SSO by definition lumps stuff together, being 'single' and all;-)
I meant more for smaller companies without SSO that don't prevent you from using the same password for all the different services you authenticate into.
Or if they are traveling, they carry their written down complex passwords with them...
Granted significant system access shouldn't use the same password as email, but we all know most places don't enforce separate passwords for each service.
The sea floors changing? Do you have *any* evidence to back this up at all?
As far as sea-level rise, which is more likely:
A. The 2/3 of the crust moving up a meter in a century. (And please explain how this would fit into the well understood process of plate techtonics)
B. Temperatures going up enough in arctic/glacial regions to melt ice. (and also please explain how vastly increased speed of land based glacial ice into the oceans *won't* raise sea levels)
Since temps are going up (hottest decade on record), you're going with A? just wow. Google 'warmest decade ever' for the documentation.
Though I'll fall back on my caveat 'no matter what Dubya did/said'. We aren't at war, never have been. The military may be 'at war' and fighting but no declaration of 'war' has ever been made.
Just because Dubya used gymnastics of logic and law to justify his actions doesn't make it right to use them now. Even if done towards doing the right thing.
So the 'common sense' argument was ruled null and void 30 years ago? Ixtok being in 150 feet seems to say that.
'easier to get to' isn't a reason it's safer, just easier to drill. I can understand *some* concept that if it's shallow enough for actual divers to go down to the site you have a bit more in terms of remediation options and precision. But that means anything over 200-300 feet is classified as 'deep'. I'd guess a good percentage of wells are at least that deep.
As to pressures, again I'd guess that the bulk of the reservoir pressure is due to the rocks containing the oil instead of the water, but I'm sure it's fair to say the reservoir pressure is higher at a mile down than at 100 feet. I just don't know how much higher or what percentage of the pressure would be due to the water. Since the reservoir in this case is 13,000 feet below the sea floor, lots of rock seems to be a bigger pressure source. Likewise in shallow drilling, you may still be going down through 10,000 feet of rock to get to the reservoir, resulting in significant reservoir pressure.
Any specific examples that can back up the 'common sense' argument?
the problem with letting the market fix things is you get accidents like the current spill in the Gulf.
or if you prefer, having way too much CO2 produced until it's so blatantly obvious that global warming is well under way that it's catastrophically expensive to fix.
Renewables need subsidies because current fuels, coal/gas/nuclear, don't include the full costs of their use in the prices.
well partially it's already included, scrubbers and such stuff. Not all coal outputs are budgeted for however. Exactly none of nuclear output costs are included in your utility bill since the fed nicely takes care of those for the utility providers.
You do still pay for that, just not in your utility bill as the poster said.
I've heard this argument "shallow drilling is safer" and haven't heard the facts that back it up. The Ixtok spill was in only 150 feet of water and was pretty bad; it spilled for about 9 months before they could cap it.
Can you provide information to show why shallow water drilling is so much safer than deep water? And how shallow is shallow for this to be the case?
Unfortunately right now it isn't. Building out new infrastructure for wind/solar/green is the cost, whereas oil and gas infrastructures already exist.
In terms of operating costs, certainly renewable sources are much cheaper.
The other factor is that wind/solar will need additional tech to store the energy for when the wind isn't blowing or sun isn't shining. That adds pretty significant costs especially during the research/build out phases.
In the longer term, they will be cheaper, but for now they need the playing field leveled so they can compete.
I think that some of the older windmills caused a pretty audible 'thumping' as the blades turned. Newer and larger systems rotate much slower and use gearing to generate the same amount of power and so don't have the same issues. Same sort of issue with bird strikes, older ones killed more due to faster rotation, newer ones are pretty good - since they are slower the birds can avoid them better.
That said, really distant windmills won't have this problem anyway. The Kennedy's opposition to Cape Wind was purely asthetic and frankly moronic. I'd actually find a vista with a windmill in the distance a comforting thing, but that's the greenie in me I guess;-)
while you are correct that it's been fought long and hard by the Kennedy's and others it did recently get it's final approval to go forward with construction
I'm sure there's no electrical or mechanical reason it can't be done. However, installing a moving rotor that can (and has) disintegrate in high wind on the distribution mechanism is probably a significant risk to the operation of said distribution system.
More practically, the current towers certainly weren't designed for the extra loads. Perhaps new ones could be installed as we upgrade the grid itself, but I still think the added risk to the lines isn't worth the gains such a combination might provide.
But if you're in the industry, you're telling me that's not a good business plan?
Actually no it isn't a good business plan, not financially at least. The problem is that the competing power sources, coal/natural gas/nuclear, don't have to pay for the effects of their emissions. As such the price they can offer power is much lower than renewable sources likely ever will be able to achieve.
