Celtic_soulja Posted May 5, 2010 Share Posted May 5, 2010 Well, not like making a breeder reactor out of pencil shavings is... Well rest assured if I was president, like Magox said, I would NOT be designing engineering miracles for Nuclear power. I would HIRE YOU heheheeeh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 At first it was "less than a thousand gallons". Then somehow it became "less than a thousand barrels". Then that became "42000 gallons"...which THEN became "42000 barrels". And now it's "210000 gallons". I can't help suspecting that the amount of oil being reported released keeps increasing because people keep confusing gallons with barrels, then converting barrels to gallons... Or maybe the classic "conservative" estimate first put out by the company was grossly understated? That was 20 years ago. BP is using new chemicals/techniques that weren't around then. This isn't a good thing but not nearly as bad as liberals are trying ro make it out to be. Now this, gentlemen, is fu**ing funny sh**. Care to explain the "new chemicals/techniques"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 Or maybe the classic "conservative" estimate first put out by the company was grossly understated? Could be. But I found it interesting that the news media seemed to be confusing gallons with barrels, then converting barrels to gallons - looked like a combination of shameless sensationalism combined with outright incompetence. I'm still amused that they're reporting it in "gallons". I've never heard a spill reported in gallons before, only barrels. Apparently, "gallons" sounds more disastrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celtic_soulja Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 Could be. But I found it interesting that the news media seemed to be confusing gallons with barrels, then converting barrels to gallons - looked like a combination of shameless sensationalism combined with outright incompetence. I'm still amused that they're reporting it in "gallons". I've never heard a spill reported in gallons before, only barrels. Apparently, "gallons" sounds more disastrous. Yeah, what sounds worse 5,000 barrels or 210,000 gallons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 Yeah, what sounds worse 5,000 barrels or 210,000 gallons? Why do they need to make it sound worse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 Could be. But I found it interesting that the news media seemed to be confusing gallons with barrels, then converting barrels to gallons - looked like a combination of shameless sensationalism combined with outright incompetence. I'm still amused that they're reporting it in "gallons". I've never heard a spill reported in gallons before, only barrels. Apparently, "gallons" sounds more disastrous. I heard the word "apocalyptic" yesterday in reference to the spill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celtic_soulja Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 Why do they need to make it sound worse? Because it is the media, and it is thier job. The worse things sound, the more people tune in. The more people tune in, the better the ratings. The better the ratings, the more money they can get for ad time. It is thier job to sensationalize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 I heard the word "apocalyptic" yesterday in reference to the spill. I suppose it's a matter of perspective, if you are a gulf coast bird, a Lousiana shrimp or Rachel Maddow, then yes, it would be considered "apocalyptic". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 Because it is the media, and it is thier job. The worse things sound, the more people tune in. The more people tune in, the better the ratings. The better the ratings, the more money they can get for ad time. It is thier job to sensationalize. No it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celtic_soulja Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 No it's not. What is thier job then? And if you say reporting the facts you're not worth the time of explaining where you are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 What is thier job then? And if you say reporting the facts you're not worth the time of explaining where you are wrong. No go ahead explain why I'm wrong. You have plenty of time to post other mindless drivel. Why quit now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celtic_soulja Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 No go ahead explain why I'm wrong. You have plenty of time to post other mindless drivel. Why quit now. Well you have to first tell me that you actually think it is thier jobs to report facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 Well you have to first tell me that you actually think it is thier jobs to report facts. Yes I actually think their job is to report the news using facts. What are you, !@#$ing 12? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celtic_soulja Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 Yes I actually think their job is to report the news using facts. What are you, !@#$ing 12? You're a moron. Since the first newspaper in our nation, the media has been an outlet used to advertise. Whether it was political views, or philosophical stand points. It was never a source for unbiased facts. Journalists are supposed to put spin on thier "evidence" depending on the outlet they are working for. CSPAN is a good example of no nonsense news, there aren't reporters, just cameras. Ratings are less than stellar. Ratings are what makes media outlets money, not facts. Everyone can get facts, but people like it with a side of sensationalism with a lefty spin or righty spin. Media outlets are businesses, not some benevolent outlets of knowledge. This is not something recent, this is how it has always been. Americans like you, are just too lazy to do your own research or make up your own mind, so you pretend the media is all information no opinion. It caters to your lazy personality of "not having the time" to get the facts. I wasn't acting like I was 12, I just couldn't beleive you actually believe the media is unbiased Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 You're a moron. Since the first newspaper in our nation, the media has been an outlet used to