according to TFS you coat a common cloth with a particular chemical... sounds ready made to me.
Easily-made is not the same as already made. How many thousands (or millions?) of square feet do you think are needed? How long do you think it would take to make that much by hand? How long do you think it would take to retool a production line to start producing it?
I can conceivably see this being deployed while we are still dealing with the aftermath, but it is definitely too late for most of the areas that really could have benefitted from this. It will be a token contribution for this spill, nothing significant.
You have it backwards. Booms and diapers absorb the oil, this cloth does not absorb oil. It does the opposite, allowing water to pass through while the oil pools on top or in front.
In other words, booms and diapers act like sponges, while this cloth acts like a filter.
The summary mentions using it to protect wetlands. This is particularly preferable to using sand berms, as they change the salinity of the area (no more salt water coming from the sea) which can be deadly to the habitat. A barrier of this cloth around sensitive wetland habitats would protect the habitat from oil, while still allowing the water to be properly brackish. As you said, it's another tool beyond those on open water actually removing the oil from the water.
so we should pay them multiple millions of dollars cause they are too stupid to do anything else with their lives but to make us laugh while they chase a ball like dogs
Should? Probably not. But people do pay to watch football (either through tickets of ad revenue), so I'd rather the players got their fair share of such a lucrative entertainment industry, rather than it all going towards promoters.
fuck football players, even if 99% of them were not juiced up thugs too pussy to do anything real or meaningful
Says the AC posting on Slashdot. How does that compute to let you judge others for being 'pussy' or not making meaningful contributions?
What BP should do is apologize about fifty times a day, do what it's claiming it's doing, stop trying to bullshit everyone about the extent of the damage, and goddamn well take what's coming to it.
In other words, they still need to do PR, they just need to do it better. For example, actually being helpful and letting word of that get out, instead of just putting out word of promised help.
And sorry to tell you, but in context or out of context, that van is clearly aiding the wounded survivors of the attack... that would be clear to anyone.
I agree. However, I think it was an issue of carelessness (CO does not ask to verify they have grabbed weapons, crew does not wait to see them grab a weapon) and frustration (seeing too many insurgents get away because of varying circumstances), rather than malice ('I want to shoot that civilian').
I don't think what happened was right or acceptable, but I also think it's a stretch to claim that they willingly fired on civilians for its own sake. My issue is not with if they did something wrong (they did), but as to why it was wrong and how to fix it. It was a lack of safeguards to prevent a mistake like this that is the issue (and an important one) that needs to be solved.
You're modded funny, but it's probably the big reason. When he dies, they can just explain "glorious leader took our rare health potion and is in as good health as his successor was..."
If you demand perfection from troops, as in they never make a mistake, never harm an innocent, never cause collateral damage, well you are an idiot.
If you demand perfection from engineers you're an idiot too, but when one makes a mistake that kills somebody, he *still* goes to jail.
I'll let you deduce the reasons why for yourself.
Not for mistakes, but for carelessness or negligence. In other words, 'you should have caught that error' instead of 'you made an error'.
I'll give you a hint as to why: humans are fallible. The best we can expect is to do the best possible. It's only criminal when you take dangerous shortcuts. While I can't think of any incidents off the top of my head that were caused by a mistake without negligence, it is still the negligence that is the crime, not the mistake.
No, but we shouldn't assume that the pilots are bloodthirsty, trigger-happy murderers who completely ignore the ROEs and Geneva Convention.
We don't have to assume it: we can see them behaving as bloodthirsty, trigger-happy murderers on the released video when they fire on innocent unarmed civilians who are exercising their natural right to help the wounded from the helicopter's previous (legal) attack.
Do you think they knew they were firing on unarmed civilians, or do you think they thought the van was full of insurgents? The fact that they followed ROE and avoided civilians elsewhere tells me it's less likely to be the first.
I'm not saying what they did was right, only that it was a mistake (and thus not 'murder').
com-bat, noun: a fight or contest between individuals or groups
Sounds to me like both sides have to be armed to be called that. A contest between Vitali Klitschko and a three year old is no contest.
1) The helicopter crew was supporting US troops that were under fire from hostile insurgent forces. There was combat going on.
2) The reporters had an armed escort. Thus, they weren't unarmed.
