Re:XP is the 90's?
on
Time To Dump XP?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It's not just hardware. Less then 24 hours ago, I was asked about running windows XP in a virtual environment so some accounting package could work without having to spend hundreds for an upgrade. This is an office where the owner just buys shit on sale and worries about the problems later (XP and windows 7 home editions and they wonder why they can't so certain things their friends talk about doing at their job).
Anyways, when I checked the package, I noticed that it would already run perfectly for what they did, they just stopped supporting online services for the program but that happens at the beginning of this year. Turns out, when they installed the accounting package on the new computer, it needed activation and someone told them they needed to buy a new version instead of activating the old one (someone being- someone at the support number for the program). I called and asked why when their web support site clearly says it works but there are known issues. None of the known issues effected the use so I demanded an activation number. They gave us one and pow.
But that is part of the "their stuff don't work" scenario too. Some printers made 2 years before windows 7 was released don't work in it either. Of course that's a driver issue and falls back on the manufacturer. I recently had one and had to use it as a network printer and print to a postscript printer in order to get it working on a one computer network.
So it's not exactly about anything failing, it's the appearance of it failing. It consumers have to go to some website to download the fixed version of driver, or read the real story about their aging apps working, then it's probably already too far into not working for most people.
Please remind me of when or where the hili crew saw the kids in the van before the shooting? A simple time frame on the video where someone mentioned kids being at the scene before the shooting would suffice. As I said before, it's all about perspective, if they didn't see the kids until after, then they didn't even figure into the situation until _after_ it happened. The fact that kids were there makes it more horrific, but it doesn't change much of anything.
Lol.. Says the troll. You wish you got my blood pressure up. What was a deliberate lie being spread? Hm?? You see troll, once again, you are making statements that you can't back up and you are once again in a position of looking like an ignorant fuck who is making shit up and spreading lies if you attempt to show anything.
I used to be against abortion. Now I'm sorry I help that position- it may have talked your mom out of having one.
right, those naughty civilians. how dare they walk down the street, in their home country, with out alerting the United States Military.
Dude, All I'm saying is that if you dress up like a deer in the middle of deer season and go walking through the woods in a public hunting area, it's not just the hunter's fault if you get shot. That's why they wear things like orange vests and shit.
When common sense becomes a troll, we are in need of a lot more then setting idiots straight will achieve.
We could issue them some kind of banner or a flag or maybe a PATCH that we can sew onto their clothes. It would identify them as "good guys" the "bad guys" would never imitate that. If they did we would just have to kill a few more "civilians".
And yes, there are banners and patches used by different military organizations all around the world that reflect certain signals when lasers or other lights are shined on them. This isn't anything new unless it's still 1970 and I slipped into a time hole or something. These devices are called Friend or Foe identification devices and do not require batteries or anything to work. When one of these is declaring friend, you simply don't shoot unless they shoot at you. It's not perfect but it certainly would have save this reporter's life and the lives lost subsequent to his disposition.
Now, I also don't know what rock you have been hiding under, but Medical services have been using red crosses on banners attached to vehicles since the early 1900's to signify they weren't armed combatants and both sides of armed conflict are expected to not fire on them.
I'm not sure what is so hard for you to understand about something like that. Especially when it's been in use since before you were even born.
If your harried soldier is so afraid of being hurt by a person who CAN'T EVEN SEE HIM, maybe he should have stayed home?
The exact same can be said to you and civilians going into a battle zone, if you don't want to get killed by mistake, stay the hell out or stay home. The big difference is that the soldier is ordered to go in under penalties that could cost him his freedom or life. You and the civilians do it by your own free will in search for fame or fortune or whatever. Sometimes it is by necessity but you cannot make that argument in this case.
A person MURDERED from long range while trying to rescue another victim is not complicit in any way.
Um.. Yes they are. They are complicit by their own negligence, recklessness, and ignorance and any combination thereof. Anyone rushing to the aid of someone just shot with weapons laying around who doesn't also declare their intentions is subject to be shot too. This is true in war and in peace time. All major cities around the world has had a situation just like that where someone was shot running to the aid of a criminal shot by the police because the police thought they were going for the weapon the suspect dropped. The only difference here is the range in which the shooting took place. In the case of the police, they are usually close enough to yell at the people first, whether they hear them or not is another story altogether.
Anyways, there is little difference here. They saw the people getting shot, they ran to the area where the weapons were (and the shot people), they got shot as the gun crew expected to be retaliated against. It doesn't matter if one person grabbed a body or not, the situation was created where the self preservation instincts trumped all your after the fact arm chair analysis. This doesn't make it right, but it also doesn't make it the way you are attempting to describe it. Like I said, go do the same things, I bet you won't because you know for a fact that it's dangerous and likely to get you killed.
How about I arrange for you to walk into a combat zone with armed escorts who aren't wearing specific uniforms, resemble the appearances of the insurgents, have you carry a long tubed device (we can make it a camera if you want) that can be confused with an RPG by a weapons crew looking through grainy video in a situation where they think it's possibly the last thought that could literally be going through their mind.
BTW, you will have no contact with the forces shooting each other, you will have no markers whatsoever at all that would indicate you are a reporter or emergency aid worker, and you will be required to crouch behind a building, peering out and aiming the camera towards the helicopter gun crew.
If you are willing to do that of your own free will (and yes, it can be arranged in Afghanistan) and live to tell about it, I would side with you. I don't think you can or will do it because when put that way, there is a high probability of you getting shot and killed. This probability is not because some soldier is incompetent, it's because in the heat of the battle, when the thoughts are about staying alive, it's natural to take actions that will keep you alive.
Yes, sometimes this leads to mistakes. However, these mistakes could be mitigated if simple precautions would be taken. Simply things like embedding yourself within a unit and getting your coverage that way, Communicating with the military and declaring where you might be or getting a patch or communications device that will alert them to your disposition if they start to target you. The military has had Friend or Foe location beacons that can be remotely activated by their weapons systems since the 1980s. These can also be programs with one time codes that will only be recognized in a certain time frame so the enemy can't use them to their advantage.
So in all this, it would help if you didn't ignore the complicity of the people killed. When you do, it make it obvious that you are attempting to inflate the situation.
Sure, murder's a little harder to prove, but that video demonstrates a fairly explicit lack of effort to minimise civilian casualties.
You seem to be suffering from the same logic errors that allowed the pilot to justify the shooting in the first place.
As with most of everything, it's not a one sided issue where you can ascertain after the fact, the motivations or realities of the situation. From the pilot's point of view, which is supported by the audio on the tape, he didn't think the civilians were civilians at all.
So saying that there was a lack of effort to minimize civilian casualties really doesn't come close to the reality of the situation. The problem is that the civilians involved in the incident were incorrectly identified as hostile insurgents and insurgents attempting to aid their fallen comrades. That was the entire belief structure of the helicopter crew at the time the trigger was pulled so every effort to minimize innocent civilian casualties could have been in place and this could have still happened because they were not thought of as civilians at the time the events took place.
Now what you are doing here is attempting to conflate this into an impossible position with no answers resembling reality. Of course that is wrong, the answers are there and both the innocent civilians and the gun crew involved share the responsibility of what happened. The gun crew because they made the mistake and misidentified the civilians, the items they were carrying that looked like weapons, and the weapons they actually had. The civilians are just as at fault because they essentially ignored common sense, warnings, and essentially walked up to a guy pumping gasoline and then lit up a smoke. It wouldn't have been much the fault of the guy pumping gas now would it.
You had civilians that went into a war zone still engaged in combat without letting anyone know they were there. They didn't wear any sort of markings stating they were the press or neutral or not involved in the conflict while being armed (yes, the reporters escort was armed with assault riffles). They didn't let the army know they were going to be there nor did they have any communications device to alert forces of their position. They took equipment that from long distances away, could be mistaken for military weapons, especially when they attempted to conceal their positions when lining up to take a picture of the helicopters which also gave the appearance of them aiming or attempting to aim it at them and those looking at it from a distance stand a very real chance of dieing if it was a RPG. So there is the first mistake, both parties made them, the gun crew asked on the radio if anyone had units or people in the area so notifying the military before going in or periodically stating your position could have very well stopped it here.
Now the second problem, additional civilians- probably the ride the reporter took to get to the area, rushed in to help them. The gun crew rightly assumed they were rendering aid to the wrongly labeled insurgents who BTW, dress up in civilian cloths and drive civilian vehicles. Again, there was no communications, no markers indicating they were neutral or not a threat, no nothing to distinguish them from what they were incorrectly identified as. There was no red cross/crescent or other internationally recognized symbol of aid that is known to all military's around the world in which they do not shoot at. And with weapons believed to still be at the scene, this also posed a threat to the gun crew.
So you see, this isn't about civilians as much as it is about recognizing civilians. Had the gun crew knew the RPG was a camera with a long lens, had the gun crew known the press was in the area, has the gun crew seen markings indecating they were journalists of legitimate aid workers, had the gun crew not been engaged in combat operations, and all this still happened, I would be standing right beside you. But given everything that we know, this is a tragic- I repeat, tragic misunderstanding that costs the lives of civilians in a dangerous place. But all the blame cannot be placed on the gun crew for this. It was a joint fuck up, unfortunately, only one party survived to talk about it.
So lets see what I provided, Hmm.. It was the results of a fucking Google search that show exactly that. Science, even in one case a religion using science, that is investigating the possibilities of oil being made alternatively to the contemporary million year dinosaur process. Wow, not exactly what of my own am I suppose to provide other then links and references to science looking into what I claimed? Am I supposed to do all the research on everything before commenting on it? Well, if that is the case troll, then I suggest you do the same. What have you provided besides your inability to comprehend a statements while injecting your own prejudices about religion and god?
Your extreme ignorance on this issue is revealed when you suggest that "sound waves" are no longer used when the reality is seismic exploration is how the majority of these resources are found.
Self reflecting again I see. You see, I never said sound waves weren't used, I said that the way they are use has changed as our knowledge and understanding has increased. If anyone is extremely ignorant here, it would have to be you seeing how you cannot even follow a concept, thought, or simple sentence in black and white. You are nothing but a troll taking shit out of context.
I do not understand why you are here as a blight on the landscape attempting to mislead the ignorant into the realms of pure fantasy. I suggest a different hobby.
Well, if you seriously think I am a blight on the landscape of your fantasy land, then you will never understand why I am here. It's going to be pointless to explain it to you because you will end up twisting that and trolling with it too. This is because you are the one disconnected from reality here and I'm pretty sure it's intentional. I do not know what sucks so much about your real life, but spreading the shittyness to others isn't dealing with it. Perhaps you father was both a preist and he molested you or something, I don't know. You but hole hurting doesn't justify your trolling though.
I just don't know about you. You completely missed the point and instead inserted your own personal prejudices while insisting on taking everything out of context. The point wasn't that it was controversial or that I was promoting it, the point is that our understanding changes and adapts as more information becomes available. Nothing in science today is so set in stone that it's impossible to be different tomorrow or the next day. Your refusal to admit that or even allow it takes science into the real of religion for you.
And no, I am not promoting anything other then the idea that science is looking into it and they aren't using the "evil motives" that was initially claimed.
and I bet if you really are in the oil industry, it was probably you who sat in charge of the BP oil well leaking. Someone probably warned you that shit was wrong and you ignored them because he was wearing a necklace with a cross on it or something. If you really want help for an industry, or even to let it alone, then I suggest you take your own advice. I seriously cannot believe you are anything but a runt laborer as you have from time and time again proven that you are incapable of grasping a concept or idea without perverting it to something completely different to suit your own agenda. If you had any kind of authority other then telling another person to pass you a tool so you can do your job, this would have blown up in your face a long time ago. Closing your eyes and wishing something makes it no more true then going onto the internet anonymously and claiming it's true. You are nothing but a troll who is probably inspired by a reflection of their own inability to advance in career or social position or gain respect from peers around them. It's sad when people like you exist, but the reality is that you have to take a look at yourself before commenting on others. Perhaps you already did this and don't like what you see so the internet allows you to have a fantasy world in which things are different. Sad, really, Well more like pathetic but I assume you already looked in the mirror and saw that.
My time is far more valuable than that of the agent on the other end of the phone.
Your time may be valuable to you but it's not as valuable to them unless you make it expensive for them. They already work the costs of the hangup and auto dialer into the fees so you are not making a dent in their bottom line. However, take an employee and put him in a position that he can only make one or two calls an hour with little to no effectiveness and you have essentially changed their entire business model and it will require them to either stop robocalling, take you off the list, or hire more employees and up the costs of the service- most likely to the point it won't be used because of the costs.