Once you price in the costs of fossil fuel emissions and nuclear fuel storage for 1000 years, *then* renewable sources get better.
Where they really shine is more long term, when oil, and yes even uranium, starts to run out. Then the price of the fuel needed becomes prohibitive and renewable source pricing stays basically flat or even goes down.
Yes this is a Cap and Trade system, but its the only way to 'fairly' let renewable sources compete with our current sources. Of course we could just wait for the costs of fossil fuels to rise and then pay both higher prices and the massive investment in renewable at the same time. I'd rather start now and pay a bit more over time than a massive bill in the future.
Obvious and irrelevant. The point isn't that people can't accurately estimate speed with proper training.
The point is that a person's estimation is *not* and should never be the sum total of evidence against you and result in a conviction. Personal bias is just to much of a factor to make the 'evidence' meet 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
Fair enough. Though saying he just wasn't qualified to do so implies it would be acceptable if he was qualified. That's the point that is important, it shouldn't be acceptable in any fashion.
If the speed estimation was used to pick out likely targets for the radar gun, that's no problem and is reasonable. The 'proof' is still coming from the gun, not the cop's current feelings/mood/predjudices.
The arguments against this aren't that it isn't possible to estimate a vehicle's speed. The problem is that's infinitely easier for the Cop to be a dick and screw you over even if you *weren't* speeding at all.
Ability to challenge your accuser in court and all that. If a Cop 'felt' you were speeding, how exactly do you defend yourself against that?
From the comments on TFA: As the Argonaut decends, the volume of air decreases under the increased water pressure. That causes the air to be less buoyant. So with more air, the air pocket maintains its buoyancy force for deeper dives. The Argonaut still has to 'force' its way down to the depth of neutral buoyancy though.
Also from the comments, the Nautilus traps more air and has a hard shell so they can resist the water pressures more than the Argonauts. This allows the Nautilus to dive to deeper depths than the Argonaut.
Slashdot Mirror
SSO by definition lumps stuff together, being 'single' and all ;-)
I meant more for smaller companies without SSO that don't prevent you from using the same password for all the different services you authenticate into.
Or if they are traveling, they carry their written down complex passwords with them...
Granted significant system access shouldn't use the same password as email, but we all know most places don't enforce separate passwords for each service.
I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation.
like the fact that our military is wholly dependent on GPS and real-time connected war fighting. Loss of satellites hurts us a *lot* more than them.
The sea floors changing? Do you have *any* evidence to back this up at all?
As far as sea-level rise, which is more likely:
A. The 2/3 of the crust moving up a meter in a century. (And please explain how this would fit into the well understood process of plate techtonics)
B. Temperatures going up enough in arctic/glacial regions to melt ice. (and also please explain how vastly increased speed of land based glacial ice into the oceans *won't* raise sea levels)
Since temps are going up (hottest decade on record), you're going with A? just wow. Google 'warmest decade ever' for the documentation.
Interesting angle on the subject.
Though I'll fall back on my caveat 'no matter what Dubya did/said'. We aren't at war, never have been. The military may be 'at war' and fighting but no declaration of 'war' has ever been made.
Just because Dubya used gymnastics of logic and law to justify his actions doesn't make it right to use them now. Even if done towards doing the right thing.
uh, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a *law*.
No matter what Dubya did or said, the President *cannot* waive it away with an Prez Order. Legally speaking anyway.
So the 'common sense' argument was ruled null and void 30 years ago? Ixtok being in 150 feet seems to say that.
'easier to get to' isn't a reason it's safer, just easier to drill. I can understand *some* concept that if it's shallow enough for actual divers to go down to the site you have a bit more in terms of remediation options and precision. But that means anything over 200-300 feet is classified as 'deep'. I'd guess a good percentage of wells are at least that deep.
As to pressures, again I'd guess that the bulk of the reservoir pressure is due to the rocks containing the oil instead of the water, but I'm sure it's fair to say the reservoir pressure is higher at a mile down than at 100 feet. I just don't know how much higher or what percentage of the pressure would be due to the water. Since the reservoir in this case is 13,000 feet below the sea floor, lots of rock seems to be a bigger pressure source. Likewise in shallow drilling, you may still be going down through 10,000 feet of rock to get to the reservoir, resulting in significant reservoir pressure.
Any specific examples that can back up the 'common sense' argument?
the problem with letting the market fix things is you get accidents like the current spill in the Gulf.
or if you prefer, having way too much CO2 produced until it's so blatantly obvious that global warming is well under way that it's catastrophically expensive to fix.
Renewables need subsidies because current fuels, coal/gas/nuclear, don't include the full costs of their use in the prices.
well partially it's already included, scrubbers and such stuff. Not all coal outputs are budgeted for however. Exactly none of nuclear output costs are included in your utility bill since the fed nicely takes care of those for the utility providers.