advertise. Whether it was political views, or philosophical stand points. It was never a source for unbiased facts. Journalists are supposed to put spin on thier "evidence" depending on the outlet they are working for. CSPAN is a good example of no nonsense news, there aren't reporters, just cameras. Ratings are less than stellar. Ratings are what makes media outlets money, not facts. Everyone can get facts, but people like it with a side of sensationalism with a lefty spin or righty spin. Media outlets are businesses, not some benevolent outlets of knowledge. This is not something recent, this is how it has always been. Americans like you, are just too lazy to do your own research or make up your own mind, so you pretend the media is all information no opinion. It caters to your lazy personality of "not having the time" to get the facts. I wasn't acting like I was 12, I just couldn't beleive you actually believe the media is unbiased Their job is to report the news with facts. That was the question right, what's their job? The fact that very few news outlets to do their job correctly is why I very rarely watch the news. Yup I really, really think the media is unbiased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celtic_soulja Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 Their job is to report the news with facts. That was the question right, what's their job? The fact that very few news outlets to do their job correctly is why I very rarely watch the news. Yup I really, really think the media is unbiased. Yeah, you said the news is perfectly honest and unbiased. That is what you said. You said I trust everything the news puts on because it is the truth. That is thier job, to report the truth. That's exactly what you are saying, whether you know it or not Cheffrey Dahmer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted May 7, 2010 Share Posted May 7, 2010 So my solutions were tax credits and subsidies for companies that go with alternative green american technology for power. Construction companies and land developers would get these subsidies to build new structures with green technology and use biodiesel equipment for the work. Rejecting local power companies' contracts if they do not provide a plan to change over to a more efficient alternative energy production plan through state credits. This method has been applied to attaching highway money to states in exchange for states raising the legal drinking age to 21. Also I named Biodiesel as a much more viable long term solution THAN Ethanol. I only named Ethanol at all to name it as a solution that would take us off oil faster, but ALSO stated it is not a practical solution for a variety of reasons. Although your friends at Goldman Sachs think differently. I know your knowledge is even more great than Goldman Sachs as well though, so I give you a pass in bashing Ethanol so hard. Gasoline and Diesel fuel need competitors. In the short run, Natural gas could be an option. It's under $1.50 per compressed gallon (here) and it's a viable fuel for both cars and trucks. It burns cleaner and there is an infrastructure in place for re-fueling. You can refuel a car in your garage in a few hours with some inexpensive equipment. Easy to produce piston engines that run on this. Honda has been selling a Natgas Civic in California for a while. We have the technology now to build electric/fuel hybrids that are electric powered first and gas powered second. These would have more limited daily range but can re-charge overnight and can run longer distances on any combination of gasoline, ethanol or methanol with simple ECU changes. Part flex fuel vehicle, part electric car. The Chevy Volt is close to this technology. It wouldn't take much in terms of a policy shift to ignite this marketplace. Wouldn't happen overnight but in a few years there could be enough of an impact to put pressure on OPEC and oil prices which would reduce gasoline costs. Without a competitor, oil is in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celtic_soulja Posted May 8, 2010 Share Posted May 8, 2010 Gasoline and Diesel fuel need competitors. In the short run, Natural gas could be an option. It's under $1.50 per compressed gallon (here) and it's a viable fuel for both cars and trucks. It burns cleaner and there is an infrastructure in place for re-fueling. You can refuel a car in your garage in a few hours with some inexpensive equipment. Easy to produce piston engines that run on this. Honda has been selling a Natgas Civic in California for a while. We have the technology now to build electric/fuel hybrids that are electric powered first and gas powered second. These would have more limited daily range but can re-charge overnight and can run longer distances on any combination of gasoline, ethanol or methanol with simple ECU changes. Part flex fuel vehicle, part electric car. The Chevy Volt is close to this technology. It wouldn't take much in terms of a policy shift to ignite this marketplace. Wouldn't happen overnight but in a few years there could be enough of an impact to put pressure on OPEC and oil prices which would reduce gasoline costs. Without a competitor, oil is in charge. I've heard as much. The only thing I do not like about the electric route is that we need to charge them. We use enough electricity power as is, with an increase in massive market electric cars, we will have another big problem with our energy consumption. We lead the world in coal production, but if you care anything about the environment, electric cars would do more damage considering coal burns dirtier than oil right? Natural Gas could be a route to go, but I know even less about that than the rest of the things I said lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 Can't we extend a pipeline to the sun's core and just transport the heat and light energy a few light years, so we can use it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 Can't we extend a pipeline to the sun's core and just transport the heat and light energy a few light years, so we can use it? Better yet...just use high-temperature superconductors. 100% efficiency, and the technology already exists! They maybe we can change physics to make the sun more efficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts