This way, 100,000 dead terrorists, 1,000,000 dead civillians and 0 dead americans. Bonus: America's hands are clean.
Incorrect choice of facts. When the flood hits Baghdad (and points between Mosul and Baghdad where there are Americans), casualties are likely. I'd guess several dozen, given the number of bridge guards etc, and people's propensity to underestimate the time they need to get away through a crowd of other people trying to get away.
Step 1: Do not engage with Islamic State downstream
The dam is upstream of Mosul. Which is why Mosul (and Baghdad, and a number of other cities) is under threat if this dam breaches and the water flows downstream.
I am developing a scheme involving lightproof black plastic bag, xray film or RC paper, monobath developer, and a field changing-bag, but not looking forward to it.
And this would be simpler than using a digital back (for a quarter plate camera or whatever the film camera is), spitting the output out of a printer, and writing on that?
My last job, (which involved 6 photos of each aspect of every specimen, under natural light and under UV; 50 samples per set; 12 hours per description job, then type up the text part of each description and already the next 50 have arrived, requiring description and photography) we didn't have space for a printer. And I've done the fun of working with a developing bag. If you're really out in the sticks, isn't it an absolute pain having to go to the cook to get drinking water to mix your chemicals. You really think running a darkroom on a site-photography job is going to be easier? Wow, your clients must have money to burn. (Last job again - the sample collection operation cost about $4-5 million. But we're a stingy industry.)
xray film
Eh? So you're operating in X-ray light? It was (probably) the x-rays that killed Marie Curie, so watch yourself.
Yes. It's not possible to comprehensively sample any site of any significant extent. In the 1980s IIRC some Canadian palaeontologists with a lot of student and volunteer searchers did a really detailed search of some transects below and up to the K-Pg boundary. They did a few hundreds of square metres (I think that's several football fields. Round or rugby ball I'm not sure. Not the football fields with the plastic men on rotating sticks.), but they achieved the desired result of assessing the abundance of dinosaur taxa in the several metres (a million years or so) leading up to the K-Pg boundary. They showed that the purported decline in dinosaur abundance and diversity was a sampling effect, and there was no evidence to support the hypothesis that the abundance and diversity of dinosaurs declined in the period before the K-Pg boundary. The fossils they found ranged from a few mm to a few centimetres.
That is one of the very few attempts at comprehensive sampling. Because it is so time consuming, and produces so much material that you simply cannot process it with any credible amount of resources.
Note the size of the fossils found. Millimetres to centimetres. Not multi-metre femurs and strings of vertebrae. Bones the size of those in your hands (not surprisingly ; each hand or foot comprises about 1/8 of your bone count, and it is essentially the same for all tetrapod vertebrates - sharks and more derived animals).
If you go back to read the paper, you'll find that the fossils in question are up to millimetres long, and are encased totally in chert lumps beds. (We actually had a similar deposit in my Department's metaphorical back yard - but this deposit is a different age.) In the field, you can identify the chert because the rest of the rock falls apart. And you bag a number of samples from each outcrop. You maybe even need to draw a sketch map of each site so you can see which samples are from above which other samples. Then you take all the samples back to the lab - likely hundreds of kilometres away. So far, you may have collected thousands of fossils, but you are unlikely to have seen a single fossil.
In the lab, you choose representative samples from particular beds. (Remember that mapping you did in the field? If you got that wrong, the whole collecting trip was a complete waste of time because you cannot relate one sample to another. Throw them in the bin and go back to re-map the site and re-collect.) You cut a thick section bedding-parallel from each of your representative samples - this will be typically 30mm x 20mm x 1-2mm, so call that 60-120 cu.mm.
Mount your thick section in the microscope. Now you may start to see your fossils. Do a quick scan - say an hour or so per slide, for around 1-2 cu.mm of evaluation per minute. Repeat that for your second section from that sample, which you cut bedding-perpendicular. Say 2 hours for each sample. Repeat that for each mapping unit that you identified. There's probably a solid week at the microscope there.
You can now add fossil types and morphologies to your map, and try to decide if it is worth processing second samples from some of the richer mapping units. You'd better re-do some of the poorer samples too - you may have chosen a bad sample. You'll also have a list of identified morphologies and of unidentified morphologies. Some of those may need second samples.
Before you know it, your couple of days of mapping and couple of hours of sample collecting has resulted in a month of laboratory work. If you have to cut your own slides, two months.