Sure, your American Idol is important to you. But do the world a favor and skip a couple hours of TV and make a telemarketing firm's life hell. You will be doing yourself and the country/world a huge favor. And I will be thinking good things about you the next time a telemarketer doesn't call me.
I guess they will get the hint when people stop automatically hanging up on them and start burning resources by keeping the person on line for hours then declaring they aren't interested.
For instance, I received a third call from an organization soliciting charitable donation. I have already told this organization to take me off the calling list and any other lists they have with my name or number on it two times (I don't do phone donations). After telling this third guy about being order to remove me from the lists, he promptly explained that he wasn't subject to the do not call registry because they were a charity. Of course the the laws concerning removal from calling lists upon request supersede the DNC registry and are a combination of state an federal laws. Well, after this authoritative answer detailing how the laws don't apply to him, I said "Oh, I didn't know that, then asked him to explain what he was representing. I then asked a crap load of stupid questions to drag out his time on the phone. I think I tied him up for about 20 minutes before he started getting anxious about a large donation. I asked if a manager was available to sit in on the call as I wanted to make sure they understood why I was making the donation. Sure enough, after another 10 minutes or so, I got someone on the phone claiming to be a supervisor. I then explained that because I requested to be taken off the list and all lists they were associated with, their call allowed me to file a formal complain with the public utilities commission of the state and I would be entitled to a $500 award for each of their violations of state law. This happened twice so it would be $1000 total and in lieu of collecting, I am donating this $1000 in spirit by not filing the complaint at that time under the provision that I never be contacted by them or their call center again. The manager attempted to asset they weren't subject to the DNC registry again and I explained that the provisions I am speaking of is under state law and existed long before the Do Not Call registry ever has and referred them to the Ohio public utilities commission and the Ohio office of consumer counsil for further explanation. Little was I aware of at the time that Ohio law allows for $2000 fines to be awarded to the person now.
I never received a call from them again. All in all, I took up about 40 minutes of their time in order to tell them not to call me again or I would take legal action. If everyone, or even 10% of the people did this, it would become economically unfeasible to continue calling people who do not want to be called. And that's without resorting to court or legal actions.
Do you think there is a difference between a great ape and an ape? I mean a common ape is reference to the apes alive today while great ape is what you properly used for historical taxonomy purposes.
And yes, I was the one who said apes alive today. It's implied in the initial argument and should be carried through the threads discussing it. If it's not what you meant, then we have experienced some unnecessary confusion here. This confusion is probably bilateral in that I couldn't clearly convey the message I was presenting and you couldn't read between the lines of my failings to derive the proper meaning of the statement. Personally, I think they are short misgivings that have been purposely inflated but I will refrain from judgment on motive.
It must be that the writing didn't reflect what was being said as you understand it. As I said, my point was that some people claim we come from monkeys (apes, I know they aren't the same) (alive today) in order to piss religions off. Evolution theory says that the gorillas and apes and such that aren't human and alive today branched from a common ancestor (or we branched or both or whatever). It's not what is being presented by some with the intent to kill religious beliefs and we do not toss everything related to evolution out because of their perversions. Likewise, it shouldn't happen when someone else does the same.
I guess in your mind guilt by association is justified and only one example is enough to push it for you right? Why don't you start looking at the whole picture and not cherry pick what you want to ignore everything on the table to deny food was ever present.
Ape-like is not monkeys/apes. We are not descendants of the apes currently walking the land as was the point being made. The taxonomy terms in biology has changed over the years to reflect these misconstructions and attempts to confuse the area. It is now called Hominidae instead of apes to avoid this vary issue. The use of the term Ape is somewhat outdated Specifically because of the issues I raised.
I guess I wasn't specific enough. I know when you do not draw pictures or use power point, it's difficult to follow.
The difference is that humans didn't come from the apes alive today, they split from an ancestor of both in which we have the apes alive today and humans from it. Of course you link explains that in detail so I didn't think it would be that much of a problem. However, I am wrong sometimes.
It is because of our understanding of how deposits of complex-chain hydrocarbons are formed that we bloody know where to look for them.
Please explain something to me. Has anything in science been thought to of happened one way then found out to have happened another or even have more then one possibilities? I'll give you a hint of one, it involves Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, and Galileo Galilei. Perhaps we should look in another direction if that's to difficult to follow. In the 18th century, leaches were all the rave of the then modern medical science because they removed the mysterious bad blood from the body. Leaches are still used in medical science today but in a completely different capacity. Here is another, probably closer to the point I'm making.
In case you are still missing the point, science is continuously evolving and even though something is understood to function or operate in one way, it does not mean that it cannot function or operate in another. Saying this is how it is and it has lead to the discovery of all these oil fields so nothing else can be right is little more then the earth is the center of the universe BS. The entire idea of looking in other areas is to find other way to find the crap. It's not in any way an attempt to say the previous way isn't possible, it's only to say this may be possible too.
This whole abiogenesis bullshit is no more valid science than the statement that "I believe there is a pink elephant orbiting Neptune, disprove me." Until the abiogenesis "proponents" (such and few as they are) produce a model capable of being tested (through drilling and subsequent discovery of deposits not predicted by current understanding) they are not science - they are mental masturbaters exploring interesting concepts.
Abiogenesis? How did we get from there being more then one way to skin a cat to life generating from non-life? And no, I wouldn't say that the support for abiogenesis is few at all. In fact, it's the prevailing scientific theory for life as we know it. Of course I agree with you, until we can test and provide a model capable of being tested, it's not a proven fact or anything, it's just an assumption or theory being explored. But the great thing about science is that theories can be falsified which would account for the pink elephant your seeing.
Speaking of mental masturbation, Please don't denigrate anyone because of your own short comings or premature conclusions. What makes science great is that it's not an un-bendable religion- please don't treat it that way.
A simple google search will also turn up thousands of fucking deranged conspiracy theories so it is up to YOU that makes the assertion a million miles away from recorded wisdom to outline it YOURSELF.
And that is why I provided links- so you wouldn't be confused over all the shit that you aren't inteligent enough to wade through.
You need to do better than what I can paraphrase as "other people say stuff" - you have to say it yourself and present the points in a way that convince others.
Please tell my why? Look moron, this entire thread is over one person's dismissal of something because some people say stuff. If you had the reading comprehension of a third grader, you could easily follow that. Saying "other people say stuff" is entirely relevant to the thread and more importantly it's completely appropriate seeing how it's in response to "people say stuff".
