They are shooting mud into the leak and, for the moment, the oil flow is stopped:
CNN.com Live
According to BP, the lack of flow shouldn't make anyone jump up and down just yet, but they are currently doing the Top Kill.
They are shooting mud into the leak and, for the moment, the oil flow is stopped:
CNN.com Live
According to BP, the lack of flow shouldn't make anyone jump up and down just yet, but they are currently doing the Top Kill.
Code://try //{ if (a) do { f( b); } while(1); else do { f(!b); } while(1); //}
Great news! Now they just need to figure out how to clean up that mess...
Code:#include <cmath> #include <complex> bool euler_flip(bool value) { return std::pow ( std::complex<float>(std::exp(1.0)), std::complex<float>(0, 1) * std::complex<float>(std::atan(1.0) *(1 << (value + 2))) ).real() < 0; }
The automobile should never have been made
available to the common man. It's destroying us
all for the sake of convenience.
Last edited by Cheeze-It; 05-26-2010 at 02:22 AM.
Staying away from General.
Oh give it a rest, Luddite.Originally Posted by ethic
Code:#include <cmath> #include <complex> bool euler_flip(bool value) { return std::pow ( std::complex<float>(std::exp(1.0)), std::complex<float>(0, 1) * std::complex<float>(std::atan(1.0) *(1 << (value + 2))) ).real() < 0; }
I just saw a commercial that said, "Chemistry is making theOh give it a rest, Luddite.
world a better place."
LOL
Staying away from General.
Knowledge is power, and power can be a very dangerous thing. Then again, it could very well "make the world a better place", too. All depends on how it's used, brother...
Code:#include <cmath> #include <complex> bool euler_flip(bool value) { return std::pow ( std::complex<float>(std::exp(1.0)), std::complex<float>(0, 1) * std::complex<float>(std::atan(1.0) *(1 << (value + 2))) ).real() < 0; }
Chemistry, industry, technology - the benefits to humankind have been enormous. The Industrial Revolution more than doubled the average life expectancies in Britain and America in less than 200 years and caused the biggest population explosion in human history. I can't remember the exact figures, but it's something like: it took over 100,000 years for the human population to reach one billion. After the Industrial Revolution, successive billions were added in 100 years, then 75, then 50 etc.
A common response to this is "yes, but is that population explosion a good thing?"
I guess the answer depends on whether you care about the living standards of humans, because the exponential explosion in population was a direct reflection of the monumental increases in living standards and prosperity which industry gave us. The population exploded because better standards of living slashed infant mortality rates and allowed people to support their families better. So I guess industry is a bad thing if what you want for the human race is a miserable subsistence and children dying by the age of 10, which was the fate of most children in Britain before the revolution.
Environmental disasters like this oil spill will not have a great effect on the world long term. Oil is a natural substance which breaks down of its own accord, albeit not as quickly as we'd like. Natural habitats will be destroyed but animals adapt and they'll spring up elsewhere. And the chemicals they use to clean up spills are probably more harmful to the environment than the oil itself.
At the end of the day, what's important is the safety and well being of humans. This consideration comes above the well being of wildlife and the environment. And on a wider note, the net benefits to humanity from the industry which fossil fuels drive far outweigh the downside of rare accidents like this.
Chlorofluorocarbon
'nuff said.
Staying away from General.
...which has since been replaced by safer alternatives. Need I say more?
Code:#include <cmath> #include <complex> bool euler_flip(bool value) { return std::pow ( std::complex<float>(std::exp(1.0)), std::complex<float>(0, 1) * std::complex<float>(std::atan(1.0) *(1 << (value + 2))) ).real() < 0; }
Safer or not; whatever alternatives that were developed
are still damaging to the planet. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons
still deplete ozone and contribute to global warming. Maybe
they're "better" than CFCs, but they're still detrimental to
the environment. So they're not, "making the world a
better place." They're just making it less bad than CFCs
were.
But it doesn't matter, because the CFC problem still exists
even though they've been phased out. CFC molecules can
take up to 30 years to reach the stratosphere; and the
Montreal Protocol was enacted in 1989. That means this
next decade CFCs will have their greatest impact on the
stratosphere.
Staying away from General.
Chlorine-containing halokane propellants and coolants are BANNED in most countries. Nobody is using "hydrochlorofluorocarbons," they are just fluorocarbons, and they don't have the same effect.
That part is correct.But it doesn't matter, because the CFC problem still exists
even though they've been phased out. CFC molecules can
take up to 30 years to reach the stratosphere; and the
Montreal Protocol was enacted in 1989. That means this
next decade CFCs will have their greatest impact on the
stratosphere.
Code://try //{ if (a) do { f( b); } while(1); else do { f(!b); } while(1); //}
Banned in "most countries" is irrelevant to the main point;
if it were even true. Which it isn't. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons
are still indeed in production and aren't schedule to be
phased out completely, according to the Montreal Protocol,
until 2030.
Here, you can apply for a licence to manufacture, import
or export them in Australia. Only $15,000
Ozone Depleting Substances - Hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) controlled substances licences
And again, whether any replacement has the "same effect"
as chlorine or not is still irrelevant. The effect is still bad (even
without the Chlorine which is responsible for destroying the O3
molecules; putting anything into the air that doesn't belong
there isn't good)
Staying away from General.
2012 falls in the next decade.
What will you choose? Cannibalism or having your thumbs cut off? I haven't decided myself yet.
EDIT: BTW, lets leave thread tags for what they are meant...
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
I grew up on the streets. You and I must have different
definitions for the word "tag."
Staying away from General.
God, this is going to be so long. Feel free to pass it over.
I just have to fight for the planet because I'm a planeteer.
Actually the answer depends on the amount of knowledge
one has of the planet, the requirements for the existence
of life, and the impacts humanity has on the planet. Anybody
with even a tiny bit of such knowledge would know that a
"population explosion" isn't a good thing
To say that an exponential explosion in population is a
direct reflection of better standards of living is false. Most
population growth occurs in less-developed countries where
living conditions are horrible. In more-developed countries
where the standard of living is high, population growth is
slow or non-existent. Even in the United States, over the
last 100 years, the Natural Rate of Increase has dropped
significantly.
But that's not to say a high standard of living is a good
thing; because even though the population isn't increasing,
the rate of consumption is. 18% of the global population is
in more-developed countries; yet they consume 30-80% of
all resources and are responsible for 50-80% of all pollution.
This "high standard" of living for 18% global population
comes at the cost of a low standard of living for the other
80% of the world who live in countries which are cash-poor
yet resource-rich and are being exploited by the
developed-countries.
A "population explosion" is not a good thing for the simple
reason that the Earth cannot support it at current rates
of consumption. The natural carrying capacity of the planet
on a natural, subsistence-based diet is about 10 million
humans, IIRC. Agriculture obviously increases that considerably.
However, there's only so much land and freshwater that's
available to feed all those people by those methods.
Feeding all those people has devastating effects on the planet.
It takes between 100 and 500 years for an inch of top soil to
form. At current rates of farming, we're losing about 1% of
topsoil per year due to soil erosion, desertification, and
salination. We come up with little tricks to intensify production,
such as selective breeding of certain plants that produce
higher yields, or genetic modification, but once the actual
farmland is inhosipitable, it ultimately won't matter.
In addition to that, the land for growing food is in direct
competition with land for growing biofuels (people love their
precious automobiles and are unwilling to walk). Since
Hurricane Katrina (and the resulting spike in oil prices), there
has been as much land allocated for growing ethanol as
there is for actual food production. Land for growing food for
urban populations is becoming so scarce there are actually
countries that are leasing land from other countries -within
their borders- simply so they can grow food for their own
populations.
Oh, then there's Aquifer Depletion. Of all the water that's
available on Earth, only 3% of that is freshwater; and of
that, only 1% is accessible to humans (the remaining would
be icecaps, etc). There are currently a billion people who are
without regular access to clean water.
Not to mention climate change (which is real) is a result of
a high population and unbalanced lifestyles. It's mind baffling
how there are actually people who deny its validity.
So, no. An exploding population is not an accurate reflection
of a high standard of living; and it can definitely cannot be
considered a "good thing."The exploding population of Earth
should be thought of as a cancerous growth that is eating away
at other healthy tissue.
Organisms just don't "simply adapt" to their environments.Natural habitats will be destroyed but animals adapt and they'll spring up elsewhere. And the chemicals they use to clean up spills are probably more harmful to the environment than the oil itself.
And they're definitely not just going to "spring up elsewhere."
(lol wtf). I mean, when the Arctic become so warm that the
polar bears can no longer survive there, do you think they're
just going to "spring up" in the snowy mountains of Colorado
and eat mountain goats?
Adaptation to an environment is the result of generations
upon generations of miniscule cell mutations that happen
to provide a slightly better fitness advantage over the
ancestral type in the current environment. When a quick,
drastic change happens to that environment, the animals
don't have time to change and, as such, will disappear.
Organisms themselves don't evolve; species do.
And what do you mean by long term? Will this oil spill
have impacts on life 1 million years from now? Probably
not, because species themselves don't last that long
(maybe some Cetaceans). But will its effects impact life
now and in the foreseeable future? Absolutely. The
environmental impacts of the Exxon Valdez oil spill
(which was smaller than the Deepwater Horizon Spill will
likely end up being) are still present today, 20 years later.
Deepwater has already impacted humans who make their
living fishing (even though overfishing is another issue...
but I'm not going to go into it right now).
Biomagnification of the hydrocarbons (which are
carcinogenic) and metals within the oil, or the chemicals
used to disperse the oil (although I'm sure the EPA took
into account the solubility of any such chemical) may emerge
as a result of this oil. They become higher in concentration
as they travel up the food chain; which is the same thing
that happened with DDT (another failure of chemistry)
and is why Inuit women are the only class of women in
the world who are told not to breastfeed their babies.
To say that humans are somehow more important thanAt the end of the day, what's important is the safety and well being of humans. This consideration comes above the well being of wildlife and the environment. And on a wider note, the net benefits to humanity from the industry which fossil fuels drive far outweigh the downside of rare accidents like this.
wildlife is pretentious, uneducated and irresponsible.
Whether you want to believe it or not, humans are animals;
and just like any other animal, they depend on a stable
ecosystem to survive. The track humanity is on is unsustainable
and if it continues as it is, it will be disastrous.
Think about the bees. I don't know if you keep with nature
news, but bee colonies are disappearing at an alarming rate
and scientists don't know why (though biocides, climate
change, etc are likely causes) . Bees are important pollinators
in agriculture, dude. Without them, food production will be
much, much more difficult.
Humanity is on the brink of extinction. And we totally
deserve it!
//edit: I seem to have gotten a tad bit carried away.
Last edited by Cheeze-It; 05-27-2010 at 03:12 PM.
Staying away from General.
