Old George Carlin joke: Here’s a good example of practical humor, but you have to be in the right place. When a local television reporter is doing one of those on-the-street reports at the scene of a news story, usually you’ll see some onlookers in the background of the shot, waving and trying to be seen on television. Go over and stand with them but don’t wave. Just stand perfectly still and, without attracting attention, move your lips, forming the words, “I hope all you stupid fuckin’ lip-readers are watching. Why don’t you just blow me, you goofy deaf bastards.” The TV station will enjoy taking the many phone calls.
Often "artist's renderings" are generated from 3D plant design software models, it's trivially simple to do once you have the model completed to FEED-level design. Otherwise, I agree with your post.
...disagreements with its client Teollisuuden Voima over the plant's automation system.
Could also be that technology changed or "improved" over the years that the plant has been in engineering. At one point in some of these type of projects you can get to where the client ends up very involved in the design process and that can blur lines of responsibility ("who does what", not accountability).
With 3D CAD plant modelling many more people can be involved in design review meetings, and sometimes that causes...issues. In the old days only those who could read technical drawings would be commenting.
...in the case of climate models, you have to get extremely general to be at all accurate.
Or just do 25 different model runs with different inputs and then pick the one that came closest to actual measurements. Then say, "See? Computer climate modelling is valid!".
I've seen cock-ups like this happen before. Detailed fabrication drawings are auto-generated paper documents (paper, because each one must be signed and stamped by the stress engineer and signed by the checker and because paper is easier to handle by the fabrication shop and remains the copy of record).
Sometimes, but rarely, a minor change is made in the 3D model and a new physical drawing is not printed and sent through the document process. In this case, the 3D model is correct but the detailed drawing is not. Or the reverse can happen; the detailed drawing is manually edited (say, under pressure to meet a deadline, with the intent to update the model as soon as the rush is over - then someone forgets) leaving the model incorrect.
Slashdot Mirror
Too many of a group you don't like=any number greater than 0.
For some people it's really difficult to resist taking a shot at Harper.
Some good overview and a few comments here:
http://blog.fagstein.com/2014/...
That's what I was thinking also.
I thought it was because all the gravity kept getting sucked out of the ozone hole.
Old George Carlin joke:
Here’s a good example of practical humor, but you have to be in the right place. When a local television reporter is doing one of those on-the-street reports at the scene of a news story, usually you’ll see some onlookers in the background of the shot, waving and trying to be seen on television. Go over and stand with them but don’t wave. Just stand perfectly still and, without attracting attention, move your lips, forming the words, “I hope all you stupid fuckin’ lip-readers are watching. Why don’t you just blow me, you goofy deaf bastards.” The TV station will enjoy taking the many phone calls.
Often "artist's renderings" are generated from 3D plant design software models, it's trivially simple to do once you have the model completed to FEED-level design. Otherwise, I agree with your post.
It appeals to peoples' inner narcissism.
Liquid nitrogen piping was not insulated?
...disagreements with its client Teollisuuden Voima over the plant's automation system.
Could also be that technology changed or "improved" over the years that the plant has been in engineering. At one point in some of these type of projects you can get to where the client ends up very involved in the design process and that can blur lines of responsibility ("who does what", not accountability).
With 3D CAD plant modelling many more people can be involved in design review meetings, and sometimes that causes...issues. In the old days only those who could read technical drawings would be commenting.
...in the case of climate models, you have to get extremely general to be at all accurate.
Or just do 25 different model runs with different inputs and then pick the one that came closest to actual measurements. Then say, "See? Computer climate modelling is valid!".
Great keypress.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
30 years equals one generation, so the previous one forgets the failures of the current one and falls for the scam yet again.
Why not skip all the expensive equipment and just use birds for fuel?
...says 'Black Parrot'.
You can probably tell from the URL what the following page is about ===> http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2...
[scottishsceptic.co.uk/2014/07/13/why-climate-engineers-beat-the-climate-academics/]
Thanks for the clarifying, ironic response.
I always use my full ass at these type of meetings, none of that half-ass stuff for me.
Go 'way, 'batin!
"I can't speak to fresh water..."
Yes you can, but it cannot speak to you...
Canadiens, eh.
Process piping.
Earth is not a greenhouse.
I've seen cock-ups like this happen before. Detailed fabrication drawings are auto-generated paper documents (paper, because each one must be signed and stamped by the stress engineer and signed by the checker and because paper is easier to handle by the fabrication shop and remains the copy of record). Sometimes, but rarely, a minor change is made in the 3D model and a new physical drawing is not printed and sent through the document process. In this case, the 3D model is correct but the detailed drawing is not. Or the reverse can happen; the detailed drawing is manually edited (say, under pressure to meet a deadline, with the intent to update the model as soon as the rush is over - then someone forgets) leaving the model incorrect.
That's a lot of non-funging.