As it is you have nothing apart from putting bullshit in the mouths of people that didn't say it. Go on, name a geologist in the petrochemical industry that writes such bullshit - you only have to find one BUT YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO DO SO. Instead you pretend that people that take these things seriously indulge in your fantasy.
I don't need to find anything you twit. The contemporary theories used in the petrochemical industry were developed outside of it entirely and then adopted as they proved useful. A theory does not have to be in use in a specific industry in order for it to be a theory, scientific, or viable. As more and more tests are done and the theory proves more and more accurate or possible, then it will find use in specific industries. That's how science works, and that how industry uses science and scientific advances. It is acted as you suggest, we would still be using sound waves to detect salt domes in our exploration of oil. Fortunately for the people of the world at large, those practicing science and participating in the petrochemical industry, aren't as stupid as you.
and exactly what is my fantasy? That people work on science without (evil) agendas? I mean that is exactly what I was saying. And if that is a fantasy, it is a fault in the current practices not a feature.
Hey troll. I Know I have spanked you a couple dozen times in the past when you put ideology over fact, but common, you need to read and comprehend what is being said before letting your knee jerk so hard it hit your own head. I know that when I have corrected you, I did it harshly and your feelings were really hurt as I chipped away at the foundation of the falsehoods you have been brainwashed into believing. I promise I will try to do it more gently this time so you don't have to get your panties in such a bunch.
First of all, I did not in any way shape or form pretend to speak for any oil industry. I said that people outside of the motives listed entertain the ideas too. I then presented links to some of those people who have no conception of a flat earth. I think you need to learn to separate your ideology from your facts, learn some reading comprehension, and actually understand what is being presented before making comments that only show how ignorant you really are.
BTW, just because a link doesn't agree with you does not make it any conspiracy bullshit. You are not the keeper of the world's knowledge as I have shown here and in the past on numerous occasions. I know it sucks to be put in place by someone claiming to be a dumbass, but that should really tell you more about yourself then anything about me.
I agree with that. Except that I don't think that the association of someone after the fact does anything to the fact at hand. It may be that a-biotic oil is a reality, is be that it is not, it may also be that the oil creation process can be accomplished in certain conditions completely as the traditional or contemporary explanation says excepts that it can happen much quicker on a timescale.
Here is an alternative example that shows exactly what I mean. Evolution for instance, people who dislike religion and creation stories take the ancestral connections to apes and claim we came from monkeys/apes. Of course Biological evolutionary theory says nothing of the sort- it says that we come from an ancestor that branched and one branch lead to humans while the other lead to apes. Do we toss out the entire evolutionary theory because a couple of evangelical atheist co-opted the science to suit their needs? Of course the answer is no, we just don't give those idiots credit for their idiocy. Likewise, with the science behind anything, the science will prove to be the deciding factor- not the people who are presenting it or corrupting it to their own favor. To be anything else simply isn't scientific and that was my point.
I really wouldn't want the president to act irresponsibly for the sake of making himself look better in the short term.
So you don't think all the years of the US tapping into undersea telecommunications cables, or all the deep water search and recovery of Soviet Missile and military tech during the cold war, or the regulatory existence of applicable agencies and any equipment or insight that could be better served here?
TO sum his position up in a crude third grade expression, he who delt it smells it. I don't think he is attempting to act anything outside his own interest. If he attempted something and it failed just like BP's fumbling has to date, the failure would be on him and he is attempting to avoid that. I think he is completely clueless- more so then Bush or the governor of Louisiana during Katrina. Saying I'm mad is not a commendable action or swift effect on the crisis.
That post is not directed at you, but I'm not going to relink everything that can easily be found with a search engine in less then 5 minutes.
And yes, Geologists call it fossil fuel because at one point in time, it was thought to only have come from fossils. But just like everything else involved with science, our knowledge expands and we move on. Sometimes it takes longer and some times it does not. As for Lysenkoism, I think you will find in most of the links provided on that page, that isn't a problem. Although I will admit I linked to some religious video because it mentions making oil in a lab in 30 minutes or less at several different places and proved references.
It is neither, merely bullshit spread by idiots that don't want to care about reality and like to pretend that nothing ever changes anywhere.
Well, no. It's more like religion. Even you have failed to see past your prejudices and heart held beliefs to the actual science being performed or discussed. And no, I'm not saying it's fact that it's happening, I'm saying that people are using scientific theories legitimately and achieving results in a scientific context without any evil motivation that was presented in the parent post. These people and their work should not be over looked because you dislike what some third party has latched onto and attempted to say with it.
I was more aiming towards "the some people without evil motives think differently" with that post. I know most of it was speculation or unimportant to some degree but it shows that there is interest in these areas which is what is needed for research to happen.
How promising it might turn out to be is another story. As for the details of it, I'm going to admit I'm not that well versed and probably less qualified to comment on it. I just know that people are looking in those areas. And while people are looking, some may have ulterior motives, while most do not. But motives don't really matter if the science backs it up and is correct which is what sparked this side thread. One thing that really gets my goat is where someone claims something is useless or should be ignored because it can be associated somewhere, somehow, with someone of some thing they disagree with. Science simply isn't designed to work that way.
It's like saying you lost your wallet. Someone else says oh yea, where did you lose it at? And you reply, It's under the couch but I'm not looking there because my ex lover is sitting by it.
I didn't say it was fact, I said it was theories floating around that didn't involve religion, grudges against environmentalist, or oil companies trying to rape people. BTW, the dinosaur for oil theory is the same- not fact but a theory that doesn't involve religion, grudges against environmentalist, or oil companies trying to rape people.
You should try reading the posts before attempting to do whatever it was you were attempting to do. You're like an ignorant troll to stupid to be effective and ends up appearing like a clown. Does it hurt your feelings when people laugh at you? Or do you still believe your mom when she said they were laughing with you?
The only difficulty I would foresee in using the i.d. is that you have to fight the outward flow to put it in place. If doing it externally, you could hing the cap leaving it "open" while placing the collar (for lack of a better term, feral?) around the pipe, tighten it then rotate the cap over with some sort of gate that will shut or slow the pressure enough to allow another feed pipe to be connected.
