NIGHT STALKER Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 I was going for the obvious: Okay the Hindenburg was more obvious then the A bombs dropped on Japan? Hmm...I don't think the average person even knows about the Hindenburg disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious89x Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 Okay the Hindenburg was more obvious then the A bombs dropped on Japan? Hmm...I don't think the average person even knows about the Hindenburg disaster. I was actually thinking of Challenger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villain_the_foe Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 Theory is theory. That is the WHOLE point that you fail to respect when others think differently. Some are more abrasive than others but at the base of it here's what I think: It's theory, and very far off from being proven. You can teleport a proton, and it means teleportation could be possible, but how far off are we from teleporting something of substance? At that point it's impractical to believe it's plausible for use. The same line of thinking applies to this. The HHO or water torch has been around since the 19th century. Just because it exists in one form does not mean it's readily available to be used in some other form. Can it happen? Sure. Will it happen soon? I don't think so. Fail to respect? Not true. I dont respect the disrespect thats all. I wish more people would acually stand behind their point of view like the way you're doing now instead of talking about paranoia, UFO's etc to make a joke out of something that they simply dont understand. So for you to even point that finger this way in that regard is kinda wack. You've obviously seen the lack of respect and what I had to deal with just to show that there's something plausible in what I say. I was the one who said that if you can prove something I'll say that I was wrong, you did and didnt I show face? There's a difference of proving your point and being an ass. I dont respect that. If you noticed I gravitated to your Points because you were putting up things that I HAD to respect. Respect is earned, plain and simple. I see your point, but the only thing that Im seeing as impractical is how impractical is it not to advance these technologies and how based on the profit margin's big business this is a practical reason why we havent seen this technology that will be built around free resources. I think these technologies are ALREADY in use. You'll notice how many B2 bombers and other military planes have secret constructs. I think its practical to assume that. And that line of thinking seems to have met its day. Hybrids all over the place. However, commercial hybrids seem to STILL be based off of technology that you have to pay for to consume. I believe thats on purpose. Hydrogen as fuel wont be readily available until the oil companies have dried the last oil well. I respect your point of view Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 the thing that bothers me the most about this is 11 people died even tho the rig failed a pressure test earlier that day, which can mean natural gas is getting in....and nobody stopped to find out why what a shame heads are gonna roll.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachEY Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 Okay the Hindenburg was more obvious then the A bombs dropped on Japan? Hmm...I don't think the average person even knows about the Hindenburg disaster. I wouldn't have considered the A-Bomb 'transportation'... But really, we're splitting atoms here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villain_the_foe Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 You see my point Vicious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyHector Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 Are you serious? Atom bomb...there's your hydrogen. B-29...there's your transporation that delivered it. Except for the fact that "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" weren't "hydrogen bombs", as they used fission (of uranium and plutonium, respectively) and not fission-fusion to generate the nuclear chain reaction. They were actually far less efficient as a result (though the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki might disagree), as something like only 1% of the uranium in "Little Boy" reacted. I would use the splitting atoms joke here, but I'll leave that to some other hack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachEY Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 I would use the splitting atoms joke here, but I'll leave that to some other hack. I'd expect nothing less considering your exceptional track record for taking the high road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatriotReign37 Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 I think EY hit the nail on the head with the fact that technology takes time. Great things are happening right now, but people refuse to acknowledge the major infrastructure that is transportation. Its not something that you can just switch over. They havent even perfected the fossil fuel engine yet. The new light truck diesel engines all have problems and you pay $40,000 - $50, 000 for that vehicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor99 Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 The Japanese would probably say back in 1945. I was thinking Lakehurst, NJ in 1937. Edit: Read the whole thread first, dummy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 Let's plug the leak with Rush Limbaugh. That's not a political statement. I just think he's fat enough to make a really good plug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 anyone else going to this site: http://theoildrum.com covering this story better than any other source the comments are extremely informative, usually written by engineers and others with industry experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-1-2010/the-spilling-fields Skip to about the 3:38 mark. "Or we could just try stuffing more **** in the pipe." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneStarLady Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 This site has an interactive map of how the oil is spreading (click on "play" to watch), plus other information about how they've tried to stop the flow and effects on wildlife. The numbers on the side showing how much oil has already spilled into the ocean are sobering. Exxon Valdez looks like a papercupful compared to this. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/01/us/20100501-oil-spill-tracker.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachEY Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/06/caught_in_the_oil.html You heard it here first. We are going to nuke the spill, cause it to collapse in on itself. Wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenranger Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/06/caught_in_the_oil.html You heard it here first. We are going to nuke the spill, cause it to collapse in on itself. Wait and see. It worked in the USSR why not try it here, since now they're just repeating failed their ideas from a month ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villain_the_foe Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/06/caught_in_the_oil.html You heard it here first. We are going to nuke the spill, cause it to collapse in on itself. Wait and see. That pic is f'ing sad to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachEY Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 http://www.ifitwasmyhome.com/ Here's a fun thing to do. Enter your hometown, and see what it would look like if the oil spill was there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachEY Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 Oops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dude Love Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 Oops. Why is that funny? What is so funny about any of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PS17 Posted June 13, 2010 Author Share Posted June 13, 2010 Why is that funny? What is so funny about any of this? I think EY was getting at the irony of the sign. I don't think anyone feels that this situation is funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dude Love Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 I think EY was getting at the irony of the sign. I don't think anyone feels that this situation is funny. Oh, irony. The smilie must have thrown me off. Carry on, then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villain_the_foe Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 It worked in the USSR why not try it here, since now they're just repeating failed their ideas from a month ago. Came across an idea that seems pretty promising. Wonder why BP or Obama havent tried Microbes. R-yVBXfW9Z4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dude Love Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 Look at the bright side, at least the derricks are far enough off shore that they don't spoil the view. (Now that's ironic.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 oil is responsible for the period of greatest improvement in quality of life the world has ever seen. oh but wait, every 20 years there is a spill? SHUT 'ER DOWN! gotta take the good with the bad. yes the spill sucks but to claim its an indictment of oil is absurd. same thing with this banking crisis: capitalism produces unprecedented growth with a setback every 10-20 years or so - does that justify going socialist? sick of politicians who rule via emotion. wait for the inevitable crisis and then... pounce. what next? a kid dies of penicillin alergy so we all go back to dying of tuberculosis? you have the balance the good with the bad - oil is responsible for so much more good than bad it's not even close. so yes, make it as safe as possible, but continue to go get that freaking oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor99 Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 oil is responsible for the period of greatest improvement in quality of life the world has ever seen. oh but wait, every 20 years there is a spill? SHUT 'ER DOWN! gotta take the good with the bad. yes the spill sucks but to claim its an indictment of oil is absurd. same thing with this banking crisis: capitalism produces unprecedented growth with a setback every 10-20 years or so - does that justify going socialist? sick of politicians who rule via emotion. wait for the inevitable crisis and then... pounce. what next? a kid dies of penicillin alergy so we all go back to dying of tuberculosis? you have the balance the good with the bad - oil is responsible for so much more good than bad it's not even close. so yes, make it as safe as possible, but continue to go get that freaking oil. Politicians suck. Just like with DDT, they overreact crazily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villain_the_foe Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 oil is responsible for the period of greatest improvement in quality of life the world has ever seen. oh but wait, every 20 years there is a spill? SHUT 'ER DOWN! gotta take the good with the bad. yes the spill sucks but to claim its an indictment of oil is absurd. same thing with this banking crisis: capitalism produces unprecedented growth with a setback every 10-20 years or so - does that justify going socialist? sick of politicians who rule via emotion. wait for the inevitable crisis and then... pounce. what next? a kid dies of penicillin