To shut down these wells they have to do exactly the same procedure that failed on DeepWater Horizon! The fact is, the risky operation is in sealing it off, not continuing to drill.
Deepwater Horizon was not yet trying to shut down when the failure happened. They got surprised, and by the time they knew what was going on, it was too late to shut it down because they had used a single faulty BOP (that any inspector could have known was faulty by visual inspection) and didn't think remote shutoff would be necessary. And because we have shit-all for regulations, all those other wells probably have single, uninspected BOPs. But, if they haven't hit oil yet, there is no issue with stopping and pumping cement down the well. If they are production wells and they can't reliably be shut down then the testicles of the CEOs of the companies involved should be hanging over Bourbon St. Preferably with the CEOs still attached. This judge should probably be up there with them.
Fucking idiot president knows fuck all about the oil industry, and is making another spill far more likely just to make himself look less like a complete imbecile in this situation.
He knows a fuckload more about it than you do apparently. Was it Rush, Hannity, or Beck that gave you this load of crap?
I have no idea if your post was cleverly designed to fool the stupid, or if your argument is so convoluted that you got confused and ended up saying stupid things. "We gotta keep drilling to know if it's safe enough to drill! We can't shut down these production wells so we have to drill to keep them safe!"
Where did the U.S. Constitution give authority to suspend an industry like this?
Where does the Constitution give the authority to allow mining on any federal lands? Managing drilling leases is an executive branch function. If the oil company doesn't like that, it can go drill somewhere else.
The problem is that all those things got replaced with something better. We lost ports to USB, Wired networking to wireless, floppy drives to networks and usb sticks. I know there's apps to replace Flash on iOS, but that's not standard everywhere.
You're forgetting his greatest triumph back in 1988 when the most high Steve, in his wisdom, convinced us to throw away our damnable hard drives for the eternal blessing of magneto-optical drives! Steve be praised!
I think you missed hearing about what the global economic collapse did to Iceland. I'd guess that the price of beer has fallen quite a bit in dollar terms.
The P value of this test is 0.1, pretty much all research I read demands a P value of 0.05 to justify a hypothesis.
Come back when you've had a research statistics course. Then explain to us why a specific P value is chosen as a significance threshold.
If you find out your best friend was killed by a knife wound and there's a 10% chance it wasn't murder are you going to tell the police to not bother investigating. After all, people die every day and most of them aren't murdered.
The problem with the "raising attention to problem voting machines" theory is that anyone wanting to bring rigged voting machines to the attention of the press would know that the media don't care if a Democratic primary is rigged in a way that favours Republicans. Now if a Republican primary were rigged in a way that favours Democrats, a 50 state manhunt would already be under-way for some scapegoat and every talking head would be railing about it from now until election day.
You underestimate South Carolina. The reason they use these machines is that they were cheap. The reason they were cheap is that other states decertified them because they were unreliable, inaccurate, and easy to hack. So bargain hunter South Carolina bought them cheap from the states that were getting rid of them. Unreliable, inaccurate and hackable are considered advantages there. With machines like that you won't accidentally get a Democrat in Congress.
At the very least, somebody made an illegal $10,000 campaign contribution to pay his filing fee. At the worst, somebody may have rigged an election by tampering with voting machines.
It wouldn't be the first time the South Carolina Republican party fronted someone to compete in a Democratic primary. It probably wouldn't be the second. And I highly doubt it will be the last.
Depending upon how the university charges the tuition remission and stipend to a grant, a postdoc can be less expensive to a grant than a graduate student stipend, even if the take home of the student is much less.
Given the current job market, if I had graduated this year I might choose grad school with a stipend over unemployment. Hell, if I lose my job, I still might..... two PhDs must be better than one.
Right now the universe is in a superposition of the Strong Equivalence Principle and the Occasional Equivalence Principle. When the result of the experiment become known the universe will collapse, at least locally to one or the other. Which one it is will depend on which is easiest to force into retroactive continuity by making it appear that this principle has been in effect all of the time. Even the universe has a hard time changing the past, as evidenced by many SciFi shows that were later made into movies.
