regulators at all. you have to set standards, or standards WILL be broken. and some of the damage that can be done CANNOT be fixed monetarily with a lawsuit after the fact

    we need to CLEAN UP government. we need regulations. we need taxes to pay for regulators and a functioning strong central government. meanwhile, DESTROYING government, which so many tea party and libertarian morons are so intent on doing, is clearly, CLEARLY, much, much worse. think HAITI, retards: that's the end result of libertarian and tea party ideology, whether you idiots realize it or not

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:that's right! by bmajik · · Score: 2, Informative

      but you've already agreed that regulatory regimes don't work, and don't prevent any of the problems you've mentioned.

      Do you think Chernobyl was caused by greed and profit, and insufficient government oversight? (PS: It happened in _the Soviet Union_, land of small government and evil capitalists, right?)

      Everything _does_ have a price. Everything.

      Regarding Haiti: no, Haiti is nothing like what libertarians want. Haiti has an oppressive government with rampant corruption at every level, all the way down to the traffic cop. Authority invites corruption. Libertarians want fewer authorities. The result should be less corruption.

      People, even basically good people, will behave predictably in the face of incentives. You've not addressed how you will change the incentives for corner cutting, non-compliance, and incompetence in regulatory regimes, so arguing that these regulatory regimes should be kept, strengthened, or expanded, isn't a reflection of a solution, but of an ideology.

      That you are also unwilling to discuss things without resorting to insults does nothing to solidify your position.

      I've read many of your posts; you're very angry, and very dismissive, but very short on arguments. It's fine to be angry and dismissive from time to time, but please show your work.

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
  29. capitalism isnt broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its the concept of "limited liability"
    start making executives/owners personally responsible and things will change
    if you thought you could lose everything (your house etc) including jail time because of the decisions your employees made you would take steps to prevent it.
    as it stands now people like Tony and his band of wall street merry men can walk away with more cash than beyond your wildest dreams they risk nothing personally, and are guaranteed to walk away rich men either way with no personal consequences. who cares if it goes wrong if you made enough in 1 year to live the next 50 in luxury

    if somebody ruined my livelyhood and suffered nothing, i would damm make sure that they and their families didnt wake up the next day.

    maybe im old fashioned, but thats just me.

  30. Was is a BSOD or was it "smurfed"? by slim-t · · Score: 2, Insightful
    “It would just turn blue,” he said. “You’d have no data coming through.”

    This doesn't sound like a Windows BSOD at all. I'm not sure what DCS (distributed control system) they were using, but in my experience with Foxboro I/A is that when things turn blue it mean's there's no data coming in. The term I usually hear is "Smurfed" because somebody thought the color (cyan) looked like a Smurf.

    This would possibly be due to an analog input signal that fell out of the 4-20mA range, or a loss of communications within the DCS or from an outside controller.

  31. Name the product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please name the product. If what you say is true, it should be at least possible to raise knowledge about this shame in the general public.

  32. VMWare likely does not work with custom IO by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    VMWare likely does not work well with custom IO boards / inputs.

    1. Re:VMWare likely does not work with custom IO by adolf · · Score: 1

      s/likely//

      It's interesting enough getting VMWare to play nice with USB widgets on a consistent basis.

      These days, folks would probably do everything over IP and Ethernet, which (for now!) is reasonably emulation-proof. But back in 2000, this wouldn't have been happening. Custom-ish hardware (probably on an ISA bus) or funnily-connected (RS-485-ish) hardware would've ruled the day.

      Emulation would not have worked at all, without a whole lot more work than maintaining an NT4 box, and would have introduced huge new layers of complexity where none is needed even if it were practical.

  33. Sounds like the airlines wait for people to die be by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Sounds like the airlines wait for people to die before safety fixes are made.

  34. they did not pay for new hardware so just reboot by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    they did not pay for new hardware so just reboot and bypass any lockouts.

  35. there is no functioning government in haiti by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    its a libertarian utopia

    every abuse by government you decry, does not happen in haiti. instead, those same abuses, and a hundred thousand worse abuses, happen on every street corner, by thugs and mafia instead

    fact, whether you realize it or not: make government small, and a power vacuum will exist that will be filled by entities that are not accountable to you. being not accountable to you, there is no recourse when they abuse you. that really is the truth. someday you will wake up and realize and stop working so damn hard to destroy this country

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:there is no functioning government in haiti by FourthAge · · Score: 1

      Thugs and mafia? That sounds like an argument for the government running the police force. And most libertarians would agree with you: they would say that policing, national defense and a justice system should be the proviso of government.

      As in any sort of political philosophy, there are extremists, and some libertarians think there should be no government at all, but assuming that all libertarians are "like that" is rather like assuming all Muslims are like Osama bin Laden.

