Ford contracts out their support to the lowest bidders. I wish I got paid for every time friends at Ford (engineers) called or e-mailed asking for help fixing messes tech support can't or won't. Their support is unresponsive and clueless. They get hit by every virus that comes along because patching servers and maintaining AV software lags.
Now, getting Linux in may be a big win, but who is going to administer it? If they try to get the quality of support they've gotten for their Windows server networking (bucket of warm spit), they will be in trouble. It will be difficult to find a large number of competent Linux admins, and if they are not careful about the qualifications of who they hire, it could end up being as big a mess as their current Microsoft servers.
"My Kenpo teacher just set some world records. The articles don't say much about how innovative this technology is, but post it on Slashdot because it is r34l k3wl. It's more powerful, so its n3ws f0r n3rdz. There's not much to review about methodologies, but its k3wl. It's almost as k3wl as C0ld Fu2i0n.
Please thank my Kenpo teacher and make sure to let him know I got him this free advertising. Next week I want to take the Whacking Day snake killing course and could use a discount."
MS Blaster may not, as you state, be the fault. My initial reaction was this outage was likely a cascade from a physical failure as was the case in 1965. In all probability, this will be a complicated set of problems that led to a systemic failure.
However, this is not 1965 and our systems should have improved since then. If the monitoring systems were reliant on MS operating systems, Internet-exposed and compromised by Blaster, that could be a problem. The suspect utility had a nuclear plant that got hit with Slammer, so it is not inconceivable that it was also vulnerable and hit with Blaster. So, you can not rule out Blaster as a factor.
As you said, it takes a long time to post-mortem a failure as large as this, so assigning blame or ruling out possibilities can not yet be done.
Which brings me to categorically ruling out Blaster as a contributing factor. HOW CAN YOU SAY THIS???
If you work for an electric utility, are knowledgable of and responsible for Internet-connected systems that were not patched, then you better find a way to rule out Blaster, toot-sweet. Finding a way to blame God's will or somebody else's fault better be at the top of your list, because Blaster would mean big time liability for the utility and professional cremation.
Yeah, and make sure you get the Jeffries Tubes in balance while boundcing an inverse tachyon beam off the target. Then Q will show up and make sure you don't cause an inverse graviton time distortion and suck us all into anti-nowhere.
How about getting a life that is remotely possible, like writing cheap knock-offs of Windoze viruses.
I'm sorry I did not flame this comment with the vehemence it deserves. I'm a blood-loyal American of bavarian descent, but respect and study other cultures. The Bayeux Tapestry records the events quite well, or at least better than any other extant records.
Harold and his Anglo-Saxon advisors saw the comet around Easter, 1066, well before the battles that shaped the future of England began. Prior to that, he had been washed ashore on the Norman coast and pledged allegiance to William of Normandy in return for safe passage home. The comet was seen as an EVIL OMEN.
As far as 1066 fighting went, the Anglo-Saxons first fought Norseman in what is now northeastern England and sustained serious losses. They were then defeated at Hastings after a brutal fight. The Norman cavalry won the day, and some it may have been the stirrup (pictured in the Tapestry) that won the day. And no, it is not certain that Harold was killed by an arrow in the eye. There is no definitive evidence of how Harold died.
The comet -- as depicted in the Tapestry -- is not a major event. It is significant in that it appeared before the battles that consumed the entire year, culminating in the Norman Conquest.
View the evidence and get a clue.
Wll, at least sometime around the Battle of Hastings. It appeared near Easter, 1066 and Harold was warned it was a BAD OMEN. Hastings was in September or October, 1066. The Bayeux Tapestry (yes, I've seen it) records the events and the comet appears well before the battle above Harold's minions warning him.
So shove your Cool Fact urban legend. Not even the Middle Ages records support your ignorant claim.
and see if he is any more impressed than me. Perhaps he'll be more concerned about a 1 in 909,000 chance of an impact than he was about his odds of winning a frog jumping contest.
Profs have this one down cold: change the text each semester. Most of the 300 and 400 level classes I took had a new textbook each semseter, so selling the old one was worthless because there was no market.
I still have my Economic Geology (ore deposits) text, and it is a joke. It had little to do with the course material and was useless as reference for finding economic minerals. It was a compilation of theoretical publications.
Fortunately, the prof also sold his lecture notes. Luckily, all the test questions came from the notes, so we all had a chance to pass the class.
