You are wrong about it though, OPEC was doing quite a lot to push the costs down only a year ago. They were not interested in reducing total consumption of oil due to very high prices because it is the US consumer who burns most of this stuff and they saw a reduction of usage.
No worries though, the Oil prices will go up eventually but not because of this spill at all, just because the USD will go down and the Euro will go down, nobody will want to trade in those currencies (probably USD first though) and Oil will cost something unimaginable in dollars and later in euros.
Sure, it's small, probably all of the existing ones should be used on this spill, no matter how big or small at this point, it's the total amount that can be reprocessed that counts at the end, and it will take years to clean up this mess even with all the machines we have.
You are right, if every single person decided that the public can go suck it and everybody was doing the same thing, then there would be no reason to have this conversation. However understand that today you are alive and tomorrow you are not (figuratively for now) but a new person is born just as you were croaking someplace. That new person is also 'the public'. They did not make a decision to go dump a bunch of steamy garbage into the ocean.
So as long as 'the public' does not all at once decide: to hell with everything and with the children we are having here, who didn't have a chance yet, as long as that is not the prevailing attitude, then you are in the wrong, and quantitatively speaking you are in the wrong. Most people understand not to go and destroy things that people own as a collective.
Here what is happening is that a machine - a corporation is a machine - decided that in order to make money it will do anything, including destroying a common resource. So this machine is bad, we must either fix it or destroy it. Seems like with the current political situation none of that will happen though, but not from the lack of outcry from 'the public' you seem to dismiss so easily.
See, you don't know what you are talking about. Public resources are public and thus under the public protection, otherwise any asshole would be 'sending a robot' to drill on the ocean floor for a common resource. Of-course today the Government is bought by corporations, including the oil companies, so they get easy and basically free access to mine those public resources without giving back much of anything and thus gaining unimaginable profits.
Not a chance. All of the deep sea drilling in the Continental USA may get in the range of 2% of the world oil reserves, how can a problem with something so small cause a huge jump in oil prices exactly? Oil prices are not set by BP anyway.
What you are saying is correct, it is truly an 'out of sight out of mind' situation with dispersant solution being used at that depth and at that volume of flow, the BP should NOT have used it but let the oil come up instead where it could have been collected easier (there are machines that can collect it, like this one, but for BP at least it is all about making it look better, well, less worse than it really is.
If people are mad right now, thinking it is 5000 barrels a day, wait until the truth actually comes out. That's why BP was spewing pure nonsense that it is not important to know the actual volume of the flow and did not allow the scientists with measuring equipment to approach the area.
There is a possibility, but the current oil collecting ships like this one from the German Navy collect water by opening a wide 'mouth' on the ship from the top of the water, I wonder if they could install a pump and a long hose to do what you are proposing.
I am no apple user (no iToys of any kind) but this is just silly.
Talking about Freedoms with a corporation about a product they roll out as if those are real Freedoms.
Carlin was right: It is all an illusion, an elaborate illusion of Freedom. You have no Freedoms. You have a Freedom to chose between Government parties, both of which will fuck you, the difference is that one will be Fucking you and enjoying it, the other will be Fucking you and probably bitching about how they really Love you.
Freedom of choice is not about gadgets, it's not about the latest iFad bullshit. It is really about your economic and political Freedoms and in a world with real Freedoms you'll find a stupid PAD that you personally like from some company who will inevitably produce one.
'Consumption Based Economy' - what a load of croak. Any retarded pissing himself idiot can consume. Production is the only way to generate wealth and the money is not wealth but only a medium of exchange. Wealth is in production. Consumption always comes as a response to production.
What an amazing world we live in. People used to die for Freedom - as in dying for Freedom not to be fucked over by someone's idea of how to run their lives and today we are talking about a stupid fake computer with limited capabilities as if a company locking out applications on it is the most serious violation of Freedoms. I guess we have figured out all of the other Non-Freedoms, like the Governments printing money and taking away the value of it from everyone, like the Corporations buying the Governments and destroying competition and becoming gigantic Monopolies that run everything. Where is your iFreedom, is it in the Apple store? Don't they have an app for that?