      Many (most) are firm believers in the rule of law, and would like it very much if the government would get on with the job of creating a safe and fair society, without also providing a make-work scheme for an army of bureaucrats or trying to impose some sort of tax-funded ideological vision of "social justice" or "equality" or whatever the latest buzzword is.

      What you have presented isn't an argument for having the government run anything other than policing and justice, and coincidentally those are exactly the sorts of things the government should be doing.

      Furthermore the current system is hardly accountable. What say do you really have in how the government spends your money? Like if some moron neo conservative decides to go start a war on the other side of the world, can you say "I'm not paying for that"? No. Equally if some other moron decides to bail out the insurance industry with something he laughably calls "healthcare reform", can you say "Not with my money"? Again, no. The system is abusing you all the time, and you have no way to hold it to account.

      --
      The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
    2. Re:there is no functioning government in haiti by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      Describing Haiti as libertarian is a laughable misconstruction of unrelated factoids for your own self-satisfied amusement - or else your knowledge of political theory is nonexistent.

      Haiti has been a strong-man socialist cesspool for most of 200 years, governed by whoever had the biggest fist. You might say, government by those thugs you mention. The mass of the people were forced and taught to be dependent children, given whatever scraps they could get from the government. Suddenly removing the government does not turn it into a libertarian utopia - it turns it into a disaster area.

      Libertarianism depends ultimately on individual self-rule - it assumes the individual knows how to survive while doing the right thing, and is motivated to do it. (That's why it's an idealistic notion that can never succeed in the real world.) The complaint of libertarians is largely (and rightly) that the more power is invested in government, the more those who seek to abuse power will be attracted to government - Ayn Rand's villains were always the sort who have run Chicago for a century or more, giving out favors to those who toe the party line.

      Few of the people of Haiti have ever had the chance to build their own lives into something (the libertarian objective) - they have been kept in survival mode by those who subvert government for their own ends - the very mafia and thugs you incorrectly accuse libertarians of supporting.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
  36. Open Source by codepunk · · Score: 1

    Had they access to the source code to the shit they where actually running perhaps they would have upgraded the OS long ago. Most of us have encountered crap like this, oh the company that sold it to us went under 10 yrs ago so we cannot upgrade, make it keep working.

    --


    Got Code?
    1. Re:Open Source by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Had they access to the source code to the shit they where actually running perhaps they would have upgraded the OS long ago.
      Probablly not, security isn't considered a huge issue because the systems in question probablly aren't exposed to the internet and every change brings a risk of new problems (better the devil you know than the devil you don't). So PCs performing embedded functions are unlikely to get upgraded unless something forces it.

      From other comments here it does actually sound like in this case they were investigating an OS upgrade but only because they were being pushed by dying hardware.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    2. Re:Open Source by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      The company that sold it was MS.

      They have not went under.

      For something like this, its trivial to get the source code to Windows if you need it.

      OSS offers no advantage to them in this situation and several disadvantages.

      Please to be getting a clue before spewing your ignorance.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  37. this wouldnt have happened.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if we were using nuclear power

  38. In this case by Xamusk · · Score: 1

    It was literally the blue screen of death

  39. US didn't fix a lot of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real answer is to stop regarding corporations as 'persons' and go back to regarding them as what they are, associations, and ones which can be disbanded when they screw up big time.

    BP stands for BRITISH Petroleum. Just because the US calls them "persons" doesn't mean the rest of the world does.

  40. Was EDS Involved? by bastion_xx · · Score: 1

    An HP project manager I know had worked with the staff on Deep Water that didn't make it. Any idea if the report mentioned HP in any of this?

  41. analog video hardware any Guru's? by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    analog video hardware any Guru's?

  42. Lack of competition is to blame too by kolbe · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've worked on the computer systems that many of these rigs run and they are generally done using one of the following Operating Systems:

    Solaris 9/10 SPARC
    Windows 2003

    None of them, at least none of the ones made by Seimens, Honeywell, Invensys, or Emerson run on Linux, BSD, or any other OS. The Solaris versions are being phased out in favor of Windows derivatives because developers for them and support/training personnel are cheaper to come by than those who can write code for or comprehend the workings of *NIX systems.

    It is, in all honesty, a bit scary to think there are a growing number of both Power Plants (Gas, Coal, Oil, Hydro, and Wind) and Offshore Oil Rigs that run entire solutions based around Microsoft Windows platforms. While these companies state in their marketing that they offer full redundancy, options to run 2 or more "backup" stations, and even 5 x 9's SLA, both design control automation and system controls solutions are quite flawed.

    The main issue here is that many of these companies offer products that have nearly no competition from others in the market. Each company has their strengths and weaknesses that a majority of the customers know about, so it's not a matter of bidding against competition so much as it is about "How quickly can you get it done and can you do it for this price?"

    I hope that something good comes out of this for that Industry, they have been needing a shot in the foot for quite some time over it.

    1. Re:Lack of competition is to blame too by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      t is, in all honesty, a bit scary to think there are a growing number of both Power Plants (Gas, Coal, Oil, Hydro, and Wind) and Offshore Oil Rigs that run entire solutions based around Microsoft Windows platforms.

      Only because you don't understand why your PC running Windows is unstable.

      You'll have a pretty hard time taking out a generic Windows install without doing something intentionally to make it crash, like writing code known to cause an issue.

      When you have a machine running known code only, using specific hardware with reliable drivers, and you aren't connected to the Internet ... Windows is trivial to keep running.

      Windows crashes are 99.999999999999999999999% of the time due to shitty drivers. Its a safe bet that the last 11 out of 10 times your Windows machines crashed it was because of nVidia or ATI drivers, with a lower chance that it was due to sound drivers.

      I'm not saying its not possible, but with solid hardware drivers and not intentionally doing something to take Windows out using known exploits where you are intentionally doing things to evade builtin safety features, it starts to get rather difficult.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:Lack of competition is to blame too by kolbe · · Score: 1

      Sorry to burst your brainwash bubble, but Windows is not capable of handling these environments effectively for several reasons. Hardware and software are to blame just as much as the people who design and implement it.

      If the LSE failed to implement a Windows solution with all of it's millions and Microsoft's top people being dumped into the project, that should an indicator of Microsoft's failures in these types of environments.

  43. anyone taking bets... by hitmark · · Score: 1

    that the system was a dos program (or some old visual basic interface perhaps) running on top of a win9x image? Those things could turn "BSOD" if it got overloaded in any way what so ever, not just from a system critical error (driver failure and so on) seen on the NT lineage.

    --
    comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
  44. Read the EULA by vaporland · · Score: 1

    If it was any version of Windows, the EULA specifically states

    The Software is not designed or recommended for any "critical applications." "Critical applications" means life support systems, medical applications, connections to implanted medical devices, commercial transportation, nuclear facilities or systems or any other applications where product failure could lead to injury to persons or loss of life or catastrophic property damage. ACCORDINGLY, SHOULD YOU DECIDE TO USE THIS SOFTWARE FOR ANY CRITICAL APPLICATION MICROSOFT DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE IN ANY CRITICAL APPLICATION. IF YOU USE THE SOFTWARE IN A CRITICAL APPLICATION, YOU, AND NOT MICROSOFT, ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUCH USE.

    --
    Ask Me About... The 80's!
  45. read the first sentence moron by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

    WE. THE. PEOPLE.

    your government is not an alien entity come to rape your daughters, lay egg cases in your cranial cavity, or turn you into a duracell battery. your government is YOU

    YOU can hold it accountable by VOTING

    if your fellow citizens DON'T WANT these programs you dislike, they vote out the guys who put it in, and the programs GO AWAY

    but if your fellow citizens WANT these programs and consider it sensible, then the program stay, and you as the MINORITY VOICE have no right to exert your MINORITY opinion over hte MAJORITY

    and then your job is to SHUT UP and ACCEPT what the DEMOCRACY HAS SAID

    because the alternative is WORSE: the opinion of the few foisted on the majority. your opinion is in the MINORITY, so YOU LOSE. then maybe you should examine why your philosophy is WRONG: police work is more than just cops cracking skulls on street corners. it is also REGULATING OUR FINANCIAL INDUSTRY. REGULATING OUR ENERGY INDUSTRY: POLICE WORK. that you WANT to pay for, for without this "bureaucracy" you get oil spills every month

    CLEAN UP your government, don't REDUCE IT. then all the abuses you hate come back a hundred fold

    that's the truth motherfucker

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:read the first sentence moron by bmajik · · Score: 1

      we don't live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional republic. look it up some time.

      http://wimp.com/thegovernment

      the only point of a government is to protect minorities. the majority, sans some restricting force, _always_ gets their way. that's called mob rule, and it's what democracy is.

      many of our elected officials like to continue to perpetuate the falsehood you are spreading, that "democracy" is what makes America great, but this is false. _limited government_ is what made America what it is, namely, that YOU, the "majority", do NOT get to foist your desires on everyone.

      To the extent that the US has turned into an arbitrarily powerful democracy, it has suffered greatly.

      You are not only very angry, but you are very confused or misinformed about the structure of the US government.

      people like yourself, and politicians, are complicit in violating the law, including laws governing elections and voting. We may not be able to vote them out. And if enough of the voters think like you do -- namely, that whatever the majority can agree upon, ought to be the law, then what's the point of voting at all?

      It is for these reasons that the foudners of the nation wrote 2A, and why so many libertarians, who generally abhor violence, are strong 2A advocates.