Now do you see why, for this sort of site, comprehensive collecting is simply not worth doing? If you searched - say - 100m.sq of the site (a sports ground, I guess. I don't follow team sports.) and collected every rock which you thought might contain a fossil, then sliced them into translucent slabs to search for fossils (because only a tiny fraction of fossils will be visible on the surface of the chert blocks ; you have to examine the volume), then
Sorry, I misunderstood your description. So, you're putting a blank "polaroid" sheet into an empty (sheet or plate glass) film holder and putting that into the camera, then doing the test exposure?
I read your description as involving a 4in x 5in ("half-plate" IIRC, but it's been decades since I handled a quarter-plate camera, and years since I enlarged from a quarter-plate negative) glass plate camera. I wasn't aware that you could get "polaroid" self-developing packs in that size.
Checking things out, 4in x 4in (or more likely 100mm x 100mm, but with American journalism it's hard to tell) CCD sensors were available a decade ago, so getting a full-size "digital back" for your plate camera should be looming into the realms of credibility soon. Might be a waiting list, because I doubt production runs will be large.
From the fine detail, you're doing "rostrum" photography of some sort for very high resolution work?
Imagine a future where instead of siting through fire alarms with your fingers in your ears
... you die.
Oh, that's not a difficult future to imagine.
If you've ever had to deal with a real fire, or had to go through fire training for remote sites ("the fire service may get to you in several days. One day if you provide a helicopter ; three days if the weather precludes helicopter service, as it does about 20-30% of the time"), you WILL not be sitting through fire alarms with your fingers in your ears. You WILL be making your worksite safe, carrying out any alarm-specified operations listed in the Permit To Work (to which you applied your signature, confirming that you had read it and would adhere to it's specified hazard-control measures), then proceeding to your assigned fire action after returning the PTW to the Permit Control Station.
Or, if you're off-shift and sleeping in your bed when the alarm goes off, you do haul your arse out of your pit, don, warm clothing, and proceed to your assigned off-shift operation.
Fires kill people. People who don't understand this do deserve to die if they sit through fire alarms with their fingers in their ears.
Have none of you had basic fire training? Sheesh, I guess you're going to be wishing there were more people who do pay attention around to save your Darwin-Award-deserving arses from your deserved painful deaths.
Sir, you need to spend a few days doing "field walking". You may be surprised about how efficiently one can recognise "hand specimen" size fragments, but that is why geology students are required to examine thousands of specimens. "Earth Science" students, on the other hand, barely get into the hundreds.
But hey, that's just my professional skill set. If you've got 30 years of fieldwork experience, please feel free to tell me better.
(NB : this does not apply to microfossils. For that, there are established sampling protocols. As you'd know.)
Having driven in LHD vehicles in countries requiring both LHD and RHD, and in RHD vehicles in countries requiring both RHD and LHD, and in both types of vehicles in countries where "side of the road" is a matter of personal choice outside cities, I'm quite comfortable with learning the local style and habits as I leave the airport car-hire station.
It's the driver's responsibility. Which all too many drivers don't want to accept. Too many drivers want other people to drive to their behaviour, not adapt their own driving behaviour to the current exigencies.
My wife used to think that I was talking out of a hole in my head until she got into a van laden with 2.5 tonnes of furniture for a 500 mile drive. Then she discovered (and quite enjoyed) learning that driving a different type of vehicle is an interesting challenge.
It will be interesting to see how she handles driving an automatic. She thinks I'm insane for tucking my unnecessary leg away from the pedals. But she'll learn.
Your proposal would involve retesting 20 million people per year, about 75,000 people a day, six days a week.
I don't see this as being a problem. I doubt that companies in the "driver training" business would see it as a problem either. Nor, for that matter, companies in the "self-driving vehicle" business.
Sure, it's an issue for people who think that they have a "right" to have a driving license. But they're going to object to anything that re-focusses the responsibility of safe driving onto the user (e.g., it's your fault for not checking your tyres when you stop for fuel, and instead relying on "they should be able to take my level of usage.")
A tonne of ironmongery travelling down the road is a dangerous thing, and people with responsibility for such machines are responsible for their condition and for their control of the moving masses.
I did not need great quality, just good enough, so I didn't waste my expensive sheet film.
[...]
I believe the market is simply dead.