From "The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin" Chapter 8:
In order of time, I should have mentioned before, that having, in 1742, invented an open stove for the better warming of rooms, and at the same time saving fuel, as the fresh air admitted was warmed in entering, I made a present of the model to Mr. Robert Grace, one of my early friends, who, having an iron-furnace, found the casting of the plates for these stoves a profitable thing, as they were growing in demand. To promote that demand, I wrote and published a pamphlet, entitled "An Account of the new-invented Pennsylvania Fireplaces; wherein their Construction and Manner of Operation is particularly explained; their Advantages above every other Method of warming Rooms demonstrated; and all Objections that have been raised against the Use of them answered and obviated," etc. This pamphlet had a good effect. Gov'r. Thomas was so pleas'd with the construction of this stove, as described in it, that he offered to give me a patent for the sole vending of them for a term of years; but I declin'd it from a principle which has ever weighed with me on such occasions, viz., That, as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously.
An ironmonger in London however, assuming a good deal of my pamphlet, and working it up into his own, and making some small changes in the machine, which rather hurt its operation, got a patent for it there, and made, as I was told, a little fortune by it. And this is not the only instance of patents taken out for my inventions by others, tho' not always with the same success, which I never contested, as having no desire of profiting by patents myself, and hating disputes. The use of these fireplaces in very many houses, both of this and the neighbouring colonies, has been, and is, a great saving of wood to the inhabitants.
Monopolies in the mineral industries tend to get crushed over time. For most, it is in the form of competition in the open market. Standard Oil was a good example. Even without the 1911 U.S. Supreme Court that split the company, they were under competitive pressure from Royal Dutch Shell and Texas independants. Pick up a copy of Yergin's "The Prize" for a good read on petroleum.
Gemstones have been relegated to consumer goods over time. The first success was ruby, which was (historically) one of the most expensive gems. This was followed by emerald, sapphire, alexandrite, pearl, etc., all very expensive when produced only from natural sources. Now, most gems in the jewelry store are synthetic.
But we are talking about industrial diamonds in this article, and I am not sure DeBeers can compete in that market. Industrial abrasive diamonds have been produced economically for many years.
DeBeers has proven to be a tough nut to crack in the gem market, as they have manged to control the sources and producers in a way that has forced them to sell to the diamond syndicate. Also, it has not been feasible to synthesize gem-qulaity diamonds at prices competitive with naturals.
However, recent advances offer the hope of producing low-cost, fancy gem-quality stones that will put pressure on DeBeers. Deep yellows (nitrogen as the chromofer) are the product of that lab in Florida. The fancies command the highest prices and will fund more synthetic diamond R&D.
It is possible that DeBeers may not be able to react to the synthetic technology. But, as history relates, DeBeers is a ferocious competitor. Whatever happens, it should be an interesting competition between a brutal, unprincipaled monopoly and technological innovation.
The actual facts are that the Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788 and the Bill of Rights were ratified on December 15, 1791. Amendments may modify the text of the Constitution and / or be additions to it.
The Bill of Rights enumerates specific rights not defined in the original 1787 Constitution and are additions. They modify neither articles, sections nor clauses of the Constitution.
The 17th Amendment modifies (actually, supercedes) the text of Article I, section 3 of the Constitution. As an Amendment, it has precedence over the text of the original document.
Amendments may also modify other Amendments. The 18th Amendment allowed for laws to prohibit the manufacture, sale, transportation, importation and exportation of intoxicating liquors. That one was so big a failure it was specifically repealed by the 21st Amendment.
And IP is addressed in the body of the original Constitution.
Article I, Section 8:
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
You are correct, they are not guaranteed by an amednment, but in the original text.
United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8:
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Not to minimize the tragic loss of life, but how does building a very expensive bomb, having it explode and kill some of your best talent motivate a country to enter into the space race?
Making Big Bucks? Don't think so. Boeing, Lockhhed-Martin, Iridium and any other commercial space venture you care to name are losing money in a big way.
Boeing is losing money on Delta IV, to the tune of $1.1 billion in second quarter, 2003 charges. And they are pulling it from the commercial market. This project is subsidized by the US government for military launches.
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0307/15boeing/ And commercial projects (privately or governmentally-funded) will compete how?
