According to NASA, liquid groundwater would probably be a few kilometers beneath the surface of mars. The deepest oil wells are around 9 kilometers deep, so drilling down to it would be possible, as long as you knew where to drill for it.
You could use it to produce plastic products, but crude oil does need a lot of refining before it can even be used as a feedstock. You'd probably need to have a pretty large colony in place already before you could justify such an endeavor. The oil wouldn't be useful as either an energy source or a source of rocket fuel, so it wouldn't be useable early on.
Also, you wouldn't need paint on mars, because the atmosphere there is not as corrosive as the atmosphere on earth (it doesn't have any oxygen to speak of).
I know you were not being serious, but if they found oil it wouldn't be of any practical value since mars lacks an oxygen atmosphere. On the other hand, it would have a lot of scientific importance because it would mean either that mars had significant quantities of life in the past, or that oil can formed through processes that do not require life.
It probably wouldn't be worthwhile to build all this just for a sample-return mission, because of the small amount of mass you'd need to return. But you certainly would want a working system in place before you attempted a manned mission.
Drilling can be accomplished by a small, direct push rigs, which are usually hauled around in the back of pick-up trucks. But those are only good down to a hundred feet or so. It's hardly what I would call massive infrastructure. Hydraulic_rotary_drilling can also be done by a mobile rig, albeit a much larger one, and can get you down to several thousand feet.
Nevertheless, if they want to look for life on mars, and mars might have groundwater, they are going to have to drill down to it and collect samples. If they are going to do all that anyway, they might as well be looking into using it for fuel.
I'd be interested to know how deep they think you'd have to drill to find water beneath the surface of mars. If it's actually a reasonable depth, it seems like it could be a good source of propellant for a return trip, were a manned mission ever to take place.
It is not rare for people to win these kind of lawsuits. In fact it is so common that companies always try to settle out of court rather than bringing them to trial. Because if pollution they've caused is shown to have injured someone, there isn't a jury in the country that will let them off the hook.
Preventing lawsuits is the main reason companies try to reduce pollution. They're not worried about a couple million dollars in fines. Today, preventing lawsuits simply means meeting environmental standards. Sure, the picture would be very different without regulations, but it's pretty silly to think that potential polluters would just not worry about it. The potential liability associated with pollution is enormous.
I hate to break it to them, but ideals are never realistic. That's the whole point. They might as well claim that the ideal gas law promotes an unrealistic physical ideal.
The images you see when you're shopping online are there to give you an idea of what the clothes look like. If you are comparing two different swimsuits, it makes sense that you'd want to see them in exactly the same context. That's exactly what this approach accomplishes. The more expensive approach of hiring a model and a photographer is inferior because it is not reproducible.
Except that proposal doesn't actually work. It places the responsibility on the private citizen to make a case against a polluter. If, for example, a polluter is burning toxic waste and contaminating the air, the private citizens need to prove where the products that make them sick are coming from. That is an incredibly difficult task and takes a significant amount of time, such that many people could not afford to pursue that problem. It is more likely that the people living in the polluted are would - if they could afford it - sell their houses and move. At that point, of course, someone else would buy the polluted property (at a loss to the seller) and the cycle starts over. The polluter continues to make money, the victims continue to lose lives and money.
Have you ever seen Erin Brockovich? Did you know it's a true story? It happens all the time, it's happening today. Obviously, you haven't heard of any of this, or you wouldn't be making such an absurd claim that totally contradicts reality.
What is true, however, is that a company can shield itself from this kind of liability by complying with environmental regulations even if they are hurting people. Yikes!
Nevermind the fallacy of "their burden on industry"
Why would you say that it's fallacious? I've made hundreds of thousands of dollars doing contract work for manufacturers by helping them comply with environmental regulations. How can I make all this money with it, if it doesn't cost them anything? And environmental regulations are just he tip of the iceberg. Also, the money they pay me is just the tip of the ice-burg, because they often have to make changes to the way they do business to comply with regulations. And regulatory agencies tend to write regulations as conservatively as possible (for political and ass-covering reasons) in a lazy, one-size-fits-all manner that really doesn't make sense in the real world. And then, to top it all off, they give exemptions to existing businesses! The result is regulations function as a barrier to entry to new businesses.
I don't know if you've ever worked with it or not, but it's a pretty sorry state of affairs. People who work with it don't really wonder why new factories are rarely built in the US.
Yes. Thanks to the magic fairy dust they use when they write their laws down, your information is secure in other countries where your privacy is guaranteed by law. Don't look behind the curtain. Nothing to see here. Move along.
No, you can actually be charged with resisting arrest and nothing else. The police actually seem to think it is their God given right to arrest anybody at any time for any reason, and if you resist that is grounds enough to brand you a criminal for life. You'd think they'd owe you an apology for wrongly trying to arrest you in the first place, but nope, you're going to jail.
The oddly hatted Vermin Supreme of Rockport, Mass. is a perennial candidate who plans to run on a platform of mandatory tooth brushing and zombie preparedness.
As opposed to the serious candidates who what us to build an electric fence to keep the mexican't out, full body scan everybody at the airports to protect us from the terrorists, start wars in the middle east to bring about peace, and keep pot illegal in the face of irrefutable evidence that it is not harmful and it's prohibition kills thousands every year.
As far as I can tell, what you've said here is not correct.
You see, the way the system works right now people are granted protections from liability and lawsuits as long as they meet standards set by regulators. And beyond that, corporate shareholders are granted many protections from liability in general, regardless of a corporation's compliance with regulations.
So Ron Paul's position is that by strengthening property rights, civil lawsuits would provide adequate disincentive to polluters. In reality, he want's to weaken protections for polluters. The opposite of what you've said.
But on top of that, he has not proposed eliminating the EPA, or any other regulatory agency. So you are completely wrong about that. He has proposed eliminating the departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Interior and Education. The departments that regulate businesses in the way you've described are the EPA, the USDA, and the FDA. He has talked about streamlining and eliminating regulations to reduce their burden on industry, but it is generally understood that those regulations need a serious overhaul, and if you'd worked with them the way I have, you would probably agree.
They never claim to be professional scientists or engineers. Their claim is related to the issue of safety alone. It's part of their warning. And the quote is "we're what you call experts," not professionals.
Also, you are way off base with you assertion that almost every experiment they have done has significant issues with controls. Usually they will duplicate an experiment exactly, changing only one variable. That's control.
I use it for doing email or reading (webpages or books) while I'm on my couch or anywhere that's not my desk. I'll also use it at my desk to do a web search or respond to emails, if I'm doing something else at the same time on my computer. It is excellent for watching movies (the battery life is amazing, much better than any laptop) or playing games, navigating, going on Facebook, or any number of other things. As long as I'm not working, the iPad is where it's at. And even when I am working, it helps out. It's certainly not just a shiny toy.
If you have 10,000,000 users paying $30/month, you could support 4 continuous streams of television, assuming a 30 minute show costs $50,000 to produce. That sounds feasible to me.
Commercials, among other things. Because everything has to be dumbed down to gain mass market appeal and advertising dollars, there is a real lack of quality programming. But hopefully we may see the internet change all that, once all the DMCA type shenanigans come to an end, and people figure out that you can still charge for content even if people steal it.
Slashdot Mirror
I figured you'd just build everything out of welded aluminum and then bury it. Aluminum's light, and it's easy to weld oxygen free environment.
According to NASA, liquid groundwater would probably be a few kilometers beneath the surface of mars. The deepest oil wells are around 9 kilometers deep, so drilling down to it would be possible, as long as you knew where to drill for it.
You could use it to produce plastic products, but crude oil does need a lot of refining before it can even be used as a feedstock. You'd probably need to have a pretty large colony in place already before you could justify such an endeavor. The oil wouldn't be useful as either an energy source or a source of rocket fuel, so it wouldn't be useable early on.
Also, you wouldn't need paint on mars, because the atmosphere there is not as corrosive as the atmosphere on earth (it doesn't have any oxygen to speak of).
I know you were not being serious, but if they found oil it wouldn't be of any practical value since mars lacks an oxygen atmosphere. On the other hand, it would have a lot of scientific importance because it would mean either that mars had significant quantities of life in the past, or that oil can formed through processes that do not require life.
It probably wouldn't be worthwhile to build all this just for a sample-return mission, because of the small amount of mass you'd need to return. But you certainly would want a working system in place before you attempted a manned mission.
Drilling can be accomplished by a small, direct push rigs, which are usually hauled around in the back of pick-up trucks. But those are only good down to a hundred feet or so. It's hardly what I would call massive infrastructure. Hydraulic_rotary_drilling can also be done by a mobile rig, albeit a much larger one, and can get you down to several thousand feet.
Nevertheless, if they want to look for life on mars, and mars might have groundwater, they are going to have to drill down to it and collect samples. If they are going to do all that anyway, they might as well be looking into using it for fuel.
I'd be interested to know how deep they think you'd have to drill to find water beneath the surface of mars. If it's actually a reasonable depth, it seems like it could be a good source of propellant for a return trip, were a manned mission ever to take place.
Or they could just switch to fixed-firm contracts.
It is not rare for people to win these kind of lawsuits. In fact it is so common that companies always try to settle out of court rather than bringing them to trial. Because if pollution they've caused is shown to have injured someone, there isn't a jury in the country that will let them off the hook.
Preventing lawsuits is the main reason companies try to reduce pollution. They're not worried about a couple million dollars in fines. Today, preventing lawsuits simply means meeting environmental standards. Sure, the picture would be very different without regulations, but it's pretty silly to think that potential polluters would just not worry about it. The potential liability associated with pollution is enormous.
This is good news for you then, since it means that it's never too late to forget all that junk.
I hate to break it to them, but ideals are never realistic. That's the whole point. They might as well claim that the ideal gas law promotes an unrealistic physical ideal.
The images you see when you're shopping online are there to give you an idea of what the clothes look like. If you are comparing two different swimsuits, it makes sense that you'd want to see them in exactly the same context. That's exactly what this approach accomplishes. The more expensive approach of hiring a model and a photographer is inferior because it is not reproducible.
Have you ever seen Erin Brockovich? Did you know it's a true story? It happens all the time, it's happening today. Obviously, you haven't heard of any of this, or you wouldn't be making such an absurd claim that totally contradicts reality.
What is true, however, is that a company can shield itself from this kind of liability by complying with environmental regulations even if they are hurting people. Yikes!
Why would you say that it's fallacious? I've made hundreds of thousands of dollars doing contract work for manufacturers by helping them comply with environmental regulations. How can I make all this money with it, if it doesn't cost them anything? And environmental regulations are just he tip of the iceberg. Also, the money they pay me is just the tip of the ice-burg, because they often have to make changes to the way they do business to comply with regulations. And regulatory agencies tend to write regulations as conservatively as possible (for political and ass-covering reasons) in a lazy, one-size-fits-all manner that really doesn't make sense in the real world. And then, to top it all off, they give exemptions to existing businesses! The result is regulations function as a barrier to entry to new businesses.
I don't know if you've ever worked with it or not, but it's a pretty sorry state of affairs. People who work with it don't really wonder why new factories are rarely built in the US.
Yes. Thanks to the magic fairy dust they use when they write their laws down, your information is secure in other countries where your privacy is guaranteed by law. Don't look behind the curtain. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Couldn't you just encrypt your information before you give it out?
No, you can actually be charged with resisting arrest and nothing else. The police actually seem to think it is their God given right to arrest anybody at any time for any reason, and if you resist that is grounds enough to brand you a criminal for life. You'd think they'd owe you an apology for wrongly trying to arrest you in the first place, but nope, you're going to jail.
As opposed to the serious candidates who what us to build an electric fence to keep the mexican't out, full body scan everybody at the airports to protect us from the terrorists, start wars in the middle east to bring about peace, and keep pot illegal in the face of irrefutable evidence that it is not harmful and it's prohibition kills thousands every year.
As far as I can tell, what you've said here is not correct.
You see, the way the system works right now people are granted protections from liability and lawsuits as long as they meet standards set by regulators. And beyond that, corporate shareholders are granted many protections from liability in general, regardless of a corporation's compliance with regulations.
So Ron Paul's position is that by strengthening property rights, civil lawsuits would provide adequate disincentive to polluters. In reality, he want's to weaken protections for polluters. The opposite of what you've said.
But on top of that, he has not proposed eliminating the EPA, or any other regulatory agency. So you are completely wrong about that. He has proposed eliminating the departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Interior and Education. The departments that regulate businesses in the way you've described are the EPA, the USDA, and the FDA. He has talked about streamlining and eliminating regulations to reduce their burden on industry, but it is generally understood that those regulations need a serious overhaul, and if you'd worked with them the way I have, you would probably agree.
They never claim to be professional scientists or engineers. Their claim is related to the issue of safety alone. It's part of their warning. And the quote is "we're what you call experts," not professionals.
Also, you are way off base with you assertion that almost every experiment they have done has significant issues with controls. Usually they will duplicate an experiment exactly, changing only one variable. That's control.
That's nothing. You can be arrested for resisting arrest.
potato - tomato
I use it for doing email or reading (webpages or books) while I'm on my couch or anywhere that's not my desk. I'll also use it at my desk to do a web search or respond to emails, if I'm doing something else at the same time on my computer. It is excellent for watching movies (the battery life is amazing, much better than any laptop) or playing games, navigating, going on Facebook, or any number of other things. As long as I'm not working, the iPad is where it's at. And even when I am working, it helps out. It's certainly not just a shiny toy.
If you have 10,000,000 users paying $30/month, you could support 4 continuous streams of television, assuming a 30 minute show costs $50,000 to produce. That sounds feasible to me.
Commercials, among other things. Because everything has to be dumbed down to gain mass market appeal and advertising dollars, there is a real lack of quality programming. But hopefully we may see the internet change all that, once all the DMCA type shenanigans come to an end, and people figure out that you can still charge for content even if people steal it.