Considering that you can achieve pretty much the same effect with a quick and easy digital camera (plausibly your phone cam) plus a modest tablet or portable printer for display at decent resolution, you could achieve your work task (proofing at the shoot) for a fixed cost of about a hundred $BEER$ and far lower continuing costs. Yeah, that's a dead technology. It certainly had it's uses, but it's dead.
Is there any remaining film-requiring technology apart from gas-hypered long-exposure astrophotography (which has been overtaken by high-end CCDs some years ago anyway)?
Reinforcing this point to people is one of the (beneficial) side effects of the position that I have long advocated that people who gain a driving license should all lose it license a set number of years after they pass the test, and be required to re-sit the ( $NOW$-current) test.
About every 10 years would probably be right for everyone, though you could make a case for novice drivers (defined as those who have only passed the test once) only getting a 5-year license. A few tweaks around the edges, so that you can bring the date of your loss-of licence forward by a few months, if you present your booking for professional driving instruction between $NOW$ and the date you're proposing to voluntarily surrender your licence. But besides that, no "if", no "but" and no "maybe" - you will lose your licence and you know you will lose your licence and have to prove your competence behind the wheel again.
I have to re-sit my aircraft passenger exam at 3-year intervals (including the underwater escape tests). Aircraft pilots have to prove their competence at handling engine failure in a realistic simulator at regular intervals. I don't see any reason that drivers should get away with passing their test once and never sitting it again.
As a freebie, the question of medical unfitness to drive becomes (almost) a non-issue. The developing case of dementia, the single diabetes-induced fainting fit, or the Parkinsonian tremors simply trigger an automatic revocation of the driving license. No "if", no "but" and no "maybe" - you now have to prove your competence to drive, and may have to do so at more frequent intervals as your disease progresses. (It was the diabetes that caused my Mum to surrender her license, less than a decade after she got it.)
I didn't RTFA from the BBC, because I came here to check if the story had been posted after I saw it in the Guardian. (Link).
When I read that, it was pretty clear to me that the application in question was Whatsapp (whatever that is), which has only recently been brought by Facebook. So I took it as meaning that the process of integrating the two companies hasn't been completed, and either Facebook needs to update it's policy statements to clarify that it physically/ logically can't release data from Whatsapp, or they need to change Whatsapp so that they can get hold of the data (presumably, store it and decrypt it).
But even when Facebook have made what changes it wants to, there's still nothing that would enable them to decrypt any data stored under the previous system, if the keys don't exist any more, or never existed. and of course, if data wasn't stored in the first place, there would also be nothing they can do.
Sounds to me as if someone is doing a poor job of explaining technical details to the court. "Film at 11."
Mostly because the calculator of old never had to communicate with the outside world.
So, how did the user (1) get numbers and operations into the calculator, and (2) get the answers out?
I think you'll find that these devices did communicate with the outside world, though they used techniques to do it which were lower-power (and also probably lower data rate) than, for an example, WiFi.
Just as a "for instance," using an IR photodiode and IR LED would give you 2-way comms at speeds from a few Hz to some hundreds of kHz without inventing anything new. But whether you could configure such a network "automagically," and have appropriate security on it is a very different question.
For the proverbial internet-enabled fridge, (1) what is the bandwidth requirement? (Say, 20 items a day, at 36 bits per item (UPC bar code), call it a kilobyte per day, or about 1/86 Hz), and (2) why the fuck make it wireless, when you're still going to have to plug it into the wall to provide power.
Though the summary and article don't seem to grasp it, the fossil discoveries under discussion are actually "exceptionally well-preserved, in-situ and transported, tri-dimensionally silicified plants, animals and microorganisms," and "also contains vegetative and reproductive structures of fungi, oomycetes, cyanobacteria, algae, testate amoebas, ciliates and numerous remains of unresolved taxonomic affinity."
From that, there is no indication that they found anything larger than a few millimetres.
Now, don't get me wrong - microfossils are incredibly important (I've signed hundreds of thousands of dollars more for job tickets for micropalaeontologists than I have for regular palaeontologists), but I rather doubt there will be a discovery here that will appear in Jurassic Park 7 (or whatever number they're up to now).
The parent AC is referring to an advertising campaign from the 1930s (maybe post war - wrong time for me, and wrong continent) of an oil company called, I believe, "Sinclair Oil," who had a campaign about how "dinosaurs are squeezed down to make our oil". They also had some moderately entertaining dinosaur-themed marketing material which retains it's popularity amongst collectors.
