The holiday hangout will go online tomorrow! If there's anything in the regular subforums that you're going to want to access over the holidays, copy it now while it's still accessible.
Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Gulf Coast Oil]: Spill, Baby Spill. Volunteer Info at the top of OP

15758596062

Posts

  • SpacemilkSpacemilk Registered User
    edited May 2010
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    It's a good thing I didn't say the spill was a good thing, then.
    I didn't say the spill was good. I'm saying the fact that they're testing the valve, and that the media is paying attention to the results of that test, is good. It is bad that the valve didn't pass the test, but it's much better to have the failure occur during testing than during full-scale operation. The test was successful in that it's purpose was to evaluate problems with the valve's performance.
    A couple of notes on engineering and design and some of your assumptions:
    -Valves don't need to be tested during sub-optimal power. All of that sort of testing is done by the vendor who sells you the valve. There is no reason you should do that testing, because you know EXACTLY how the valve is going to perform with X amount of power. You know EXACTLY the minimum amount of power needed to achieve the desired performance. The ONLY reason to run a test like this is not to test the valve, but rather to test your own systems which run the valve - which is what they were doing. The ridiculous thing is, they could've determined how much power they would need and the total load on the system, and they should've been able to tell in advance whether they'd be skirting the minimum or be well over it.

    Really, you want to trust the word of the manufacturer over testing in real-world conditions? Seriously? Manufacturers aren't exactly the most honest folks in the world when they're trying to sell you something. The makers of Axe bodyspray would have you believe that using their product will have models swarming all over you. Subway would have you believe their sandwiches make you lose weight.

    And the makers of oil pipeline valves would have you believe their products are completely up to whatever task you ask of them, based on testing - or even worse, mathematically-calculated theoretical thresholds - in isolated, optimal lab conditions. People can make mistakes doing math, the way NASA failed with the Mars Climate Orbiter. And even when the math is sound, there could be a problem with that specific valve, such as a substandard weld. Things don't always function as they're supposed to - if they did, we wouldn't even have this thread because Cameron's BOP would have shut down the wellhead automatically when communications with the rig were lost. They need to be tested - both the valve/BOP controls and the valve/BOP itself - rather than simply waiting for when they're needed and hoping that they work as intended then.
    ...First of all, where did I say that you said the spill was good? I quoted you on saying the test was a success, which you did say and which you were wrong about.

    Second of all, you don't work in the oil industry, much less engineering design, do you? You don't. test. valves. in. the. field. Not this sort of test. You shop test them when you buy them and you make sure you have a trained engineer inspect the valve and (ideally) be present for those tests. I'm not trying to be snide but I do know what I'm talking about. I can assure you that this is not a test that should have gone wrong the way it did.

    I do love how you use Subway and Axe as your primary examples, because the world of TV advertising has something to do with the world of process engineering. (oh sarcasm! this snideness is entirely intentional)

    Let me be a little more clear: Valves are not outer space climate orbiters, or BOPs in the world of deep sea drilling - both of those fields are using cutting edge technology and research is ongoing, we are constantly pushing the boundaries with those fields. In none of your examples - from Subway and Axe to outer space and deep sea - did you manage to come up with an example that's anything like this situation. In services like an oil pipeline, valves are entirely a known technology. You can pick up a 10 or 20 year old book on a certain brand of valves, and the numbers in that book will still be applicable today because the things really don't change. Could you get a "lemon" valve? Well, with the fact that they perform their tests, then have you sit in on the tests, then have you and them and a third party inspect the valves... it's incredibly unlikely. Unlikely enough that you would never, ever waste time, money, and energy inspecting valves in this fashion in the field. Not to mention this test explicitly stated that they were testing the available power (i.e., THEIR generation systems) not the valve itself.

    Thirdly, substandard welds and the like can be tested (and should be tested) through field tests such as this... but once again that's not what they were testing. They were testing whether battery/backup generator/etc. power would be sufficient to run their process, if grid power was lost. I'm not sure why this is so hard to comprehend; it's stated in the article after all.

    edit: Also you test for things like substandard welds using hydrotesting before you start up a unit or process. They do double check certain functions of the valves, but that occurs at startup, not mid-process. Testing a valve in this fashion is utterly inane and would not happen, period. Hence why they weren't doing that.

    And for the last time, it is utterly ridiculous that such a simple planned test could go so stupidly wrong that you actually have a release. It is indicative of poor planning, poor systems design, and poor engineering. They were testing one thing: Is power sufficient? It's a yes or no question. If the answer is yes, great! If the answer is no, then what are you going to do? For some godforsaken reason, they clearly didn't bother to answer this question sufficiently before they started the test. And for that reason the test was a failure.