I do have a theory on going for the i.d. that could compensate for the outward flow. It's basically an idea that would use the pressure of the well to tighten the cap by using wedges (about 6 of them) ringed in a circle sized to fit inside the pipe but only restrict the opening by 5% or so initially. Make them long enough that a hinged flap running with length of the wedge can be released using the force of the flow to move it across the diameter of the pipe and place pressure on the wedge on the opposite side of the pipe causing it to grip tighter to the walls. From there, a threaded pipe could be added with all the necessary safety equipment so that as it is tightened down, it opens the closed flaps inside the pipe, retaining pressure on the wedged fitting. The oil should be under control again.
I guess a simple google search was too hard for you to do before you started trolling.
But hey, everyone loves the little retard forced to sit in regular class with us now that the Special Ed budget has been depleted. It's simply amazing what he will say. (BTW, Ingore the part about god and pay attention to the oil in the lab parts as they are referenced for your enjoyment).
Slashdot Mirror
It's not just hardware. Less then 24 hours ago, I was asked about running windows XP in a virtual environment so some accounting package could work without having to spend hundreds for an upgrade. This is an office where the owner just buys shit on sale and worries about the problems later (XP and windows 7 home editions and they wonder why they can't so certain things their friends talk about doing at their job).
Anyways, when I checked the package, I noticed that it would already run perfectly for what they did, they just stopped supporting online services for the program but that happens at the beginning of this year. Turns out, when they installed the accounting package on the new computer, it needed activation and someone told them they needed to buy a new version instead of activating the old one (someone being- someone at the support number for the program). I called and asked why when their web support site clearly says it works but there are known issues. None of the known issues effected the use so I demanded an activation number. They gave us one and pow.
But that is part of the "their stuff don't work" scenario too. Some printers made 2 years before windows 7 was released don't work in it either. Of course that's a driver issue and falls back on the manufacturer. I recently had one and had to use it as a network printer and print to a postscript printer in order to get it working on a one computer network.
So it's not exactly about anything failing, it's the appearance of it failing. It consumers have to go to some website to download the fixed version of driver, or read the real story about their aging apps working, then it's probably already too far into not working for most people.
Please remind me of when or where the hili crew saw the kids in the van before the shooting? A simple time frame on the video where someone mentioned kids being at the scene before the shooting would suffice. As I said before, it's all about perspective, if they didn't see the kids until after, then they didn't even figure into the situation until _after_ it happened. The fact that kids were there makes it more horrific, but it doesn't change much of anything.
Lol.. Says the troll. You wish you got my blood pressure up. What was a deliberate lie being spread? Hm?? You see troll, once again, you are making statements that you can't back up and you are once again in a position of looking like an ignorant fuck who is making shit up and spreading lies if you attempt to show anything.
I used to be against abortion. Now I'm sorry I help that position- it may have talked your mom out of having one.
Dude, All I'm saying is that if you dress up like a deer in the middle of deer season and go walking through the woods in a public hunting area, it's not just the hunter's fault if you get shot. That's why they wear things like orange vests and shit.
When common sense becomes a troll, we are in need of a lot more then setting idiots straight will achieve.
And yes, there are banners and patches used by different military organizations all around the world that reflect certain signals when lasers or other lights are shined on them. This isn't anything new unless it's still 1970 and I slipped into a time hole or something. These devices are called Friend or Foe identification devices and do not require batteries or anything to work. When one of these is declaring friend, you simply don't shoot unless they shoot at you. It's not perfect but it certainly would have save this reporter's life and the lives lost subsequent to his disposition.
Now, I also don't know what rock you have been hiding under, but Medical services have been using red crosses on banners attached to vehicles since the early 1900's to signify they weren't armed combatants and both sides of armed conflict are expected to not fire on them.
I'm not sure what is so hard for you to understand about something like that. Especially when it's been in use since before you were even born.
The exact same can be said to you and civilians going into a battle zone, if you don't want to get killed by mistake, stay the hell out or stay home. The big difference is that the soldier is ordered to go in under penalties that could cost him his freedom or life. You and the civilians do it by your own free will in search for fame or fortune or whatever. Sometimes it is by necessity but you cannot make that argument in this case.
Um.. Yes they are. They are complicit by their own negligence, recklessness, and ignorance and any combination thereof. Anyone rushing to the aid of someone just shot with weapons laying around who doesn't also declare their intentions is subject to be shot too. This is true in war and in peace time. All major cities around the world has had a situation just like that where someone was shot running to the aid of a criminal shot by the police because the police thought they were going for the weapon the suspect dropped. The only difference here is the range in which the shooting took place. In the case of the police, they are usually close enough to yell at the people first, whether they hear them or not is another story altogether.
Anyways, there is little difference here. They saw the people getting shot, they ran to the area where the weapons were (and the shot people), they got shot as the gun crew expected to be retaliated against. It doesn't matter if one person grabbed a body or not, the situation was created where the self preservation instincts trumped all your after the fact arm chair analysis. This doesn't make it right, but it also doesn't make it the way you are attempting to describe it. Like I said, go do the same things, I bet you won't because you know for a fact that it's dangerous and likely to get you killed.
How about I arrange for you to walk into a combat zone with armed escorts who aren't wearing specific uniforms, resemble the appearances of the insurgents, have you carry a long tubed device (we can make it a camera if you want) that can be confused with an RPG by a weapons crew looking through grainy video in a situation where they think it's possibly the last thought that could literally be going through their mind.
BTW, you will have no contact with the forces shooting each other, you will have no markers whatsoever at all that would indicate you are a reporter or emergency aid worker, and you will be required to crouch behind a building, peering out and aiming the camera towards the helicopter gun crew.
If you are willing to do that of your own free will (and yes, it can be arranged in Afghanistan) and live to tell about it, I would side with you. I don't think you can or will do it because when put that way, there is a high probability of you getting shot and killed. This probability is not because some soldier is incompetent, it's because in the heat of the battle, when the thoughts are about staying alive, it's natural to take actions that will keep you alive.
Yes, sometimes this leads to mistakes. However, these mistakes could be mitigated if simple precautions would be taken. Simply things like embedding yourself within a unit and getting your coverage that way, Communicating with the military and declaring where you might be or getting a patch or communications device that will alert them to your disposition if they start to target you. The military has had Friend or Foe location beacons that can be remotely activated by their weapons systems since the 1980s. These can also be programs with one time codes that will only be recognized in a certain time frame so the enemy can't use them to their advantage.