Being "popular" material designed for entertainment and marketing and not for presenting the science of the 1930s (let alone anything more recent), this trope remains popular with creationists, and trotting it out is a good sign that someone has been beaten around the head a few times too often with a religious indoctrination book or several.
over even longer time spans and at much higher pressures (think plate subduction)
For the "oil window", look at temperatures in the region of 100-200 centigrade and pressures of 3 to 10 kilobars (about 2-5 km depth depending on a lot of things about your basin). fairly high, but eminently achievable in an intracratonic setting. You don't need subduction to generate hydrocarbons, but a lot of hydrocarbon provinces are in subduction zones. Compare, for example, the transtensional (not subduction, nor intracratonic) oil province of California with the intracratonic and non-subductional Permian Basin of northern Texas (where I think Sinclair Oil had many of their holdings ; of course the Permian Basin pre-dates the dinosaurs, but not the mammal-like reptiles).
Slashdot Mirror
The efficiency of the US military's checking of information is well reported. http://www.doctorswithoutborde...
If you're looking for a gigacasualty hazard, you really need to look to pandemic flu.
The gypsum is the bedrock.
Incorrect choice of facts. When the flood hits Baghdad (and points between Mosul and Baghdad where there are Americans), casualties are likely. I'd guess several dozen, given the number of bridge guards etc, and people's propensity to underestimate the time they need to get away through a crowd of other people trying to get away.
We were complaining about Slashdot's inadequate support for non-ASCII characters back in the 1990s. It really is pathetic.
For a megadeath, that'll be about 100,000. It'll take a couple of days to replace them. No big deal.
The dam is upstream of Mosul. Which is why Mosul (and Baghdad, and a number of other cities) is under threat if this dam breaches and the water flows downstream.
I don't think that word thinks what you think it means.
Oh, were you being sarcastic?
And this would be simpler than using a digital back (for a quarter plate camera or whatever the film camera is), spitting the output out of a printer, and writing on that?
My last job, (which involved 6 photos of each aspect of every specimen, under natural light and under UV; 50 samples per set; 12 hours per description job, then type up the text part of each description and already the next 50 have arrived, requiring description and photography) we didn't have space for a printer. And I've done the fun of working with a developing bag. If you're really out in the sticks, isn't it an absolute pain having to go to the cook to get drinking water to mix your chemicals. You really think running a darkroom on a site-photography job is going to be easier? Wow, your clients must have money to burn. (Last job again - the sample collection operation cost about $4-5 million. But we're a stingy industry.)
Eh? So you're operating in X-ray light? It was (probably) the x-rays that killed Marie Curie, so watch yourself.
That is one of the very few attempts at comprehensive sampling. Because it is so time consuming, and produces so much material that you simply cannot process it with any credible amount of resources.
Note the size of the fossils found. Millimetres to centimetres. Not multi-metre femurs and strings of vertebrae. Bones the size of those in your hands (not surprisingly ; each hand or foot comprises about 1/8 of your bone count, and it is essentially the same for all tetrapod vertebrates - sharks and more derived animals).
If you go back to read the paper, you'll find that the fossils in question are up to millimetres long, and are encased totally in chert lumps beds. (We actually had a similar deposit in my Department's metaphorical back yard - but this deposit is a different age.) In the field, you can identify the chert because the rest of the rock falls apart. And you bag a number of samples from each outcrop. You maybe even need to draw a sketch map of each site so you can see which samples are from above which other samples. Then you take all the samples back to the lab - likely hundreds of kilometres away. So far, you may have collected thousands of fossils, but you are unlikely to have seen a single fossil.
In the lab, you choose representative samples from particular beds. (Remember that mapping you did in the field? If you got that wrong, the whole collecting trip was a complete waste of time because you cannot relate one sample to another. Throw them in the bin and go back to re-map the site and re-collect.) You cut a thick section bedding-parallel from each of your representative samples - this will be typically 30mm x 20mm x 1-2mm, so call that 60-120 cu.mm.
Mount your thick section in the microscope. Now you may start to see your fossils. Do a quick scan - say an hour or so per slide, for around 1-2 cu.mm of evaluation per minute. Repeat that for your second section from that sample, which you cut bedding-perpendicular. Say 2 hours for each sample. Repeat that for each mapping unit that you identified. There's probably a solid week at the microscope there.