The hole is much deeper than the sea-floor, USSR has done this, they exploded bombs to stop leaks like that, it collapses the shaft by applying a lot of pressure from above.
However they did it 6 times and only succeeded 5 times doing that.
I lived in this city from 86 to 91 and there is at least something to say about living in a place you know is only a few kilometers away from a nuclear crater. In case of the Gulf of Mexico there would be no visible crater though, and the radiation most likely will not make it all the way up from the 5000 feet down and then the place is some 40miles away from the shore, isn't it? Not a big deal, just use a nuke big enough for the job.
The only problem is that if it does NOT work or even makes the situation worse, then it could become sort of a nuisance for the oceans for the next millennium or something, it would certainly be a problem for the people. I wonder what it takes to block the Guelph of Mexico from the rest of the Atlantic ocean.
I lived in this city from 86 till 91 and I tell you something, living in a place where a nuclear explosion happened (well, a few km away from the city, not right in it) is memorable. 1.7KT bomb was used and they wanted to use a few more but the first one went bad (aren't they supposed to) and they stopped it.
Keynes is wrong all around. 'Charging up' the economy that NEEDS the bust is wrong, it only delays and worsens the inevitable collapse. Boom and bust are totally normal parts of a cycle - bust is the fix for the boom. Boom is expansion, boom allows inefficiencies to grow, bust removes the inefficiencies, restructures the market. Before the US Government decided to control this with Keynes ideas the market in US had normal boom/bust cycles and busts normally lasted months, no more than a year and happened maybe once in a decade. That is good, that is not bad, it allows removing the fat. Sure it kills some jobs, but the restructuring brings them back quickly. The Great Depression was a normal Depression after Government intervention that decided it would print money and set lending standards.
Keynes ideas failed also to predict what would happen after the WWII, while the Austrian school of economics predicted it correctly. Keynes ideas failed by deducing that after the war, too many people would come home and the unemployment would be high. Austrian school predicts that abundance of labor is good for production, it allows the capital to work together with the labor to produce new things, plus Austrians actually noticed that women were the ones working back in the US and that they would go back home, really, while it is great for women to be Able to work and get the same pay as man, many would prefer not to, they are forced to when the man stop making enough to support the family.
Keynes entire idea that Government can control Economy is ridiculous. Government can allow the Economy (Free Market) to work or it can interfere. Guess what the politicians always chose? Why would they want economy to work and why would they want to see Boom / Bust cycles? After all, Governments are a burden, they are not producers and their spending programs should be the first to go during a bust and that means losing jobs for many Government employees, they can't have it.
Not like this they weren't. The money was printed but the Government created Monopolies still did not leave the country. Monopolies leave countries with high production costs and go to countries with low production costs and then the jobs disappear and then people live more and more on credit and then Government prints more and more to supply money for the party.
OK. So it used to be that banks did what you said: they took your money and loaned it and made money on interest and that was great.
So what happened between then and now?
Government producing giant amounts of money happened. Government printing money, getting off the gold standard happened. Government setting up minimum wage laws and taxing income and in various ways regulating and thus creating Giant Monopolies happened.
The economy of savings (like putting money in a bank and holding it there) was gone. The Government decided that to satisfy its desire never to shrink with an economic downturn (a bust, which is a fix for the boom problem) it must adopt the Keynesian economics model, which is this: Government must encourage consumption.
Government must encourage consumption and NOT production. That's the policy. How, do you ask, do they approach this? Bizarre income tax laws, that allow you to deduct interest payments on things like houses; regulation to get rid of competition (this is the part where large corporations took over by the way), encouraging people to get into debt to buy those gadgets that the Producer nations were supplying very cheaply and in great quantities. Housing bubble is a Government creation, it is the credit bubble that is fueled by the Government Insuring unsustainable lending to people who cannot pay for a house if the interest rates go up even a bit, the lending with no down-payment, that's the idea: you buy a house and it will go up in price and you don't ever need to worry about anything, you can sell it and get more cash out then if you were working even, or you can walk away, I mean the banks would own it and sell it themselves, right? Because the idea was that the prices never go down, and that idea is Government driven!