Since I've been through 50 posts and haven't seen a reasonable answer....
First let me say that I'm very much in favor of nuclear power generation, so even though I think fusion has an environmental cost, other options are often far worse.
There is no such thing as clean energy. An environmental cost must always be paid.
Fusion reactors would be powered by a deuterium-tritium reaction. Deuterium is plentiful, and can be extracted from water for little more than the energy and facilities cost. Tritium is more problematic. It's radioactive with a 12 year half life. Most reactor designs are not entirely closed cycle, so some of that tritium will escape. Fortunately the escape rate will be small in normal operations. A larger problem is that currently most tritium is obtained from fission reactors. Maintaining enough fission reactors to generate enough tritium to fuel fusion reactors might be infeasible in a fusion only world so other sources have been suggested.
The first source is lithium, which, when bombarded with neutrons undergoes fission into tritium and helium. Since the D-T reaction generates neutrons, there are plenty of neutrons in a fusion reactor to support this reaction. Most designs suggest molten lithium as a coolant. The most likely disaster in a plant of that variety is a lithium fire. Lithium is very reactive, and hot molten lithium would burn upon exposure to air or water. Any breech in the cooling system would likely start a fire. The fire would release T2O, THO, LiOT and Li2O (which will decompose to lithium hydroxide from atmospheric water), so you've got nearby toxic effects from lithium and you've released radioactive water (in small amounts). Also, Lithium must be mined, refined, and processed, which required industrial processes that are not clean.
Because it would be continuously bombarded with neutrons, the structure of a fusion reactor would become as radioactive as the structure of a fusion reactor. Although because of the smaller atomic weights, the half lives of the elements involved are mostly shorter than those in a fusion reactor. So you're talking 500 years before its safe rather than 10,000 or more.
However, they do all require a small fission-based detonator to get the ball rolling. But once it gets going, the reaction is limited only to the supply of tritium and hydrogen.
Actually in a high yield thermonuclear device, the bulk of the yield comes not from the fission core and not from the fusion core, but by fission in a lead or depleted uranium case around the bomb. This fission is not a chain reaction like in a fission bomb, but is due to neutrons released in the fusion explosion impacting the lead or uranium nuclei.
Slashdot Mirror
Gulf fishermen have lost their jobs for far more than six months....
To shut down these wells they have to do exactly the same procedure that failed on DeepWater Horizon! The fact is, the risky operation is in sealing it off, not continuing to drill.
Deepwater Horizon was not yet trying to shut down when the failure happened. They got surprised, and by the time they knew what was going on, it was too late to shut it down because they had used a single faulty BOP (that any inspector could have known was faulty by visual inspection) and didn't think remote shutoff would be necessary. And because we have shit-all for regulations, all those other wells probably have single, uninspected BOPs. But, if they haven't hit oil yet, there is no issue with stopping and pumping cement down the well. If they are production wells and they can't reliably be shut down then the testicles of the CEOs of the companies involved should be hanging over Bourbon St. Preferably with the CEOs still attached. This judge should probably be up there with them.
Fucking idiot president knows fuck all about the oil industry, and is making another spill far more likely just to make himself look less like a complete imbecile in this situation.
He knows a fuckload more about it than you do apparently. Was it Rush, Hannity, or Beck that gave you this load of crap?
I have no idea if your post was cleverly designed to fool the stupid, or if your argument is so convoluted that you got confused and ended up saying stupid things. "We gotta keep drilling to know if it's safe enough to drill! We can't shut down these production wells so we have to drill to keep them safe!"
Where did the U.S. Constitution give authority to suspend an industry like this?
Where does the Constitution give the authority to allow mining on any federal lands? Managing drilling leases is an executive branch function. If the oil company doesn't like that, it can go drill somewhere else.
The problem is that all those things got replaced with something better. We lost ports to USB, Wired networking to wireless, floppy drives to networks and usb sticks. I know there's apps to replace Flash on iOS, but that's not standard everywhere.