You can now add fossil types and morphologies to your map, and try to decide if it is worth processing second samples from some of the richer mapping units. You'd better re-do some of the poorer samples too - you may have chosen a bad sample. You'll also have a list of identified morphologies and of unidentified morphologies. Some of those may need second samples.
Before you know it, your couple of days of mapping and couple of hours of sample collecting has resulted in a month of laboratory work. If you have to cut your own slides, two months.
Now do you see why, for this sort of site, comprehensive collecting is simply not worth doing? If you searched - say - 100m.sq of the site (a sports ground, I guess. I don't follow team sports.) and collected every rock which you thought might contain a fossil, then sliced them into translucent slabs to search for fossils (because only a tiny fraction of fossils will be visible on the surface of the chert blocks ; you have to examine the volume), then
I read your description as involving a 4in x 5in ("half-plate" IIRC, but it's been decades since I handled a quarter-plate camera, and years since I enlarged from a quarter-plate negative) glass plate camera. I wasn't aware that you could get "polaroid" self-developing packs in that size.
Checking things out, 4in x 4in (or more likely 100mm x 100mm, but with American journalism it's hard to tell) CCD sensors were available a decade ago, so getting a full-size "digital back" for your plate camera should be looming into the realms of credibility soon. Might be a waiting list, because I doubt production runs will be large.
From the fine detail, you're doing "rostrum" photography of some sort for very high resolution work?
Oh, that's not a difficult future to imagine.
If you've ever had to deal with a real fire, or had to go through fire training for remote sites ("the fire service may get to you in several days. One day if you provide a helicopter ; three days if the weather precludes helicopter service, as it does about 20-30% of the time"), you WILL not be sitting through fire alarms with your fingers in your ears. You WILL be making your worksite safe, carrying out any alarm-specified operations listed in the Permit To Work (to which you applied your signature, confirming that you had read it and would adhere to it's specified hazard-control measures), then proceeding to your assigned fire action after returning the PTW to the Permit Control Station.
Or, if you're off-shift and sleeping in your bed when the alarm goes off, you do haul your arse out of your pit, don, warm clothing, and proceed to your assigned off-shift operation.
Fires kill people. People who don't understand this do deserve to die if they sit through fire alarms with their fingers in their ears.
Have none of you had basic fire training? Sheesh, I guess you're going to be wishing there were more people who do pay attention around to save your Darwin-Award-deserving arses from your deserved painful deaths.
But hey, that's just my professional skill set. If you've got 30 years of fieldwork experience, please feel free to tell me better.
(NB : this does not apply to microfossils. For that, there are established sampling protocols. As you'd know.)
It's the driver's responsibility. Which all too many drivers don't want to accept. Too many drivers want other people to drive to their behaviour, not adapt their own driving behaviour to the current exigencies.
My wife used to think that I was talking out of a hole in my head until she got into a van laden with 2.5 tonnes of furniture for a 500 mile drive. Then she discovered (and quite enjoyed) learning that driving a different type of vehicle is an interesting challenge.
It will be interesting to see how she handles driving an automatic. She thinks I'm insane for tucking my unnecessary leg away from the pedals. But she'll learn.
I don't see this as being a problem. I doubt that companies in the "driver training" business would see it as a problem either. Nor, for that matter, companies in the "self-driving vehicle" business.
Sure, it's an issue for people who think that they have a "right" to have a driving license. But they're going to object to anything that re-focusses the responsibility of safe driving onto the user (e.g., it's your fault for not checking your tyres when you stop for fuel, and instead relying on "they should be able to take my level of usage.")
A tonne of ironmongery travelling down the road is a dangerous thing, and people with responsibility for such machines are responsible for their condition and for their control of the moving masses.
Considering that you can achieve pretty much the same effect with a quick and easy digital camera (plausibly your phone cam) plus a modest tablet or portable printer for display at decent resolution, you could achieve your work task (proofing at the shoot) for a fixed cost of about a hundred $BEER$ and far lower continuing costs. Yeah, that's a dead technology. It certainly had it's uses, but it's dead.
Is there any remaining film-requiring technology apart from gas-hypered long-exposure astrophotography (which has been overtaken by high-end CCDs some years ago anyway)?
Or were you assuming the immigrant was an uneducated unlicensed Uber immigrant?
Reinforcing this point to people is one of the (beneficial) side effects of the position that I have long advocated that people who gain a driving license should all lose it license a set number of years after they pass the test, and be required to re-sit the ( $NOW$-current) test.