You do still pay for that, just not in your utility bill as the poster said.
I've heard this argument "shallow drilling is safer" and haven't heard the facts that back it up. The Ixtok spill was in only 150 feet of water and was pretty bad; it spilled for about 9 months before they could cap it.
Can you provide information to show why shallow water drilling is so much safer than deep water? And how shallow is shallow for this to be the case?
I agree with you when it's an even playing field.
Unfortunately right now it isn't. Building out new infrastructure for wind/solar/green is the cost, whereas oil and gas infrastructures already exist.
In terms of operating costs, certainly renewable sources are much cheaper.
The other factor is that wind/solar will need additional tech to store the energy for when the wind isn't blowing or sun isn't shining. That adds pretty significant costs especially during the research/build out phases.
In the longer term, they will be cheaper, but for now they need the playing field leveled so they can compete.
I don't know, the system of laws society has built for itself perhaps?
I think that some of the older windmills caused a pretty audible 'thumping' as the blades turned. Newer and larger systems rotate much slower and use gearing to generate the same amount of power and so don't have the same issues. Same sort of issue with bird strikes, older ones killed more due to faster rotation, newer ones are pretty good - since they are slower the birds can avoid them better.
;-)
That said, really distant windmills won't have this problem anyway. The Kennedy's opposition to Cape Wind was purely asthetic and frankly moronic. I'd actually find a vista with a windmill in the distance a comforting thing, but that's the greenie in me I guess
I hear manure is a great fuel source ;-)
while you are correct that it's been fought long and hard by the Kennedy's and others it did recently get it's final approval to go forward with construction
linky
I'm sure there's no electrical or mechanical reason it can't be done. However, installing a moving rotor that can (and has) disintegrate in high wind on the distribution mechanism is probably a significant risk to the operation of said distribution system.
More practically, the current towers certainly weren't designed for the extra loads. Perhaps new ones could be installed as we upgrade the grid itself, but I still think the added risk to the lines isn't worth the gains such a combination might provide.
But if you're in the industry, you're telling me that's not a good business plan?
Actually no it isn't a good business plan, not financially at least. The problem is that the competing power sources, coal/natural gas/nuclear, don't have to pay for the effects of their emissions. As such the price they can offer power is much lower than renewable sources likely ever will be able to achieve.
Once you price in the costs of fossil fuel emissions and nuclear fuel storage for 1000 years, *then* renewable sources get better.
Where they really shine is more long term, when oil, and yes even uranium, starts to run out. Then the price of the fuel needed becomes prohibitive and renewable source pricing stays basically flat or even goes down.
Yes this is a Cap and Trade system, but its the only way to 'fairly' let renewable sources compete with our current sources. Of course we could just wait for the costs of fossil fuels to rise and then pay both higher prices and the massive investment in renewable at the same time. I'd rather start now and pay a bit more over time than a massive bill in the future.
'more easily attacked'
as opposed to say, the Saudi's simply turning off their pumps?
We can't remotely control that, but I'm pretty sure we can protect our own coastal waters pretty damned well.
'if enough people flag it - then there's probably an issue'
you mean like if someone were to Tweet "hey, this site is spam, flag it please" about a perfectly valid site?
'Group think' is why representative democracies exist...the angry mob isn't exactly your best decision maker.
sure, just listen for the echo...
Damn you logical and reasonable Canadians!!!! ;-)
Obvious and irrelevant. The point isn't that people can't accurately estimate speed with proper training.
The point is that a person's estimation is *not* and should never be the sum total of evidence against you and result in a conviction. Personal bias is just to much of a factor to make the 'evidence' meet 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
Fair enough. Though saying he just wasn't qualified to do so implies it would be acceptable if he was qualified. That's the point that is important, it shouldn't be acceptable in any fashion.
If the speed estimation was used to pick out likely targets for the radar gun, that's no problem and is reasonable. The 'proof' is still coming from the gun, not the cop's current feelings/mood/predjudices.
The arguments against this aren't that it isn't possible to estimate a vehicle's speed. The problem is that's infinitely easier for the Cop to be a dick and screw you over even if you *weren't* speeding at all.
Ability to challenge your accuser in court and all that. If a Cop 'felt' you were speeding, how exactly do you defend yourself against that?
From the comments on TFA: As the Argonaut decends, the volume of air decreases under the increased water pressure. That causes the air to be less buoyant. So with more air, the air pocket maintains its buoyancy force for deeper dives. The Argonaut still has to 'force' its way down to the depth of neutral buoyancy though.
Also from the comments, the Nautilus traps more air and has a hard shell so they can resist the water pressures more than the Argonauts. This allows the Nautilus to dive to deeper depths than the Argonaut.