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
  46. of course, in hindsight. by toby · · Score: 1

    But corporates are all about short term profits. Fuck the future!

    Nothing else could explain their rapacious, irreversible, indefensible despoliation of our air, sea, freshwater (and in USA), forests,, environment, health, food, and economies.

    --
    you had me at #!
  47. M$ License Issue.... by ibm1130 · · Score: 1

    Its been so long since I bought any M$ product that I have no idea what their license says now but at one point wasn't there a prohibition against using their alleged OS for safety critical ( in the formal sense [ HRI, etc ] ) applications like oh say nuclear and aircraft control systems?

  48. Bingo 1 and 2 comparisons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When i helped build the bingo1 and bingo2 for Oceanrig (about 10 years ago), the mud system was controlled by a windows pc. maybe after commissioning that went to another system, but not while i was there...

    Huge system multiple mud pumps, each with 3 500hp 3ph ac drives. Enough on-board storage tank capacity to unload a tanker full of mud. on board mixing systems, etc...

    system designed and built by procon.

    I always assumed that during commissioning that head end system control would be folded over to other types of computers, butt who knows now in retrospect... those rigs were not finished in the U.S. due to the bankruptcy of the yard (Friede-Goldman of Pascagoula, ms).

    The control system had a bunch of great PLC based cabintes and fiber optic lines in the middle. But at the top, I thought there should have been dedicated computing hardware developed.

    I was just an electrical helper back then. I am not an engineer or even an electrician anymore. But as a technically sophisticated person, I think there could have been better head end control technology. Something akin to avionics. dedicated hardware/os/software. Rigorous testing regulations.

    These rigs are almost the size of an aircraft carrier, and are supposed to be the most sophisticated ever built?????
    Most of the deepwater MODU's are about the same in design and specification.
    FYI: Mud control is one of the critical systems when drilling.

  49. "EULA and bugs be damned."? by alizard · · Score: 1

    That'll last as long as a vendor caught with its pants down is looking for somebody to sue to unload their legal liability on.

    That would be BP and Transocean as plaintiffs whoever supplied the 'defective by definition' Windows kit on the receiving end.

    Given the EULA content, M$ might be a plaintiff given what this is doing for Microsoft's "good name", if not, I'm sure they'll be able to supply expert witnesses.

    Sue one vendor into oblivion over using Windows and we might see a rush to the exits by SCADA and medical vendors in favor of *nix... while I agree with the Apple non-fans, I'd feel a hell of a lot safer if a nearby nuclear reactor was controlled via OSX UI than anything that ever came out of Redmond.

    While I am dubious as to the suitability of Windows for desktops, speaking as an ex-user posting from a Kubuntu box, with respect to the non-suitability of Windows in applications where failures can get lots of people killed, I stand firmly in Microsoft's corner.

    1. Re:"EULA and bugs be damned."? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I'd feel a hell of a lot safer if a nearby nuclear reactor was controlled via OSX UI than anything that ever came out of Redmond.

      You only feel unsafe because you don't know about the importance of the design of the system and how irrelevant it is that the front end runs windows. I've seen a complete loss of view event before where the operators lost total control of a refinery due to a massive hardware failure, and absolutely nothing happened. Ultimately the hardware and logic of control systems will keep oh humming away in the background if the system has been designed correctly.

      Beyond that there will be an independent emergency shutdown system in the background which can take over when the shit hits the fan. Even though these often have windows machines hooked to them they should have a key lock that prevents remote access to the running program when you're not updating the logic running on that system.

      Really I wouldn't be worried if they are running their plant from an iPhone 4 ... As long as it's been properly setup.

  50. We can trust corporations and government... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...repeatedly, as with
    Alaska Airlines Flight 261.

  51. RTFA by alizard · · Score: 1

    It's when things are not running smoothly that the proper operation of a monitoring and control system is critically important, as the 11 people who died on Deepwater Horizon would tell you if they were still alive to do so.

    1. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's when things are not running smoothly that the proper operation of a monitoring and control system is critically important, as the 11 people who died on Deepwater Horizon would tell you if they were still alive to do so.

      Hi, welcome to the discussion, and thanks for trolling.

      RTFA yourself and you'll see it has absolutely no bearing on what we are discussing here right now since it doesn't say anywhere that the control system failed while something wasn't running smoothly. It simply stated that there was a history of problems including issues with the control system.

      The worlds best designed and running control system still can't overcome the mighty power of the pen which can simply sign safety critical alarms out of existence as the article describes, yet another indication of systemic problems on the platform.

      But thanks for trying to play the mortal guilt card. Sadly these people would probably still be dead if the control system was perfect due to someone's decision to inhibit an alarm, which ultimately has nothing to do with what we are discussing which is that Windows despite it's EULA isn't as problematic on a control system as people (especially on Slashdot) would like to think.