We've seen satellite failures, such as Iridium, and few economic sucesses. Delta, while benefitting as a government-subsidized military platform, is also uneconomical.
There is little comparison to manned space flight -- a publicly-funded, nationalist agenda -- to commercial space. If the Chinese achieve success in manned space flight, we'll never know how much it cost the public (communism has a poor track record for economics and accounting).
Funny you should mention geodes and collecting. An old college buddy was at Franklin, NJ and we did some collecting on the Buckwheat Dump. Gave me a box of geodes (some in matrix) from the Devonian Englewood Fm. exposures on Whitewood Creek north of Deadwood.
Seems the Borough of Franklin is considering opening the old Mill Site as a collectors location. I saw some fantastic material come off that dump 15 years ago -- lots of the rare fluorescents and lead silicates.
And to think some of the geols I knew who worked in the Franklin Mine never collected the bizarre stuff because they though it was gangue. Yeah, goes to show you now that those rocks sell for a couple hundred bucks apiece.
Re:I knew this was coming
on
The Diamond Age
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I wouldn't put too much effort into emeralds. They've been manufacturing them for a long time and have gotten good enough to make very nice carbanaceous inclusions just like the naturals. It's now really to to spot the artificials.
Gimme a nice large pegmatite full of beryl, and I'd be happy. Chromian beryl (emerald) doesn't excite me as a money-making mine, though.
Actually, I used to do environmental geological engineering and they did use bio in the ground. Tough and expensive, but sometimes feasible. I do like the bioreactor idea, but you're right, U extraction and refining are complex processes that result in a withes brew. This may have promise as a polishing process should dissolved U remain.
Bugs in the ground are amazing. I once did an auto shop that had gray- and black-water leach fields side-by-side. Well, they did detailing and ended up dropping TCE and PCE into ground water. We defined the plume and during remedial design noticed the concentrations of those two chemicals were declining.
Then it occurred to me, they used to have these little bottles of liquid you poured down the toilet to keep your septic tank from clogging. It's primary ingredient was TCE. Seems the black water provided bugs and those that like chlorinated solvents thrived. Strangely enough, they kept munching away and we had very little residual vinyl chloride. End result, there was no need to pump and treat.
Saw the same things happen where dissolved gasoline constituents were exposed to black water; the benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and toluene broke down over a period of time and we had to do no pumpimg and treating.
We don't use bioremediation out of "concern about what will happen when the oli is gone?" Where the hell do you get this statement?
You are utterly ignorant. GE and stimulated naturally occurring bacteria have been successfully used for bioremediation for years, at least since the late 1980's.
Yes, they DIE when they run out of food. They do not mutate and become inexorable flesh-eating zombies. And they are not engineered to eat "oil'" they are engineered to eat specific chemical compounds or classes of compounds. "Oil" is a complex mix of chemicals. We refine them (distill, catalytic cracking, etc) to obtain useful mixes of its constituents (e.g gasoline, kerosene) and individual chemicals (e.g benzene, xylene).
Quit spewing forth that which seems authoritative when you obviously have no clue how bioremediation works.
Stabilize as a non-radioactive element? It's called time. Radionuclides decay at a predictable rate. Billion years or so for your typical uranium isotope.
That is a glib and reactionary set of comments. By your rationale, we should spare no expense because it is radioactive. Hey, I'll take a radioactive hazard that may kill me 30 years from now over gasoline leaking from a pipeline into my basement and exploding.
And who gets to pay for it? The taxpayers and society. So, in managing hazards to the environment and people, we do this silly thing called engineering. It is not easy, but goes something like this:
1) Define the problem. Not easy when dealing with contaminants in ground water that don't announce their presence.
2) Define a goal that reduces the hazard to an acceptable risk, often an increase in health impact to humans by no more than 1 in 1 million.
3) Assess the alternatives to achieve the goal. These microbes may be a new alternative.
4) Design the most cost-effective system to achieve the goal.
5) Maintain documentation and rationale for the decision-making process.
6) Implement and assess the design. Since the problem and conditions are often not 100% defined due to economic considerations, you need to determine if the solution is working and adjust as necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
Ford contracts out their support to the lowest bidders. I wish I got paid for every time friends at Ford (engineers) called or e-mailed asking for help fixing messes tech support can't or won't. Their support is unresponsive and clueless. They get hit by every virus that comes along because patching servers and maintaining AV software lags.