As far as the van, the crew likely should not have been given permission to fire. However, it seems reasonable that given the recent activity and circumstances, the Longbow crew can be considered to still be in combat, and the guy in the van was unfortunate to stumble in. Sure, the van guy didn't think he was in combat, but we're not talking about his actions.
Really. Can you please point me to somewhere that un-edited video is?
Either US Army storage, or Wikileaks has the full copy yet didn't release it because it was 'irrelevent'. Footage exists (as evidenced by the timestamp), but unreleased.
I mean, if according to "sworn statements of the pilots involved in the attack" they where being so nice guys and protecting innocents has they claim... then only if for a matter of PR, the USA army would have shown all the footage to "put it in context
No they wouldn't, because it's still classified. Unless they declassify it (why?) then it will not be released to the public. I expect any footage would be worthwhile to declass for a war crime trial, but not for PR.
Well wrong, guess what, there is no complete video to be seen, the US army doesn't present one, and there are actually some people, like you, that are trusting the word of some US army combatants that you just see firing over a civilian van trying to provide assistance to wounded people, when they say that minutes before they where protecting some other civilians.
They didn't fire upon the van because it was civilians. They fired on the van erroneously identifying them as militants collecting weapons (which would have made them targets, unless I am mistaken). Thus any footage of them avoiding civilians would imply that had the crew correctly identified the van as civilian, they would not have fired. This only determines intent, not actions. In other words, murder (requires intent, what Wikileaks wants you to believe) or manslaughter (a mistake, possibly through carelessness).
So, should we give a get-of-the-jail-free card to anyone who don't shoot children?
No, but we shouldn't assume that the pilots are bloodthirsty, trigger-happy murderers who completely ignore the ROEs and Geneva Convention.
It's still not acceptable, but isn't it reasonable that we treat mistakes and malice differently? Shouldn't we consider shooting someone who looked threatening different from executing a known civilian?
On the one hand, I doubt nearly anyone in the military has the clearance to release that video.
Sure, they have clearance to release it, but no reason. It wouldn't really clear anything up (I mean, people would be just as mad, or more), and declassifying a video would probably be a huge pain in the ass.
On the other hand, so what if the soldiers spent the intervening time doing good things? They opened fire on an unarmed van after shooting a group of reporters. The context is very different, but if I did that in the middle of New York, nobody would care if I spent half an hour volunteering at a local soup kitchen.
So what? It would show that the incident was a mistake, rather than blatant disregard for the ROE. It shows the issue was more likely an issue of misidentification (seeing a guy with an RPG and his insurgent buddies coming to collect their gear, instead of journos and good samaritans) than of intent (hey, let's shoot the guy with a camera and some kids in a van,because it will be fun). It only matters if you want to push the agenda that this was 'collateral murder', because this being a mistake is incompatible with pushing that agenda.
Your analogy is a straw man as well. They didn't shoot reporters because they were reporters, they shot a group of men carrying weapons (including at least two AK-47s) after one appeared to take aim with an RPG. If Chris Hansen burst into your house at 1AM and started rustling through your cupboards, he could be mistaken as a burglar. In that case it would be unfortunate, but reasonable, to assume you had a criminal in your house, not a member of the press. Perhaps you live in a state where it is legal to use deadly force against home intruders. In that case, we wouldn't care that you volunteered in your spare time, but we might take note that all the other times you carried your handgun or saw members of the press you didn't shoot them.
That piece of evidence shows the lack of intent to shoot an innocent person, and that it is much more likely that you made an honest mistake when you shot Chris Hansen/guy with the camera that appeared to be an RPG.
It's relative. If I have a club and can't afford to buy a regular longsword (if they'd be available) and you would be rich enough (relative to me), you could beat me just because you'd be "rich" (provided that there is PvP in this game).
If you don't pay, you wouldn't win the fight anyway, because you wouldn't have a character in the first place.
As long as there are diminishing returns to the investment for the super-rich (everyone can reach a roughly level playing field for something near normal monthly rates, with increased power being either unobtainable with cash, or far more expensive than what the rest pay) to prevent someone dumping 10x the $$$ in and becoming 10x more powerful, there really isn't a significant balance issue. If 10x the cash gets you only 20-50% more power (for example), that's not much different than just buying from a gold farmer, only without the gray market.