About every 10 years would probably be right for everyone, though you could make a case for novice drivers (defined as those who have only passed the test once) only getting a 5-year license. A few tweaks around the edges, so that you can bring the date of your loss-of licence forward by a few months, if you present your booking for professional driving instruction between $NOW$ and the date you're proposing to voluntarily surrender your licence. But besides that, no "if", no "but" and no "maybe" - you will lose your licence and you know you will lose your licence and have to prove your competence behind the wheel again.
I have to re-sit my aircraft passenger exam at 3-year intervals (including the underwater escape tests). Aircraft pilots have to prove their competence at handling engine failure in a realistic simulator at regular intervals. I don't see any reason that drivers should get away with passing their test once and never sitting it again.
As a freebie, the question of medical unfitness to drive becomes (almost) a non-issue. The developing case of dementia, the single diabetes-induced fainting fit, or the Parkinsonian tremors simply trigger an automatic revocation of the driving license. No "if", no "but" and no "maybe" - you now have to prove your competence to drive, and may have to do so at more frequent intervals as your disease progresses. (It was the diabetes that caused my Mum to surrender her license, less than a decade after she got it.)
When I read that, it was pretty clear to me that the application in question was Whatsapp (whatever that is), which has only recently been brought by Facebook. So I took it as meaning that the process of integrating the two companies hasn't been completed, and either Facebook needs to update it's policy statements to clarify that it physically/ logically can't release data from Whatsapp, or they need to change Whatsapp so that they can get hold of the data (presumably, store it and decrypt it).
But even when Facebook have made what changes it wants to, there's still nothing that would enable them to decrypt any data stored under the previous system, if the keys don't exist any more, or never existed. and of course, if data wasn't stored in the first place, there would also be nothing they can do.
Sounds to me as if someone is doing a poor job of explaining technical details to the court. "Film at 11."
Before he does that, can you convince anyone other than yourself that you exist?
What could possibly go wrong?
So, how did the user (1) get numbers and operations into the calculator, and (2) get the answers out?
I think you'll find that these devices did communicate with the outside world, though they used techniques to do it which were lower-power (and also probably lower data rate) than, for an example, WiFi.
Just as a "for instance," using an IR photodiode and IR LED would give you 2-way comms at speeds from a few Hz to some hundreds of kHz without inventing anything new. But whether you could configure such a network "automagically," and have appropriate security on it is a very different question.
For the proverbial internet-enabled fridge, (1) what is the bandwidth requirement? (Say, 20 items a day, at 36 bits per item (UPC bar code), call it a kilobyte per day, or about 1/86 Hz), and (2) why the fuck make it wireless, when you're still going to have to plug it into the wall to provide power.
Regardless of the presence of Mossad's finest spyware or not, I wouldn't buy it precisely because it is made in Israel.
Though the summary and article don't seem to grasp it, the fossil discoveries under discussion are actually "exceptionally well-preserved, in-situ and transported, tri-dimensionally silicified plants, animals and microorganisms," and "also contains vegetative and reproductive structures of fungi, oomycetes, cyanobacteria, algae, testate amoebas, ciliates and numerous remains of unresolved taxonomic affinity."
From that, there is no indication that they found anything larger than a few millimetres.
Now, don't get me wrong - microfossils are incredibly important (I've signed hundreds of thousands of dollars more for job tickets for micropalaeontologists than I have for regular palaeontologists), but I rather doubt there will be a discovery here that will appear in Jurassic Park 7 (or whatever number they're up to now).
Being "popular" material designed for entertainment and marketing and not for presenting the science of the 1930s (let alone anything more recent), this trope remains popular with creationists, and trotting it out is a good sign that someone has been beaten around the head a few times too often with a religious indoctrination book or several.
For the "oil window", look at temperatures in the region of 100-200 centigrade and pressures of 3 to 10 kilobars (about 2-5 km depth depending on a lot of things about your basin). fairly high, but eminently achievable in an intracratonic setting. You don't need subduction to generate hydrocarbons, but a lot of hydrocarbon provinces are in subduction zones. Compare, for example, the transtensional (not subduction, nor intracratonic) oil province of California with the intracratonic and non-subductional Permian Basin of northern Texas (where I think Sinclair Oil had many of their holdings ; of course the Permian Basin pre-dates the dinosaurs, but not the mammal-like reptiles).