Now, getting Linux in may be a big win, but who is going to administer it? If they try to get the quality of support they've gotten for their Windows server networking (bucket of warm spit), they will be in trouble. It will be difficult to find a large number of competent Linux admins, and if they are not careful about the qualifications of who they hire, it could end up being as big a mess as their current Microsoft servers.
More flamebait, feel free to mod as such.
"My Kenpo teacher just set some world records. The articles don't say much about how innovative this technology is, but post it on Slashdot because it is r34l k3wl. It's more powerful, so its n3ws f0r n3rdz. There's not much to review about methodologies, but its k3wl. It's almost as k3wl as C0ld Fu2i0n.
Please thank my Kenpo teacher and make sure to let him know I got him this free advertising. Next week I want to take the Whacking Day snake killing course and could use a discount."
MS Blaster may not, as you state, be the fault. My initial reaction was this outage was likely a cascade from a physical failure as was the case in 1965. In all probability, this will be a complicated set of problems that led to a systemic failure.
However, this is not 1965 and our systems should have improved since then. If the monitoring systems were reliant on MS operating systems, Internet-exposed and compromised by Blaster, that could be a problem. The suspect utility had a nuclear plant that got hit with Slammer, so it is not inconceivable that it was also vulnerable and hit with Blaster. So, you can not rule out Blaster as a factor.
As you said, it takes a long time to post-mortem a failure as large as this, so assigning blame or ruling out possibilities can not yet be done.
Which brings me to categorically ruling out Blaster as a contributing factor. HOW CAN YOU SAY THIS???
If you work for an electric utility, are knowledgable of and responsible for Internet-connected systems that were not patched, then you better find a way to rule out Blaster, toot-sweet. Finding a way to blame God's will or somebody else's fault better be at the top of your list, because Blaster would mean big time liability for the utility and professional cremation.
Yeah, and make sure you get the Jeffries Tubes in balance while boundcing an inverse tachyon beam off the target. Then Q will show up and make sure you don't cause an inverse graviton time distortion and suck us all into anti-nowhere.
How about getting a life that is remotely possible, like writing cheap knock-offs of Windoze viruses.
I'm sorry I did not flame this comment with the vehemence it deserves. I'm a blood-loyal American of bavarian descent, but respect and study other cultures. The Bayeux Tapestry records the events quite well, or at least better than any other extant records. Harold and his Anglo-Saxon advisors saw the comet around Easter, 1066, well before the battles that shaped the future of England began. Prior to that, he had been washed ashore on the Norman coast and pledged allegiance to William of Normandy in return for safe passage home. The comet was seen as an EVIL OMEN. As far as 1066 fighting went, the Anglo-Saxons first fought Norseman in what is now northeastern England and sustained serious losses. They were then defeated at Hastings after a brutal fight. The Norman cavalry won the day, and some it may have been the stirrup (pictured in the Tapestry) that won the day. And no, it is not certain that Harold was killed by an arrow in the eye. There is no definitive evidence of how Harold died. The comet -- as depicted in the Tapestry -- is not a major event. It is significant in that it appeared before the battles that consumed the entire year, culminating in the Norman Conquest. View the evidence and get a clue.
Wll, at least sometime around the Battle of Hastings. It appeared near Easter, 1066 and Harold was warned it was a BAD OMEN. Hastings was in September or October, 1066. The Bayeux Tapestry (yes, I've seen it) records the events and the comet appears well before the battle above Harold's minions warning him.
So shove your Cool Fact urban legend. Not even the Middle Ages records support your ignorant claim.
and see if he is any more impressed than me. Perhaps he'll be more concerned about a 1 in 909,000 chance of an impact than he was about his odds of winning a frog jumping contest.
where Enos, the orbiting chimp, went in 1961.
Profs have this one down cold: change the text each semester. Most of the 300 and 400 level classes I took had a new textbook each semseter, so selling the old one was worthless because there was no market.
I still have my Economic Geology (ore deposits) text, and it is a joke. It had little to do with the course material and was useless as reference for finding economic minerals. It was a compilation of theoretical publications.
Fortunately, the prof also sold his lecture notes. Luckily, all the test questions came from the notes, so we all had a chance to pass the class.