So either you waste your money on virtual merchandise to stand a fighting chance or you waste every bit of your free time not having fun in order to (theoretically) make the game fun.
How is this any worse than the standard MMO where paying isn't optional, and you still need to grind? In most MMOs, there's just a gray market where the people with (real) money pay to get ahead anyway.
While that's an opinion, and as others have pointed out, a highly subjective one, you're missing some points.
1) You don't have play all of them for 7 hours, let alone 7 hours a day. If you buy 24 games, it's entirely possible that half or more of them will be played for less than 7 hours, and you could just play the best ones a lot. I know several people that buy all kinds of hype, will get games on launch day, not like them, and trade them in a few days later. These games probably don't get more than a few hours play, but other games in their library do.
Actually, I would guess that for these players, >90% of their time is spent on one game for months at a time. These are the people who grind it out on a single game for sometimes a year at a time. Counter Strike, Halo, WoW, CoD, etc. There only needs to be one multiplayer game in the last several years which is rewarding for high-level skilled players.
Jams up the press and judicial system? That really sucks. You're right. Let's just let the cops do whatever they need to keep the peace. After all, they're doing it to protect us, so what could possibly go wrong?
I didn't say it was a good reason, or even a justifiable or mediocre reason. Only that there is a reason that exists. I highly disagree with this kind of rationale.
That said, I assume your next response no longer applies.
Wait, I thought that was already decided. Cops can videotape us in public, because in public there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Now you are telling me that if I'm wearing the right gang colors^W^Wuniform, I *do* have an expectation of privacy in public places, but if I'm not, I don't? Which is it?
Agreed, that should be all we need. If citizens have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their interactions with cops, it should follow that cops likewise have no expectation of privacy in those same interactions. One side can't be private if the other side isn't.
Using my metro (Baltimore, and sometimes DC) as the judge, it has verified what I already knew about Verizon: a bit slower but more consistent (how often does the download meet the minimum requirements of the spec). We see 96.3% consistency for Verizon in Baltimore, compared to 92.6% for each of the next most reliable. This is about half the number of dropped/lost/slow data messages from the next best competitor, and far better than AT&T's 74%. In DC, Verizon was actually relatively fast, while still being the most reliable at 96.7%. It depends on what you want your network to do.
This also only matters while inside the city. I recently took a trip through 5 states and used my Droid as a GPS 'mini-map' and to check real-time traffic. I lost data coverage only once in the hilly panhandle of MD, yet still had voice connectivity. It's good to know that my phone is still reliable until I get into the Allegheny mountains, and even then most of the mountains I have no issue.
I think that was precisely my point. They're assholes because they're acting like assholes, not because they're doctors.
That said, in a hospital they are the decision makers. By the order of things, the techs are subordinate. That doesn't mean anyone with a Dr. in front of their name gets to treat them like crap, but likewise a technician shouldn't be allowed to interfere with patient care because a doctor hurt their feelings.
It's equally arrogant for a technician to claim to be 'just the same' as a doctor, as it is for the doctor to parade that fact.
Just because someone hasn't been through medical school doesn't mean that they couldn't have gone to medical school. Am I automatically less intelligent because I chose a career that isn't in the field of medicine, or that doesn't require a few extra years of school? It's not like the day I got my bachelor's degree I stopped learning new things. I learn more every day while working.
Nobody said non-Dr.s couldn't be smart as well. It doesn't even recognize intelligence per-se (although it's certainly a factor). It only recognizes achievement, specifically their degree. In other words, while smart people may not be all doctors, all doctors are smart people (it's a universal affirmative, but only one way).
It doesn't make them better, but it does make them a Dr. Regardless of your thoughts on the implied benefits of such a title or how they may carry it, they certainly did earn such a title. Similarly, just because you're as smart as or 'could have been' the president, you aren't the president and thus don't receive that title.
Slashdot Mirror
according to TFS you coat a common cloth with a particular chemical... sounds ready made to me.
Easily-made is not the same as already made. How many thousands (or millions?) of square feet do you think are needed? How long do you think it would take to make that much by hand? How long do you think it would take to retool a production line to start producing it?