    ...Unless, of course, you want to argue that the REAL test was whether or not they were idiots. In which case, the answer was yes and the test was a success!

    edit 2: In any event the crux of what we're arguing is whether or not the test was a success, and obviously two different people are going to have two different metrics. I will never call a test a success when it results in a recordable event, with associated fines, when all of those problems could've easily been avoided with slightly better planning. I mean, hey, I guess they got their answer, but I'm not a fan of the "ends justify the means, who cares if we fuck ourselves getting a simple answer" school of thought.

  • SpacemilkSpacemilk Registered User
    edited May 2010
    enc0re wrote: »
    If I ran a business and I lost a months worth of of profits due to a 4th grade supervisors mistake Id still feel it.

    They are a pretty rough and tumble company, but they aren't satan incarnate.

    If I were a shareholder, I'd want blood over this all the same. Way to piss away my money.
    The funny thing is, BP's stock jumped ~7% today once it was announced the top kill was successful.

    I'm not sure what to think about that.

  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Spacemilk wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    If I ran a business and I lost a months worth of of profits due to a 4th grade supervisors mistake Id still feel it.

    They are a pretty rough and tumble company, but they aren't satan incarnate.

    If I were a shareholder, I'd want blood over this all the same. Way to piss away my money.
    The funny thing is, BP's stock jumped ~7% today once it was announced the top kill was successful.

    I'm not sure what to think about that.

    They said we wouldn't know for 24 hours, and that's 11 minutes away. I don't think we'll know until they stop pumping mud in to see if oil comes out.

  • hippofanthippofant Helping Mario save Peach. Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    enc0re wrote: »
    WASHINGTON — A top BP worker who was aboard the Deepwater Horizon in the hours leading up to the explosion declined to testify in front of a federal panel investigating the deadly oil rig blowout, telling the U.S Coast Guard he was invoking his constitutional right to avoid self-incrimination.

    Hm...

    Come on. We all know the drill.

    If you haven't watched this, you seriously must.

    Dredging this up from a few pages ago, but the guy's talking about talking to the police, i.e. providing information to the state. This is not testifying in front of a federal panel. Like, I'm pretty sure that guy isn't suggesting that you not testify in court....

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Gaaaaaaaaah. This is not just "one more bit of difficulty," Mr. President. It's a fucking systemic problem and all of these disasters are related.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Obama's speaking live right now on the oil spill. Think he's at the question-taking stage.

    Edit: Bah, it's over!

    Currently DMing: None right now! :(
    Characters
    [5e] Myriil Amarthen - AC 17 | HP 14 | Melee +6/1d6+4 | Spell +5/DC 13
  • SpacemilkSpacemilk Registered User
    edited May 2010
    MKR wrote: »
    Spacemilk wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    If I ran a business and I lost a months worth of of profits due to a 4th grade supervisors mistake Id still feel it.

    They are a pretty rough and tumble company, but they aren't satan incarnate.

    If I were a shareholder, I'd want blood over this all the same. Way to piss away my money.
    The funny thing is, BP's stock jumped ~7% today once it was announced the top kill was successful.

    I'm not sure what to think about that.

    They said we wouldn't know for 24 hours, and that's 11 minutes away. I don't think we'll know until they stop pumping mud in to see if oil comes out.
    I agree, but the media is jumping the gun a little and the stock market is following.

    There is a very small part of me that is morbidly curious what would happen to their stock if 5 hours from now, the top kill suddenly failed spectacularly. I'm sure BP's stock will contine to climb little by little until it's officially announced what the result is; if it failed, I think it would plummet but just how far?

    Also I think it'll be several days until we know for sure whether it's successful, right? After the mud is in, won't they put cement (or something to act as a plug) over it? That's got to cure and whatnot, right?

  • SpacemilkSpacemilk Registered User
    edited May 2010
    hippofant wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    WASHINGTON — A top BP worker who was aboard the Deepwater Horizon in the hours leading up to the explosion declined to testify in front of a federal panel investigating the deadly oil rig blowout, telling the U.S Coast Guard he was invoking his constitutional right to avoid self-incrimination.

    Hm...

    Come on. We all know the drill.

    If you haven't watched this, you seriously must.

    Dredging this up from a few pages ago, but the guy's talking about talking to the police, i.e. providing information to the state. This is not testifying in front of a federal panel. Like, I'm pretty sure that guy isn't suggesting that you not testify in court....
    But don't they film or in some way record what you say to a panel? It's still evidence that can be used if the case goes to court.