From "The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin" Chapter 8:
In order of time, I should have mentioned before, that having, in 1742, invented an open stove for the better warming of rooms, and at the same time saving fuel, as the fresh air admitted was warmed in entering, I made a present of the model to Mr. Robert Grace, one of my early friends, who, having an iron-furnace, found the casting of the plates for these stoves a profitable thing, as they were growing in demand. To promote that demand, I wrote and published a pamphlet, entitled "An Account of the new-invented Pennsylvania Fireplaces; wherein their Construction and Manner of Operation is particularly explained; their Advantages above every other Method of warming Rooms demonstrated; and all Objections that have been raised against the Use of them answered and obviated," etc. This pamphlet had a good effect. Gov'r. Thomas was so pleas'd with the construction of this stove, as described in it, that he offered to give me a patent for the sole vending of them for a term of years; but I declin'd it from a principle which has ever weighed with me on such occasions, viz., That, as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously.
An ironmonger in London however, assuming a good deal of my pamphlet, and working it up into his own, and making some small changes in the machine, which rather hurt its operation, got a patent for it there, and made, as I was told, a little fortune by it. And this is not the only instance of patents taken out for my inventions by others, tho' not always with the same success, which I never contested, as having no desire of profiting by patents myself, and hating disputes. The use of these fireplaces in very many houses, both of this and the neighbouring colonies, has been, and is, a great saving of wood to the inhabitants.
Monopolies in the mineral industries tend to get crushed over time. For most, it is in the form of competition in the open market. Standard Oil was a good example. Even without the 1911 U.S. Supreme Court that split the company, they were under competitive pressure from Royal Dutch Shell and Texas independants. Pick up a copy of Yergin's "The Prize" for a good read on petroleum.
Gemstones have been relegated to consumer goods over time. The first success was ruby, which was (historically) one of the most expensive gems. This was followed by emerald, sapphire, alexandrite, pearl, etc., all very expensive when produced only from natural sources. Now, most gems in the jewelry store are synthetic.
But we are talking about industrial diamonds in this article, and I am not sure DeBeers can compete in that market. Industrial abrasive diamonds have been produced economically for many years.
DeBeers has proven to be a tough nut to crack in the gem market, as they have manged to control the sources and producers in a way that has forced them to sell to the diamond syndicate. Also, it has not been feasible to synthesize gem-qulaity diamonds at prices competitive with naturals.
However, recent advances offer the hope of producing low-cost, fancy gem-quality stones that will put pressure on DeBeers. Deep yellows (nitrogen as the chromofer) are the product of that lab in Florida. The fancies command the highest prices and will fund more synthetic diamond R&D.
It is possible that DeBeers may not be able to react to the synthetic technology. But, as history relates, DeBeers is a ferocious competitor. Whatever happens, it should be an interesting competition between a brutal, unprincipaled monopoly and technological innovation.
The actual facts are that the Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788 and the Bill of Rights were ratified on December 15, 1791. Amendments may modify the text of the Constitution and / or be additions to it.
The Bill of Rights enumerates specific rights not defined in the original 1787 Constitution and are additions. They modify neither articles, sections nor clauses of the Constitution.
The 17th Amendment modifies (actually, supercedes) the text of Article I, section 3 of the Constitution. As an Amendment, it has precedence over the text of the original document.
Amendments may also modify other Amendments. The 18th Amendment allowed for laws to prohibit the manufacture, sale, transportation, importation and exportation of intoxicating liquors. That one was so big a failure it was specifically repealed by the 21st Amendment.
And IP is addressed in the body of the original Constitution. Article I, Section 8: Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Then you should try reading it sometime:
Article I, Section 8:
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
You are correct, they are not guaranteed by an amednment, but in the original text.
United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8:
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Not to minimize the tragic loss of life, but how does building a very expensive bomb, having it explode and kill some of your best talent motivate a country to enter into the space race?
Making Big Bucks? Don't think so. Boeing, Lockhhed-Martin, Iridium and any other commercial space venture you care to name are losing money in a big way.
Perhaps nationalism would be a better motivator.
Huh?
Boeing is losing money on Delta IV, to the tune of $1.1 billion in second quarter, 2003 charges. And they are pulling it from the commercial market. This project is subsidized by the US government for military launches.
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0307/15boeing/
And commercial projects (privately or governmentally-funded) will compete how?
Perhaps the incentive should be economics.