I can conceivably see this being deployed while we are still dealing with the aftermath, but it is definitely too late for most of the areas that really could have benefitted from this. It will be a token contribution for this spill, nothing significant.
You have it backwards. Booms and diapers absorb the oil, this cloth does not absorb oil. It does the opposite, allowing water to pass through while the oil pools on top or in front.
In other words, booms and diapers act like sponges, while this cloth acts like a filter.
The summary mentions using it to protect wetlands. This is particularly preferable to using sand berms, as they change the salinity of the area (no more salt water coming from the sea) which can be deadly to the habitat. A barrier of this cloth around sensitive wetland habitats would protect the habitat from oil, while still allowing the water to be properly brackish. As you said, it's another tool beyond those on open water actually removing the oil from the water.
With cloth that we don't have, because it isn't being mass produced. That's why it's too late.
so we should pay them multiple millions of dollars cause they are too stupid to do anything else with their lives but to make us laugh while they chase a ball like dogs
Should? Probably not. But people do pay to watch football (either through tickets of ad revenue), so I'd rather the players got their fair share of such a lucrative entertainment industry, rather than it all going towards promoters.
fuck football players, even if 99% of them were not juiced up thugs too pussy to do anything real or meaningful
Says the AC posting on Slashdot. How does that compute to let you judge others for being 'pussy' or not making meaningful contributions?
What BP should do is apologize about fifty times a day, do what it's claiming it's doing, stop trying to bullshit everyone about the extent of the damage, and goddamn well take what's coming to it.
In other words, they still need to do PR, they just need to do it better. For example, actually being helpful and letting word of that get out, instead of just putting out word of promised help.
And sorry to tell you, but in context or out of context, that van is clearly aiding the wounded survivors of the attack ... that would be clear to anyone.
I agree. However, I think it was an issue of carelessness (CO does not ask to verify they have grabbed weapons, crew does not wait to see them grab a weapon) and frustration (seeing too many insurgents get away because of varying circumstances), rather than malice ('I want to shoot that civilian').
I don't think what happened was right or acceptable, but I also think it's a stretch to claim that they willingly fired on civilians for its own sake. My issue is not with if they did something wrong (they did), but as to why it was wrong and how to fix it. It was a lack of safeguards to prevent a mistake like this that is the issue (and an important one) that needs to be solved.
You're modded funny, but it's probably the big reason. When he dies, they can just explain "glorious leader took our rare health potion and is in as good health as his successor was..."
If you demand perfection from troops, as in they never make a mistake, never harm an innocent, never cause collateral damage, well you are an idiot.
If you demand perfection from engineers you're an idiot too, but when one makes a mistake that kills somebody, he *still* goes to jail.
I'll let you deduce the reasons why for yourself.
Not for mistakes, but for carelessness or negligence. In other words, 'you should have caught that error' instead of 'you made an error'.
I'll give you a hint as to why: humans are fallible. The best we can expect is to do the best possible. It's only criminal when you take dangerous shortcuts. While I can't think of any incidents off the top of my head that were caused by a mistake without negligence, it is still the negligence that is the crime, not the mistake.
No, but we shouldn't assume that the pilots are bloodthirsty, trigger-happy murderers who completely ignore the ROEs and Geneva Convention.
We don't have to assume it: we can see them behaving as bloodthirsty, trigger-happy murderers on the released video when they fire on innocent unarmed civilians who are exercising their natural right to help the wounded from the helicopter's previous (legal) attack.
Do you think they knew they were firing on unarmed civilians, or do you think they thought the van was full of insurgents? The fact that they followed ROE and avoided civilians elsewhere tells me it's less likely to be the first.
I'm not saying what they did was right, only that it was a mistake (and thus not 'murder').
com-bat, noun: a fight or contest between individuals or groups
Sounds to me like both sides have to be armed to be called that. A contest between Vitali Klitschko and a three year old is no contest.
1) The helicopter crew was supporting US troops that were under fire from hostile insurgent forces. There was combat going on.
2) The reporters had an armed escort. Thus, they weren't unarmed.
As far as the van, the crew likely should not have been given permission to fire. However, it seems reasonable that given the recent activity and circumstances, the Longbow crew can be considered to still be in combat, and the guy in the van was unfortunate to stumble in. Sure, the van guy didn't think he was in combat, but we're not talking about his actions.