So in all this, it would help if you didn't ignore the complicity of the people killed. When you do, it make it obvious that you are attempting to inflate the situation.
You seem to be suffering from the same logic errors that allowed the pilot to justify the shooting in the first place.
As with most of everything, it's not a one sided issue where you can ascertain after the fact, the motivations or realities of the situation. From the pilot's point of view, which is supported by the audio on the tape, he didn't think the civilians were civilians at all.
So saying that there was a lack of effort to minimize civilian casualties really doesn't come close to the reality of the situation. The problem is that the civilians involved in the incident were incorrectly identified as hostile insurgents and insurgents attempting to aid their fallen comrades. That was the entire belief structure of the helicopter crew at the time the trigger was pulled so every effort to minimize innocent civilian casualties could have been in place and this could have still happened because they were not thought of as civilians at the time the events took place.
Now what you are doing here is attempting to conflate this into an impossible position with no answers resembling reality. Of course that is wrong, the answers are there and both the innocent civilians and the gun crew involved share the responsibility of what happened. The gun crew because they made the mistake and misidentified the civilians, the items they were carrying that looked like weapons, and the weapons they actually had. The civilians are just as at fault because they essentially ignored common sense, warnings, and essentially walked up to a guy pumping gasoline and then lit up a smoke. It wouldn't have been much the fault of the guy pumping gas now would it.
You had civilians that went into a war zone still engaged in combat without letting anyone know they were there. They didn't wear any sort of markings stating they were the press or neutral or not involved in the conflict while being armed (yes, the reporters escort was armed with assault riffles). They didn't let the army know they were going to be there nor did they have any communications device to alert forces of their position. They took equipment that from long distances away, could be mistaken for military weapons, especially when they attempted to conceal their positions when lining up to take a picture of the helicopters which also gave the appearance of them aiming or attempting to aim it at them and those looking at it from a distance stand a very real chance of dieing if it was a RPG. So there is the first mistake, both parties made them, the gun crew asked on the radio if anyone had units or people in the area so notifying the military before going in or periodically stating your position could have very well stopped it here.
Now the second problem, additional civilians- probably the ride the reporter took to get to the area, rushed in to help them. The gun crew rightly assumed they were rendering aid to the wrongly labeled insurgents who BTW, dress up in civilian cloths and drive civilian vehicles. Again, there was no communications, no markers indicating they were neutral or not a threat, no nothing to distinguish them from what they were incorrectly identified as. There was no red cross/crescent or other internationally recognized symbol of aid that is known to all military's around the world in which they do not shoot at. And with weapons believed to still be at the scene, this also posed a threat to the gun crew.
So you see, this isn't about civilians as much as it is about recognizing civilians. Had the gun crew knew the RPG was a camera with a long lens, had the gun crew known the press was in the area, has the gun crew seen markings indecating they were journalists of legitimate aid workers, had the gun crew not been engaged in combat operations, and all this still happened, I would be standing right beside you. But given everything that we know, this is a tragic- I repeat, tragic misunderstanding that costs the lives of civilians in a dangerous place. But all the blame cannot be placed on the gun crew for this. It was a joint fuck up, unfortunately, only one party survived to talk about it.
Yea, I'm talking to you.
Really? Lets see what I claimed and what I backed up. "There have been scientific theories floating around for decades now that support to some degree, an idea that oil can be made naturally without the long process currently ascribed to it. And all this is done without the mentioning of a GOD or 6000 year earth history." Oh gee.. SO I claimed that science has been investigating oil outside of the contemporary setting for decades and this wasn't because of a motivation of god or young earth. Well now, how it this white claiming to be black? Huh, troll? Answer that without invoking your much feared god.
So lets see what I provided, Hmm.. It was the results of a fucking Google search that show exactly that. Science, even in one case a religion using science, that is investigating the possibilities of oil being made alternatively to the contemporary million year dinosaur process. Wow, not exactly what of my own am I suppose to provide other then links and references to science looking into what I claimed? Am I supposed to do all the research on everything before commenting on it? Well, if that is the case troll, then I suggest you do the same. What have you provided besides your inability to comprehend a statements while injecting your own prejudices about religion and god?
Self reflecting again I see. You see, I never said sound waves weren't used, I said that the way they are use has changed as our knowledge and understanding has increased. If anyone is extremely ignorant here, it would have to be you seeing how you cannot even follow a concept, thought, or simple sentence in black and white. You are nothing but a troll taking shit out of context.
Well, if you seriously think I am a blight on the landscape of your fantasy land, then you will never understand why I am here. It's going to be pointless to explain it to you because you will end up twisting that and trolling with it too. This is because you are the one disconnected from reality here and I'm pretty sure it's intentional. I do not know what sucks so much about your real life, but spreading the shittyness to others isn't dealing with it. Perhaps you father was both a preist and he molested you or something, I don't know. You but hole hurting doesn't justify your trolling though.
I just don't know about you. You completely missed the point and instead inserted your own personal prejudices while insisting on taking everything out of context. The point wasn't that it was controversial or that I was promoting it, the point is that our understanding changes and adapts as more information becomes available. Nothing in science today is so set in stone that it's impossible to be different tomorrow or the next day. Your refusal to admit that or even allow it takes science into the real of religion for you.
And no, I am not promoting anything other then the idea that science is looking into it and they aren't using the "evil motives" that was initially claimed.
and I bet if you really are in the oil industry, it was probably you who sat in charge of the BP oil well leaking. Someone probably warned you that shit was wrong and you ignored them because he was wearing a necklace with a cross on it or something. If you really want help for an industry, or even to let it alone, then I suggest you take your own advice. I seriously cannot believe you are anything but a runt laborer as you have from time and time again proven that you are incapable of grasping a concept or idea without perverting it to something completely different to suit your own agenda. If you had any kind of authority other then telling another person to pass you a tool so you can do your job, this would have blown up in your face a long time ago. Closing your eyes and wishing something makes it no more true then going onto the internet anonymously and claiming it's true. You are nothing but a troll who is probably inspired by a reflection of their own inability to advance in career or social position or gain respect from peers around them. It's sad when people like you exist, but the reality is that you have to take a look at yourself before commenting on others. Perhaps you already did this and don't like what you see so the internet allows you to have a fantasy world in which things are different. Sad, really, Well more like pathetic but I assume you already looked in the mirror and saw that.