Government setting interest rates at 0%, printing money and giving it to their friends and to anybody it seems, who bothers to ask for it, I mean ask the Fed who they give money to? They won't tell you.
So in this situation what possible SAVINGS are you talking about? What savings? Who has savings? Savings don't make any sense in this economy, you can live by borrowing forever, so of-course nobody save anything, everyone lives on credit.
Good luck opening a bank that operates by taking these ephemeral 'savings' and lending them to anyone.
Do you know how the largest banks make their incredible profits today? They get the money at 0% from the Fed and then they buy T-Bills printed by the Fed that actually have a return that is MORE than 0%. There you go, you make money. Try competing with that kind of a business model, nobody can.
No no no, friendly bank is the one that does not hit you on the head with a baseball bat more than 3 times after having its way with you. You don't want them to use the lube, they use the same stuff that kills the engines on cars in the 'cash for clunkers' program for that.
Right, I am not saying that one shaft will not be able to handle the torque just like the other, I am saying that the shaft that is supposed to be stationary when full speed is supplied to the wheels that the stationary shaft depends on something to stop it. That something looks like a perpendicular gear on it attached to an electric motor. So is the electric motor holding the shaft from moving, because if it is, then it has to supply as much torque into the system as the main engine (or some fraction of it depending on the difference in sizes of the two blue gears that rotate one against the other.)
Slashdot Mirror
You are wrong about it though, OPEC was doing quite a lot to push the costs down only a year ago. They were not interested in reducing total consumption of oil due to very high prices because it is the US consumer who burns most of this stuff and they saw a reduction of usage.
No worries though, the Oil prices will go up eventually but not because of this spill at all, just because the USD will go down and the Euro will go down, nobody will want to trade in those currencies (probably USD first though) and Oil will cost something unimaginable in dollars and later in euros.
Sure, it's small, probably all of the existing ones should be used on this spill, no matter how big or small at this point, it's the total amount that can be reprocessed that counts at the end, and it will take years to clean up this mess even with all the machines we have.
You are right, if every single person decided that the public can go suck it and everybody was doing the same thing, then there would be no reason to have this conversation. However understand that today you are alive and tomorrow you are not (figuratively for now) but a new person is born just as you were croaking someplace. That new person is also 'the public'. They did not make a decision to go dump a bunch of steamy garbage into the ocean.
So as long as 'the public' does not all at once decide: to hell with everything and with the children we are having here, who didn't have a chance yet, as long as that is not the prevailing attitude, then you are in the wrong, and quantitatively speaking you are in the wrong. Most people understand not to go and destroy things that people own as a collective.
Here what is happening is that a machine - a corporation is a machine - decided that in order to make money it will do anything, including destroying a common resource. So this machine is bad, we must either fix it or destroy it. Seems like with the current political situation none of that will happen though, but not from the lack of outcry from 'the public' you seem to dismiss so easily.
See, you don't know what you are talking about. Public resources are public and thus under the public protection, otherwise any asshole would be 'sending a robot' to drill on the ocean floor for a common resource. Of-course today the Government is bought by corporations, including the oil companies, so they get easy and basically free access to mine those public resources without giving back much of anything and thus gaining unimaginable profits.
Not a chance. All of the deep sea drilling in the Continental USA may get in the range of 2% of the world oil reserves, how can a problem with something so small cause a huge jump in oil prices exactly? Oil prices are not set by BP anyway.
That's right, Beyond Petroleum - Killing the Living and the Harvesting the Dying before they even become oil! Ingenious!
What you are saying is correct, it is truly an 'out of sight out of mind' situation with dispersant solution being used at that depth and at that volume of flow, the BP should NOT have used it but let the oil come up instead where it could have been collected easier (there are machines that can collect it, like this one, but for BP at least it is all about making it look better, well, less worse than it really is.