  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Spacemilk wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    If I were a shareholder, I'd want blood over this all the same. Way to piss away my money.
    The funny thing is, BP's stock jumped ~7% today once it was announced the top kill was successful.

    I'm not sure what to think about that.

    It means the expectation of BP's future earnings has improved. As in, less of their profits will now be eaten up by damages. But let's put that 7% in perspective.

    4644888267_9c7789c995_o.png

  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2010
    The fifth protects you in court as well as police. You cannot be compelled to say anything that may incriminate you to anyone in this country.

    Edit: changed the verbiage for precision.

    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
  • hippofanthippofant Helping Mario save Peach. Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    The fifth protects you in court as well as police. You cannot be compelled to say anything that may incriminate you to anyone in this country.

    Edit: changed the verbiage for precision.

    Yeah, but pleading the fifth may be held against you, whereas refusing to talk to police won't... so long as you don't end up pleading the fifth in court.

    I'm just saying, that professor in the lecture was talking about a different thing.

  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    The fifth protects you in court as well as police. You cannot be compelled to say anything that may incriminate you to anyone in this country.

    Edit: changed the verbiage for precision.
    This should clear things up:
    http://boingboing.net/2008/07/28/law-prof-and-cop-agr.html

    bar_zps02bac615.jpg
  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2010
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    The fifth protects you in court as well as police. You cannot be compelled to say anything that may incriminate you to anyone in this country.

    Edit: changed the verbiage for precision.
    This should clear things up:
    http://boingboing.net/2008/07/28/law-prof-and-cop-agr.html

    There is a link to the video a few pages back.

    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    never mind then.

    bar_zps02bac615.jpg
  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2010
    hippofant wrote: »
    Yeah, but pleading the fifth may be held against you, whereas refusing to talk to police won't... so long as you don't end up pleading the fifth in court.

    I'm just saying, that professor in the lecture was talking about a different thing.

    Can you explain what you mean here, because I don't see a clause in there that provides any exceptions.

    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
  • NailbunnyPDNailbunnyPD Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    So they removed the head of MMS (they offered her another job, but she resigned.) You'd think this is a step in the right direction, except she only took the job less than a year ago. MMS and DoI will likely be unaffected by this.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/27/AR2010052703302.html

    I didn't hear the entirety of the press conference, but I wasn't exactly thrilled with what I heard. The president is still deferring to Salazar and Allen, who seem to be at the mercy of BP.

    XBL: NailbunnyPD PSN: NailbunnyPD Origin: NailbunnyPD
    NintendoID: Nailbunny 3DS: 3909-8796-4685
    steam_sig-400.png
  • hippofanthippofant Helping Mario save Peach. Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    hippofant wrote: »
    Yeah, but pleading the fifth may be held against you, whereas refusing to talk to police won't... so long as you don't end up pleading the fifth in court.

    I'm just saying, that professor in the lecture was talking about a different thing.

    Can you explain what you mean here, because I don't see a clause in there that provides any exceptions.

    From Wikipedia:
    The Supreme Court has held that “the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.” Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976). “[A]s Mr. Justice Brandeis declared, speaking for a unanimous court in the Tod case, ‘Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.’”

    That being said:
    The Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot punish a criminal defendant for exercising his right to silence, by allowing the prosecutor to ask the jury to draw an inference of guilt from the defendant's refusal to testify in his own defense.

    But my point is that a jury can go, "If he was innocent, he'd have testified." You can invoke the Fifth, but a jury's left to their own devices in interpreting your invoking the Fifth, AFAIK. Refusing to talk to the police is, I think, a markedly different situation than refusing to testify in court when subpoenaed because of the parties involved. While the "Right to Remain Silent" does extend from the Fifth Amendment's right to refuse to self-incriminate, I'd imagine that they're received very differently by juries, as noted by Justice Brandeis.

  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    hippofant wrote: »
    But my point is that a jury can go, "If he was innocent, he'd have testified." You can invoke the Fifth, but a jury's left to their own devices in interpreting your invoking the Fifth, AFAIK. Refusing to talk to the police is, I think, a markedly different situation than refusing to testify in court when subpoenaed because of the parties involved. While the "Right to Remain Silent" does extend from the Fifth Amendment's right to refuse to self-incriminate, I'd imagine that they're received very differently by juries, as noted by Justice Brandeis.

    If by "can" you mean "are allowed to," then no they cannot. It's as legal as convicting someone because they are black. Which of course happens.

  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Honestly BP is correct in not wanting anyone but a couple of designated spokes people giving out well thought out answers in this case. One wrong assertion or easily misquoted phrase can cause them tons of trouble. Especially as the BP/Transocean/Haliburton blame share % are not settled in anyway.