Really. Can you please point me to somewhere that un-edited video is?
Either US Army storage, or Wikileaks has the full copy yet didn't release it because it was 'irrelevent'. Footage exists (as evidenced by the timestamp), but unreleased.
I mean, if according to "sworn statements of the pilots involved in the attack" they where being so nice guys and protecting innocents has they claim ... then only if for a matter of PR, the USA army would have shown all the footage to "put it in context
No they wouldn't, because it's still classified. Unless they declassify it (why?) then it will not be released to the public. I expect any footage would be worthwhile to declass for a war crime trial, but not for PR.
Well wrong, guess what, there is no complete video to be seen, the US army doesn't present one, and there are actually some people, like you, that are trusting the word of some US army combatants that you just see firing over a civilian van trying to provide assistance to wounded people, when they say that minutes before they where protecting some other civilians.
They didn't fire upon the van because it was civilians. They fired on the van erroneously identifying them as militants collecting weapons (which would have made them targets, unless I am mistaken). Thus any footage of them avoiding civilians would imply that had the crew correctly identified the van as civilian, they would not have fired. This only determines intent, not actions. In other words, murder (requires intent, what Wikileaks wants you to believe) or manslaughter (a mistake, possibly through carelessness).
So, should we give a get-of-the-jail-free card to anyone who don't shoot children?
No, but we shouldn't assume that the pilots are bloodthirsty, trigger-happy murderers who completely ignore the ROEs and Geneva Convention.
It's still not acceptable, but isn't it reasonable that we treat mistakes and malice differently? Shouldn't we consider shooting someone who looked threatening different from executing a known civilian?
On the one hand, I doubt nearly anyone in the military has the clearance to release that video.
Sure, they have clearance to release it, but no reason. It wouldn't really clear anything up (I mean, people would be just as mad, or more), and declassifying a video would probably be a huge pain in the ass.
On the other hand, so what if the soldiers spent the intervening time doing good things? They opened fire on an unarmed van after shooting a group of reporters. The context is very different, but if I did that in the middle of New York, nobody would care if I spent half an hour volunteering at a local soup kitchen.
So what? It would show that the incident was a mistake, rather than blatant disregard for the ROE. It shows the issue was more likely an issue of misidentification (seeing a guy with an RPG and his insurgent buddies coming to collect their gear, instead of journos and good samaritans) than of intent (hey, let's shoot the guy with a camera and some kids in a van ,because it will be fun). It only matters if you want to push the agenda that this was 'collateral murder', because this being a mistake is incompatible with pushing that agenda.
Your analogy is a straw man as well. They didn't shoot reporters because they were reporters, they shot a group of men carrying weapons (including at least two AK-47s) after one appeared to take aim with an RPG. If Chris Hansen burst into your house at 1AM and started rustling through your cupboards, he could be mistaken as a burglar. In that case it would be unfortunate, but reasonable, to assume you had a criminal in your house, not a member of the press. Perhaps you live in a state where it is legal to use deadly force against home intruders. In that case, we wouldn't care that you volunteered in your spare time, but we might take note that all the other times you carried your handgun or saw members of the press you didn't shoot them.
That piece of evidence shows the lack of intent to shoot an innocent person, and that it is much more likely that you made an honest mistake when you shot Chris Hansen/guy with the camera that appeared to be an RPG.
Also, Yahoo is fairly incompetent when it comes to technology for a company its size.
Thank you Captain Obvious ;)
It's relative. If I have a club and can't afford to buy a regular longsword (if they'd be available) and you would be rich enough (relative to me), you could beat me just because you'd be "rich" (provided that there is PvP in this game).
If you don't pay, you wouldn't win the fight anyway, because you wouldn't have a character in the first place.
As long as there are diminishing returns to the investment for the super-rich (everyone can reach a roughly level playing field for something near normal monthly rates, with increased power being either unobtainable with cash, or far more expensive than what the rest pay) to prevent someone dumping 10x the $$$ in and becoming 10x more powerful, there really isn't a significant balance issue. If 10x the cash gets you only 20-50% more power (for example), that's not much different than just buying from a gold farmer, only without the gray market.
So either you waste your money on virtual merchandise to stand a fighting chance or you waste every bit of your free time not having fun in order to (theoretically) make the game fun.