If people are mad right now, thinking it is 5000 barrels a day, wait until the truth actually comes out. That's why BP was spewing pure nonsense that it is not important to know the actual volume of the flow and did not allow the scientists with measuring equipment to approach the area.
Blow baby, blow?
There is a possibility, but the current oil collecting ships like this one from the German Navy collect water by opening a wide 'mouth' on the ship from the top of the water, I wonder if they could install a pump and a long hose to do what you are proposing.
Don't thank me, thank the political correctness!
that was sarcasm, I hope?
I am no apple user (no iToys of any kind) but this is just silly.
Talking about Freedoms with a corporation about a product they roll out as if those are real Freedoms.
Carlin was right: It is all an illusion, an elaborate illusion of Freedom. You have no Freedoms. You have a Freedom to chose between Government parties, both of which will fuck you, the difference is that one will be Fucking you and enjoying it, the other will be Fucking you and probably bitching about how they really Love you.
Freedom of choice is not about gadgets, it's not about the latest iFad bullshit. It is really about your economic and political Freedoms and in a world with real Freedoms you'll find a stupid PAD that you personally like from some company who will inevitably produce one.
'Consumption Based Economy' - what a load of croak. Any retarded pissing himself idiot can consume. Production is the only way to generate wealth and the money is not wealth but only a medium of exchange. Wealth is in production. Consumption always comes as a response to production.
What an amazing world we live in. People used to die for Freedom - as in dying for Freedom not to be fucked over by someone's idea of how to run their lives and today we are talking about a stupid fake computer with limited capabilities as if a company locking out applications on it is the most serious violation of Freedoms. I guess we have figured out all of the other Non-Freedoms, like the Governments printing money and taking away the value of it from everyone, like the Corporations buying the Governments and destroying competition and becoming gigantic Monopolies that run everything. Where is your iFreedom, is it in the Apple store? Don't they have an app for that?
-1000 for misspelling Foundation.
US failed to increase gas production with nukes, the heat from the blast solidified the rock and even turned it into glass under the blast.
The hole is much deeper than the sea-floor, USSR has done this, they exploded bombs to stop leaks like that, it collapses the shaft by applying a lot of pressure from above.
However they did it 6 times and only succeeded 5 times doing that.
I lived in this city from 86 to 91 and there is at least something to say about living in a place you know is only a few kilometers away from a nuclear crater. In case of the Gulf of Mexico there would be no visible crater though, and the radiation most likely will not make it all the way up from the 5000 feet down and then the place is some 40miles away from the shore, isn't it? Not a big deal, just use a nuke big enough for the job.
The only problem is that if it does NOT work or even makes the situation worse, then it could become sort of a nuisance for the oceans for the next millennium or something, it would certainly be a problem for the people. I wonder what it takes to block the Guelph of Mexico from the rest of the Atlantic ocean.
I believe the correct term is African-American hole, but to you other point, no, I don't think it's 'African-American' enough
I lived in this city from 86 till 91 and I tell you something, living in a place where a nuclear explosion happened (well, a few km away from the city, not right in it) is memorable. 1.7KT bomb was used and they wanted to use a few more but the first one went bad (aren't they supposed to) and they stopped it.
It's not the greatest idea ever.
I believe it. I believe it when I see it. Now I want to see it to believe it.
Why the whales? Gotta nuke smthng.
girls
Keynes is wrong all around. 'Charging up' the economy that NEEDS the bust is wrong, it only delays and worsens the inevitable collapse. Boom and bust are totally normal parts of a cycle - bust is the fix for the boom. Boom is expansion, boom allows inefficiencies to grow, bust removes the inefficiencies, restructures the market. Before the US Government decided to control this with Keynes ideas the market in US had normal boom/bust cycles and busts normally lasted months, no more than a year and happened maybe once in a decade. That is good, that is not bad, it allows removing the fat. Sure it kills some jobs, but the restructuring brings them back quickly. The Great Depression was a normal Depression after Government intervention that decided it would print money and set lending standards.