You're forgetting his greatest triumph back in 1988 when the most high Steve, in his wisdom, convinced us to throw away our damnable hard drives for the eternal blessing of magneto-optical drives! Steve be praised!
If you're not changing keys significantly faster than your enemy can crack them (even with leaked plaintext) you're doing it wrong.
I think you missed hearing about what the global economic collapse did to Iceland. I'd guess that the price of beer has fallen quite a bit in dollar terms.
In a democracy (or a democratic republic) the government has no expectation of privacy or right of privacy.
Make it 20 years then.
so a 1 in 10 chance that there was a ballot error / fraud seems to me to be the least of it.
I think you read that wrong. It's a 9 in 10 chance.
The P value of this test is 0.1, pretty much all research I read demands a P value of 0.05 to justify a hypothesis.
Come back when you've had a research statistics course. Then explain to us why a specific P value is chosen as a significance threshold.
If you find out your best friend was killed by a knife wound and there's a 10% chance it wasn't murder are you going to tell the police to not bother investigating. After all, people die every day and most of them aren't murdered.
Worse things happened under Bush Jr., and nobody was punished. That was far scarier than Watergate.
The problem with the "raising attention to problem voting machines" theory is that anyone wanting to bring rigged voting machines to the attention of the press would know that the media don't care if a Democratic primary is rigged in a way that favours Republicans. Now if a Republican primary were rigged in a way that favours Democrats, a 50 state manhunt would already be under-way for some scapegoat and every talking head would be railing about it from now until election day.
Not to mention that Greene won in entirely white districts as well as majority black districts.
You keep on saying this, but you're replying to messages that don't have any specific allegations in them.
The machines would get fixed in short order.
You underestimate South Carolina. The reason they use these machines is that they were cheap. The reason they were cheap is that other states decertified them because they were unreliable, inaccurate, and easy to hack. So bargain hunter South Carolina bought them cheap from the states that were getting rid of them. Unreliable, inaccurate and hackable are considered advantages there. With machines like that you won't accidentally get a Democrat in Congress.
At the very least, somebody made an illegal $10,000 campaign contribution to pay his filing fee. At the worst, somebody may have rigged an election by tampering with voting machines.
It wouldn't be the first time the South Carolina Republican party fronted someone to compete in a Democratic primary. It probably wouldn't be the second. And I highly doubt it will be the last.
And where does the money for (1) come from?
It's almost impossible to get a tenure-track job if you're more than a few years out of grad school.
The trick is to become a famous researcher, then you get offered a tenured job.
Depending upon how the university charges the tuition remission and stipend to a grant, a postdoc can be less expensive to a grant than a graduate student stipend, even if the take home of the student is much less.
Given the current job market, if I had graduated this year I might choose grad school with a stipend over unemployment. Hell, if I lose my job, I still might..... two PhDs must be better than one.
Right now the universe is in a superposition of the Strong Equivalence Principle and the Occasional Equivalence Principle. When the result of the experiment become known the universe will collapse, at least locally to one or the other. Which one it is will depend on which is easiest to force into retroactive continuity by making it appear that this principle has been in effect all of the time. Even the universe has a hard time changing the past, as evidenced by many SciFi shows that were later made into movies.
I prefer sweet pastries. "bear pastries" just sound nasty.
Since I've been through 50 posts and haven't seen a reasonable answer....
First let me say that I'm very much in favor of nuclear power generation, so even though I think fusion has an environmental cost, other options are often far worse.
There is no such thing as clean energy. An environmental cost must always be paid.
Asked and answered.
However, they do all require a small fission-based detonator to get the ball rolling. But once it gets going, the reaction is limited only to the supply of tritium and hydrogen.
Actually in a high yield thermonuclear device, the bulk of the yield comes not from the fission core and not from the fusion core, but by fission in a lead or depleted uranium case around the bomb. This fission is not a chain reaction like in a fission bomb, but is due to neutrons released in the fusion explosion impacting the lead or uranium nuclei.