alergy so we all go back to dying of tuberculosis? you have the balance the good with the bad - oil is responsible for so much more good than bad it's not even close. so yes, make it as safe as possible, but continue to go get that freaking oil. Oil is responsible for some of the greatest "materialistic" improvements the world has ever seen yet its byproduct is responsible for the biggest amount of pollution we've ever seen, more wars (covert/overt) and loss of life in the last 100 years than this planet has ever seen, the biggest monopoly of energy over the people of the world that this planet has ever seen...and a ton of other things that if I sat down and thought about it I could certainly present. I think the bad outways the good more than you come to realize actually. Oil had its place, but when technology became advanced enough to graduate from oil to something much more safer to the environment as well as less dependance on companies to provide the energy (the end of the "consumers for profit") monopoly kicked in. Government by their own words have under the guise of national security atleast a 70 year advantage on technology in comparison to the most technical devices in the public domain. I doubt oil is still the life force. Comparing negatives to negatives will only produce negatives of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenranger Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 Look at the bright side, at least the derricks are far enough off shore that they don't spoil the view. (Now that's ironic.) That's the problem, had this been in shallower water it would have been fixed in a matter of hours, not months. But hey, thats what happens when you listen to idiotic environmentalists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenranger Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 Came across an idea that seems pretty promising. Wonder why BP or Obama havent tried Microbes. R-yVBXfW9Z4 Those idiots haven't tried much of anything. The top cap failed? lets try throwing garbage at it. didn't work?, lets try the top cap again. A bunch of idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 oil is responsible for the period of greatest improvement in quality of life the world has ever seen. oh but wait, every 20 years there is a spill? SHUT 'ER DOWN! gotta take the good with the bad. yes the spill sucks but to claim its an indictment of oil is absurd. same thing with this banking crisis: capitalism produces unprecedented growth with a setback every 10-20 years or so - does that justify going socialist? sick of politicians who rule via emotion. wait for the inevitable crisis and then... pounce. what next? a kid dies of penicillin alergy so we all go back to dying of tuberculosis? you have the balance the good with the bad - oil is responsible for so much more good than bad it's not even close. so yes, make it as safe as possible, but continue to go get that freaking oil. going socialist ? we just want those greedy ****ers to cap the god damn well and rescue the wild life and the gulf economy instead of trying to figure out a way to rescue the ****ing oil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenranger Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 going socialist ? we just want those greedy ****ers to cap the god damn well and rescue the wild life and the gulf economy instead of trying to figure out a way to rescue the ****ing oil Obama is going to use this to try and ram Cap and Tax down are throats. He didn't even care about this spill until everyone started to blame him for it. The speech tonight was about two things: 1. Trying to sell us on the cap and tax (or as he called it "Green Energy Bill), and 2. Trying to save his sinking Presidency, and it isn't working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villain_the_foe Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 Those idiots haven't tried much of anything. The top cap failed? lets try throwing garbage at it. didn't work?, lets try the top cap again. A bunch of idiots. Crazy aint it? I dont understand why microbes havent been introduced or even spoken about. this leak has been out of control for two months and reached the status of "biggest oil disaster" almost a month ago. I cant believe that with all the "help" that the government has received from other governments, other oil companies etc. NO ONE has said anything about microbes. I was shocked when I came across this information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dude Love Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 How did the pipe explode in the first place? The only explanation I heard was "Methane Gas". OK so what ignited it? Did it spontaneously combust? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dude Love Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 I cant believe that with all the "help" that the government has received from other governments, other oil companies etc What other governments? I know BP is a UK company, but as far as I know, no other national government is involved. According to this article, the Netherlands offered to help but I guess because of union contracts in the Gulf they were told 'no thanks': http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/steffy/7043272.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 How did the pipe explode in the first place? The only explanation I heard was "Methane Gas". OK so what ignited it? Did it spontaneously combust? there are many sources of ignition on an off shore oil rig I'd expect, from the machinery running the rig to exhaust, even electrical sources from what I've read, I think the rig "kicked" and natural/methane gas came up the pipe and onto the platform and then ignited Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.