We've seen satellite failures, such as Iridium, and few economic sucesses. Delta, while benefitting as a government-subsidized military platform, is also uneconomical.
There is little comparison to manned space flight -- a publicly-funded, nationalist agenda -- to commercial space. If the Chinese achieve success in manned space flight, we'll never know how much it cost the public (communism has a poor track record for economics and accounting).
Funny you should mention geodes and collecting. An old college buddy was at Franklin, NJ and we did some collecting on the Buckwheat Dump. Gave me a box of geodes (some in matrix) from the Devonian Englewood Fm. exposures on Whitewood Creek north of Deadwood.
Seems the Borough of Franklin is considering opening the old Mill Site as a collectors location. I saw some fantastic material come off that dump 15 years ago -- lots of the rare fluorescents and lead silicates.
And to think some of the geols I knew who worked in the Franklin Mine never collected the bizarre stuff because they though it was gangue. Yeah, goes to show you now that those rocks sell for a couple hundred bucks apiece.
I wouldn't put too much effort into emeralds. They've been manufacturing them for a long time and have gotten good enough to make very nice carbanaceous inclusions just like the naturals. It's now really to to spot the artificials.
Gimme a nice large pegmatite full of beryl, and I'd be happy. Chromian beryl (emerald) doesn't excite me as a money-making mine, though.
The agricutlural equipment industry has been doing this for years. Deere built its first custom-order robotic assembly plant in the 1970's, and now
o ut =article&articleid=CA220645#06)
(http://www.manufacturing.net/ctl/index.asp?lay
does a lot of QA / QC with automated processes based upon the electronic design sheet.
Actually, I used to do environmental geological engineering and they did use bio in the ground. Tough and expensive, but sometimes feasible. I do like the bioreactor idea, but you're right, U extraction and refining are complex processes that result in a withes brew. This may have promise as a polishing process should dissolved U remain.
Bugs in the ground are amazing. I once did an auto shop that had gray- and black-water leach fields side-by-side. Well, they did detailing and ended up dropping TCE and PCE into ground water. We defined the plume and during remedial design noticed the concentrations of those two chemicals were declining.
Then it occurred to me, they used to have these little bottles of liquid you poured down the toilet to keep your septic tank from clogging. It's primary ingredient was TCE. Seems the black water provided bugs and those that like chlorinated solvents thrived. Strangely enough, they kept munching away and we had very little residual vinyl chloride. End result, there was no need to pump and treat.
Saw the same things happen where dissolved gasoline constituents were exposed to black water; the benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and toluene broke down over a period of time and we had to do no pumpimg and treating.
We don't use bioremediation out of "concern about what will happen when the oli is gone?" Where the hell do you get this statement?
You are utterly ignorant. GE and stimulated naturally occurring bacteria have been successfully used for bioremediation for years, at least since the late 1980's.
Yes, they DIE when they run out of food. They do not mutate and become inexorable flesh-eating zombies. And they are not engineered to eat "oil'" they are engineered to eat specific chemical compounds or classes of compounds. "Oil" is a complex mix of chemicals. We refine them (distill, catalytic cracking, etc) to obtain useful mixes of its constituents (e.g gasoline, kerosene) and individual chemicals (e.g benzene, xylene).
Quit spewing forth that which seems authoritative when you obviously have no clue how bioremediation works.
Stabilize as a non-radioactive element? It's called time. Radionuclides decay at a predictable rate. Billion years or so for your typical uranium isotope.
That is a glib and reactionary set of comments. By your rationale, we should spare no expense because it is radioactive. Hey, I'll take a radioactive hazard that may kill me 30 years from now over gasoline leaking from a pipeline into my basement and exploding.
And who gets to pay for it? The taxpayers and society. So, in managing hazards to the environment and people, we do this silly thing called engineering. It is not easy, but goes something like this:
1) Define the problem. Not easy when dealing with contaminants in ground water that don't announce their presence.
2) Define a goal that reduces the hazard to an acceptable risk, often an increase in health impact to humans by no more than 1 in 1 million.
3) Assess the alternatives to achieve the goal. These microbes may be a new alternative.
4) Design the most cost-effective system to achieve the goal.
5) Maintain documentation and rationale for the decision-making process.
6) Implement and assess the design. Since the problem and conditions are often not 100% defined due to economic considerations, you need to determine if the solution is working and adjust as necessary.