Keynes ideas failed also to predict what would happen after the WWII, while the Austrian school of economics predicted it correctly. Keynes ideas failed by deducing that after the war, too many people would come home and the unemployment would be high. Austrian school predicts that abundance of labor is good for production, it allows the capital to work together with the labor to produce new things, plus Austrians actually noticed that women were the ones working back in the US and that they would go back home, really, while it is great for women to be Able to work and get the same pay as man, many would prefer not to, they are forced to when the man stop making enough to support the family.
Keynes entire idea that Government can control Economy is ridiculous. Government can allow the Economy (Free Market) to work or it can interfere. Guess what the politicians always chose? Why would they want economy to work and why would they want to see Boom / Bust cycles? After all, Governments are a burden, they are not producers and their spending programs should be the first to go during a bust and that means losing jobs for many Government employees, they can't have it.
Not like this they weren't. The money was printed but the Government created Monopolies still did not leave the country. Monopolies leave countries with high production costs and go to countries with low production costs and then the jobs disappear and then people live more and more on credit and then Government prints more and more to supply money for the party.
Can I interject something into your post?
OK. So it used to be that banks did what you said: they took your money and loaned it and made money on interest and that was great.
So what happened between then and now?
Government producing giant amounts of money happened. Government printing money, getting off the gold standard happened. Government setting up minimum wage laws and taxing income and in various ways regulating and thus creating Giant Monopolies happened.
The economy of savings (like putting money in a bank and holding it there) was gone. The Government decided that to satisfy its desire never to shrink with an economic downturn (a bust, which is a fix for the boom problem) it must adopt the Keynesian economics model, which is this: Government must encourage consumption.
Government must encourage consumption and NOT production. That's the policy. How, do you ask, do they approach this? Bizarre income tax laws, that allow you to deduct interest payments on things like houses; regulation to get rid of competition (this is the part where large corporations took over by the way), encouraging people to get into debt to buy those gadgets that the Producer nations were supplying very cheaply and in great quantities. Housing bubble is a Government creation, it is the credit bubble that is fueled by the Government Insuring unsustainable lending to people who cannot pay for a house if the interest rates go up even a bit, the lending with no down-payment, that's the idea: you buy a house and it will go up in price and you don't ever need to worry about anything, you can sell it and get more cash out then if you were working even, or you can walk away, I mean the banks would own it and sell it themselves, right? Because the idea was that the prices never go down, and that idea is Government driven!
Government setting interest rates at 0%, printing money and giving it to their friends and to anybody it seems, who bothers to ask for it, I mean ask the Fed who they give money to? They won't tell you.
So in this situation what possible SAVINGS are you talking about? What savings? Who has savings? Savings don't make any sense in this economy, you can live by borrowing forever, so of-course nobody save anything, everyone lives on credit.
Good luck opening a bank that operates by taking these ephemeral 'savings' and lending them to anyone.
Do you know how the largest banks make their incredible profits today? They get the money at 0% from the Fed and then they buy T-Bills printed by the Fed that actually have a return that is MORE than 0%. There you go, you make money. Try competing with that kind of a business model, nobody can.
No no no, friendly bank is the one that does not hit you on the head with a baseball bat more than 3 times after having its way with you. You don't want them to use the lube, they use the same stuff that kills the engines on cars in the 'cash for clunkers' program for that.
I like my friends like I like my lasers, neither can be stared at directly with the remaining eye.
Right, I am not saying that one shaft will not be able to handle the torque just like the other, I am saying that the shaft that is supposed to be stationary when full speed is supplied to the wheels that the stationary shaft depends on something to stop it. That something looks like a perpendicular gear on it attached to an electric motor. So is the electric motor holding the shaft from moving, because if it is, then it has to supply as much torque into the system as the main engine (or some fraction of it depending on the difference in sizes of the two blue gears that rotate one against the other.)