Your time may be valuable to you but it's not as valuable to them unless you make it expensive for them. They already work the costs of the hangup and auto dialer into the fees so you are not making a dent in their bottom line. However, take an employee and put him in a position that he can only make one or two calls an hour with little to no effectiveness and you have essentially changed their entire business model and it will require them to either stop robocalling, take you off the list, or hire more employees and up the costs of the service- most likely to the point it won't be used because of the costs.
Sure, your American Idol is important to you. But do the world a favor and skip a couple hours of TV and make a telemarketing firm's life hell. You will be doing yourself and the country/world a huge favor. And I will be thinking good things about you the next time a telemarketer doesn't call me.
I guess they will get the hint when people stop automatically hanging up on them and start burning resources by keeping the person on line for hours then declaring they aren't interested.
For instance, I received a third call from an organization soliciting charitable donation. I have already told this organization to take me off the calling list and any other lists they have with my name or number on it two times (I don't do phone donations). After telling this third guy about being order to remove me from the lists, he promptly explained that he wasn't subject to the do not call registry because they were a charity. Of course the the laws concerning removal from calling lists upon request supersede the DNC registry and are a combination of state an federal laws. Well, after this authoritative answer detailing how the laws don't apply to him, I said "Oh, I didn't know that, then asked him to explain what he was representing. I then asked a crap load of stupid questions to drag out his time on the phone. I think I tied him up for about 20 minutes before he started getting anxious about a large donation. I asked if a manager was available to sit in on the call as I wanted to make sure they understood why I was making the donation. Sure enough, after another 10 minutes or so, I got someone on the phone claiming to be a supervisor. I then explained that because I requested to be taken off the list and all lists they were associated with, their call allowed me to file a formal complain with the public utilities commission of the state and I would be entitled to a $500 award for each of their violations of state law. This happened twice so it would be $1000 total and in lieu of collecting, I am donating this $1000 in spirit by not filing the complaint at that time under the provision that I never be contacted by them or their call center again. The manager attempted to asset they weren't subject to the DNC registry again and I explained that the provisions I am speaking of is under state law and existed long before the Do Not Call registry ever has and referred them to the Ohio public utilities commission and the Ohio office of consumer counsil for further explanation. Little was I aware of at the time that Ohio law allows for $2000 fines to be awarded to the person now.
I never received a call from them again. All in all, I took up about 40 minutes of their time in order to tell them not to call me again or I would take legal action. If everyone, or even 10% of the people did this, it would become economically unfeasible to continue calling people who do not want to be called. And that's without resorting to court or legal actions.
Do you think there is a difference between a great ape and an ape? I mean a common ape is reference to the apes alive today while great ape is what you properly used for historical taxonomy purposes.
And yes, I was the one who said apes alive today. It's implied in the initial argument and should be carried through the threads discussing it. If it's not what you meant, then we have experienced some unnecessary confusion here. This confusion is probably bilateral in that I couldn't clearly convey the message I was presenting and you couldn't read between the lines of my failings to derive the proper meaning of the statement. Personally, I think they are short misgivings that have been purposely inflated but I will refrain from judgment on motive.
It must be that the writing didn't reflect what was being said as you understand it. As I said, my point was that some people claim we come from monkeys (apes, I know they aren't the same) (alive today) in order to piss religions off. Evolution theory says that the gorillas and apes and such that aren't human and alive today branched from a common ancestor (or we branched or both or whatever). It's not what is being presented by some with the intent to kill religious beliefs and we do not toss everything related to evolution out because of their perversions. Likewise, it shouldn't happen when someone else does the same.
I guess in your mind guilt by association is justified and only one example is enough to push it for you right? Why don't you start looking at the whole picture and not cherry pick what you want to ignore everything on the table to deny food was ever present.
Yawn...
Ape-like is not monkeys/apes. We are not descendants of the apes currently walking the land as was the point being made. The taxonomy terms in biology has changed over the years to reflect these misconstructions and attempts to confuse the area. It is now called Hominidae instead of apes to avoid this vary issue. The use of the term Ape is somewhat outdated Specifically because of the issues I raised.
I guess I wasn't specific enough. I know when you do not draw pictures or use power point, it's difficult to follow.
The difference is that humans didn't come from the apes alive today, they split from an ancestor of both in which we have the apes alive today and humans from it. Of course you link explains that in detail so I didn't think it would be that much of a problem. However, I am wrong sometimes.
Please explain something to me. Has anything in science been thought to of happened one way then found out to have happened another or even have more then one possibilities? I'll give you a hint of one, it involves Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, and Galileo Galilei. Perhaps we should look in another direction if that's to difficult to follow. In the 18th century, leaches were all the rave of the then modern medical science because they removed the mysterious bad blood from the body. Leaches are still used in medical science today but in a completely different capacity. Here is another, probably closer to the point I'm making.
In case you are still missing the point, science is continuously evolving and even though something is understood to function or operate in one way, it does not mean that it cannot function or operate in another. Saying this is how it is and it has lead to the discovery of all these oil fields so nothing else can be right is little more then the earth is the center of the universe BS. The entire idea of looking in other areas is to find other way to find the crap. It's not in any way an attempt to say the previous way isn't possible, it's only to say this may be possible too.
Abiogenesis? How did we get from there being more then one way to skin a cat to life generating from non-life? And no, I wouldn't say that the support for abiogenesis is few at all. In fact, it's the prevailing scientific theory for life as we know it. Of course I agree with you, until we can test and provide a model capable of being tested, it's not a proven fact or anything, it's just an assumption or theory being explored. But the great thing about science is that theories can be falsified which would account for the pink elephant your seeing.
Speaking of mental masturbation, Please don't denigrate anyone because of your own short comings or premature conclusions. What makes science great is that it's not an un-bendable religion- please don't treat it that way.
And that is why I provided links- so you wouldn't be confused over all the shit that you aren't inteligent enough to wade through.
Please tell my why? Look moron, this entire thread is over one person's dismissal of something because some people say stuff. If you had the reading comprehension of a third grader, you could easily follow that. Saying "other people say stuff" is entirely relevant to the thread and more importantly it's completely appropriate seeing how it's in response to "people say stuff".