How is this any worse than the standard MMO where paying isn't optional, and you still need to grind? In most MMOs, there's just a gray market where the people with (real) money pay to get ahead anyway.
He said the intelligent thing to do, not realistic.
It would be the 'best' thing, but as it concerns humans, which are emotional and irrational beings, it's highly unlikely.
While that's an opinion, and as others have pointed out, a highly subjective one, you're missing some points.
1) You don't have play all of them for 7 hours, let alone 7 hours a day. If you buy 24 games, it's entirely possible that half or more of them will be played for less than 7 hours, and you could just play the best ones a lot. I know several people that buy all kinds of hype, will get games on launch day, not like them, and trade them in a few days later. These games probably don't get more than a few hours play, but other games in their library do.
Actually, I would guess that for these players, >90% of their time is spent on one game for months at a time. These are the people who grind it out on a single game for sometimes a year at a time. Counter Strike, Halo, WoW, CoD, etc. There only needs to be one multiplayer game in the last several years which is rewarding for high-level skilled players.
Not sure how the Forza comparison comes in, since there's nothing simulation-like at all about Blur.
More like Mario Kart meets Burnout. Not a bad thing, but more accurate.
Because a jury needs to apply the law as used. Only judges can affect the interpretation of the law.
If the judge tells the jury the law says recording a conversation without consent is a felony, that is what they need to decide against.
Jams up the press and judicial system? That really sucks. You're right. Let's just let the cops do whatever they need to keep the peace. After all, they're doing it to protect us, so what could possibly go wrong?
I didn't say it was a good reason, or even a justifiable or mediocre reason. Only that there is a reason that exists. I highly disagree with this kind of rationale.
That said, I assume your next response no longer applies.
Wait, I thought that was already decided. Cops can videotape us in public, because in public there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Now you are telling me that if I'm wearing the right gang colors^W^Wuniform, I *do* have an expectation of privacy in public places, but if I'm not, I don't? Which is it?
Agreed, that should be all we need. If citizens have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their interactions with cops, it should follow that cops likewise have no expectation of privacy in those same interactions. One side can't be private if the other side isn't.
Using my metro (Baltimore, and sometimes DC) as the judge, it has verified what I already knew about Verizon: a bit slower but more consistent (how often does the download meet the minimum requirements of the spec). We see 96.3% consistency for Verizon in Baltimore, compared to 92.6% for each of the next most reliable. This is about half the number of dropped/lost/slow data messages from the next best competitor, and far better than AT&T's 74%. In DC, Verizon was actually relatively fast, while still being the most reliable at 96.7%. It depends on what you want your network to do.
This also only matters while inside the city. I recently took a trip through 5 states and used my Droid as a GPS 'mini-map' and to check real-time traffic. I lost data coverage only once in the hilly panhandle of MD, yet still had voice connectivity. It's good to know that my phone is still reliable until I get into the Allegheny mountains, and even then most of the mountains I have no issue.
I think that was precisely my point. They're assholes because they're acting like assholes, not because they're doctors.
That said, in a hospital they are the decision makers. By the order of things, the techs are subordinate. That doesn't mean anyone with a Dr. in front of their name gets to treat them like crap, but likewise a technician shouldn't be allowed to interfere with patient care because a doctor hurt their feelings.
It's equally arrogant for a technician to claim to be 'just the same' as a doctor, as it is for the doctor to parade that fact.
Just because someone hasn't been through medical school doesn't mean that they couldn't have gone to medical school. Am I automatically less intelligent because I chose a career that isn't in the field of medicine, or that doesn't require a few extra years of school? It's not like the day I got my bachelor's degree I stopped learning new things. I learn more every day while working.
Nobody said non-Dr.s couldn't be smart as well. It doesn't even recognize intelligence per-se (although it's certainly a factor). It only recognizes achievement, specifically their degree. In other words, while smart people may not be all doctors, all doctors are smart people (it's a universal affirmative, but only one way).
It doesn't make them better, but it does make them a Dr. Regardless of your thoughts on the implied benefits of such a title or how they may carry it, they certainly did earn such a title. Similarly, just because you're as smart as or 'could have been' the president, you aren't the president and thus don't receive that title.