I don't need to find anything you twit. The contemporary theories used in the petrochemical industry were developed outside of it entirely and then adopted as they proved useful. A theory does not have to be in use in a specific industry in order for it to be a theory, scientific, or viable. As more and more tests are done and the theory proves more and more accurate or possible, then it will find use in specific industries. That's how science works, and that how industry uses science and scientific advances. It is acted as you suggest, we would still be using sound waves to detect salt domes in our exploration of oil. Fortunately for the people of the world at large, those practicing science and participating in the petrochemical industry, aren't as stupid as you.
and exactly what is my fantasy? That people work on science without (evil) agendas? I mean that is exactly what I was saying. And if that is a fantasy, it is a fault in the current practices not a feature.
Hey troll. I Know I have spanked you a couple dozen times in the past when you put ideology over fact, but common, you need to read and comprehend what is being said before letting your knee jerk so hard it hit your own head. I know that when I have corrected you, I did it harshly and your feelings were really hurt as I chipped away at the foundation of the falsehoods you have been brainwashed into believing. I promise I will try to do it more gently this time so you don't have to get your panties in such a bunch.
First of all, I did not in any way shape or form pretend to speak for any oil industry. I said that people outside of the motives listed entertain the ideas too. I then presented links to some of those people who have no conception of a flat earth. I think you need to learn to separate your ideology from your facts, learn some reading comprehension, and actually understand what is being presented before making comments that only show how ignorant you really are.
BTW, just because a link doesn't agree with you does not make it any conspiracy bullshit. You are not the keeper of the world's knowledge as I have shown here and in the past on numerous occasions. I know it sucks to be put in place by someone claiming to be a dumbass, but that should really tell you more about yourself then anything about me.
I agree with that. Except that I don't think that the association of someone after the fact does anything to the fact at hand. It may be that a-biotic oil is a reality, is be that it is not, it may also be that the oil creation process can be accomplished in certain conditions completely as the traditional or contemporary explanation says excepts that it can happen much quicker on a timescale.
Here is an alternative example that shows exactly what I mean. Evolution for instance, people who dislike religion and creation stories take the ancestral connections to apes and claim we came from monkeys/apes. Of course Biological evolutionary theory says nothing of the sort- it says that we come from an ancestor that branched and one branch lead to humans while the other lead to apes. Do we toss out the entire evolutionary theory because a couple of evangelical atheist co-opted the science to suit their needs? Of course the answer is no, we just don't give those idiots credit for their idiocy. Likewise, with the science behind anything, the science will prove to be the deciding factor- not the people who are presenting it or corrupting it to their own favor. To be anything else simply isn't scientific and that was my point.
So you don't think all the years of the US tapping into undersea telecommunications cables, or all the deep water search and recovery of Soviet Missile and military tech during the cold war, or the regulatory existence of applicable agencies and any equipment or insight that could be better served here?
TO sum his position up in a crude third grade expression, he who delt it smells it. I don't think he is attempting to act anything outside his own interest. If he attempted something and it failed just like BP's fumbling has to date, the failure would be on him and he is attempting to avoid that. I think he is completely clueless- more so then Bush or the governor of Louisiana during Katrina. Saying I'm mad is not a commendable action or swift effect on the crisis.
Perhaps you should do a simple Google search before making such claims.
That post is not directed at you, but I'm not going to relink everything that can easily be found with a search engine in less then 5 minutes.
And yes, Geologists call it fossil fuel because at one point in time, it was thought to only have come from fossils. But just like everything else involved with science, our knowledge expands and we move on. Sometimes it takes longer and some times it does not. As for Lysenkoism, I think you will find in most of the links provided on that page, that isn't a problem. Although I will admit I linked to some religious video because it mentions making oil in a lab in 30 minutes or less at several different places and proved references.
Well, no. It's more like religion. Even you have failed to see past your prejudices and heart held beliefs to the actual science being performed or discussed. And no, I'm not saying it's fact that it's happening, I'm saying that people are using scientific theories legitimately and achieving results in a scientific context without any evil motivation that was presented in the parent post. These people and their work should not be over looked because you dislike what some third party has latched onto and attempted to say with it.
I was more aiming towards "the some people without evil motives think differently" with that post. I know most of it was speculation or unimportant to some degree but it shows that there is interest in these areas which is what is needed for research to happen.
How promising it might turn out to be is another story. As for the details of it, I'm going to admit I'm not that well versed and probably less qualified to comment on it. I just know that people are looking in those areas. And while people are looking, some may have ulterior motives, while most do not. But motives don't really matter if the science backs it up and is correct which is what sparked this side thread. One thing that really gets my goat is where someone claims something is useless or should be ignored because it can be associated somewhere, somehow, with someone of some thing they disagree with. Science simply isn't designed to work that way.
It's like saying you lost your wallet. Someone else says oh yea, where did you lose it at? And you reply, It's under the couch but I'm not looking there because my ex lover is sitting by it.
I didn't say it was fact, I said it was theories floating around that didn't involve religion, grudges against environmentalist, or oil companies trying to rape people. BTW, the dinosaur for oil theory is the same- not fact but a theory that doesn't involve religion, grudges against environmentalist, or oil companies trying to rape people.
You should try reading the posts before attempting to do whatever it was you were attempting to do. You're like an ignorant troll to stupid to be effective and ends up appearing like a clown. Does it hurt your feelings when people laugh at you? Or do you still believe your mom when she said they were laughing with you?
The only difficulty I would foresee in using the i.d. is that you have to fight the outward flow to put it in place. If doing it externally, you could hing the cap leaving it "open" while placing the collar (for lack of a better term, feral?) around the pipe, tighten it then rotate the cap over with some sort of gate that will shut or slow the pressure enough to allow another feed pipe to be connected.
I do have a theory on going for the i.d. that could compensate for the outward flow. It's basically an idea that would use the pressure of the well to tighten the cap by using wedges (about 6 of them) ringed in a circle sized to fit inside the pipe but only restrict the opening by 5% or so initially. Make them long enough that a hinged flap running with length of the wedge can be released using the force of the flow to move it across the diameter of the pipe and place pressure on the wedge on the opposite side of the pipe causing it to grip tighter to the walls. From there, a threaded pipe could be added with all the necessary safety equipment so that as it is tightened down, it opens the closed flaps inside the pipe, retaining pressure on the wedged fitting. The oil should be under control again.
I guess a simple google search was too hard for you to do before you started trolling.
But hey, everyone loves the little retard forced to sit in regular class with us now that the Special Ed budget has been depleted. It's simply amazing what he will say. (BTW, Ingore the part about god and pay attention to the oil in the lab parts as they are referenced for your enjoyment).