  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2010
    hippofant wrote: »

    From Wikipedia:
    The Supreme Court has held that “the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.” Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976). “[A]s Mr. Justice Brandeis declared, speaking for a unanimous court in the Tod case, ‘Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.’”

    And as for this part, in a civil action if the other side offers evidence and you offer nothing then of course you lose.

    Edit: Also, do not confuse civil law and criminal law. They have entirely different rules. In a civil action it is not you versus the government, it is you versus the opposing civil party.

    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
  • hippofanthippofant Helping Mario save Peach. Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    enc0re wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    But my point is that a jury can go, "If he was innocent, he'd have testified." You can invoke the Fifth, but a jury's left to their own devices in interpreting your invoking the Fifth, AFAIK. Refusing to talk to the police is, I think, a markedly different situation than refusing to testify in court when subpoenaed because of the parties involved. While the "Right to Remain Silent" does extend from the Fifth Amendment's right to refuse to self-incriminate, I'd imagine that they're received very differently by juries, as noted by Justice Brandeis.

    If by "can" you mean "are allowed to," then no they cannot. It's as legal as convicting someone because they are black. Which of course happens.

    I did say can, not may :P

    Also, I don't know. I'd be surprised if there haven't been studies, either psychological or statistical, on the effects of pleading the fifth, but I can't find any at the moment. The wording of the Fifth Amendment almost implies guilt though, because it's the right not to be a witness against oneself; if the withheld testimony isn't self-incriminating, then technically the Fifth Amendment could not be invoked, no? Unless the withheld testimony is self-incriminating for another uncharged crime as opposed to the ones currently being tried, but...

    Look, all I'm saying is that not testifying in court isn't what the professor in the video lecture was talking about, if I recall correctly. He was talking about not talking to the police. Whether one should or should not invoke the Fifth Amendment in different cases is something I'm not knowledgeable of; I'm simply stating that it's a different thing.

    Edit: And I very much did not confuse civil and criminal law. Hence the two separate quotations, and the Fifth Amendment does expressly say the self-incrimination clause applies only to criminal proceedings. Although a federal panel isn't either, right, so I'm unsure of what the implications of pleading the fifth are in that situation or even if you can if it's not a criminal proceeding? Isn't that why you can be held in contempt of Congress if you invoke the Fifth, because you technically can't?

  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2010
    And don't think somehow that a subpoena compels testimony. It compels appearance of the subpoenaed person or materials. you still don't have to say jack or shit. There is no difference. The police are agents of the prosecutor's office. The prosecutor is an officer of the court.


    Ongoing edit: Weird double posting action!

    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
  • BarcardiBarcardi All the Wizards Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Its finally coming out pretty strong that BP and the Govt down there are blocking the press. Here is the Newsweek article on it. I wonder how long until some reporter grows some balls and just goes out into the blocked off areas on his own.

    Also there are more and more conflicting reports that the whole mud thing is working, or is half working.

  • override367override367 misogynist/MRA/socially irresponsible Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    The fifth protects you in court as well as police. You cannot be compelled to say anything that may incriminate you to anyone in this country.

    Edit: changed the verbiage for precision.
    This should clear things up:
    http://boingboing.net/2008/07/28/law-prof-and-cop-agr.html

    There is a link to the video a few pages back.

    I'd never seen the cop portion of that video, it's nice to hear a cop admit that if a cop wants to, he can find something to pull you over for justifiably - that everyone is a criminal

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Barcardi wrote: »
    Its finally coming out pretty strong that BP and the Govt down there are blocking the press. Here is the Newsweek article on it. I wonder how long until some reporter grows some balls and just goes out into the blocked off areas on his own.

    Also there are more and more conflicting reports that the whole mud thing is working, or is half working.

    Yeah, I'm not too confident about it with how jittery the BP guy was and the "well all these people are doing their best" talk. They don't even appear to have slowed down the pumping to check, even though they said we would know within 24 hours (though this might be a misquote or something someone in the press said).

    I guess if they can keep pumping the oil down until they get the relief wells drilled, it doesn't matter, but how much of this stuff do they have?

  • TofystedethTofystedeth veni, veneri, vamoosi Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    well, half-working is better than nothing.

    steam_sig.png
  • override367override367 misogynist/MRA/socially irresponsible Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Of course we can Ebum. We can try them here.

    Who wants to be the defense?

    I will be!

    If it pleases the court - My client, BP, is really fucking rich.

    I rest my case


    Judge: Case dismissed

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Barcardi wrote: »
    Its finally coming out pretty strong that BP and the Govt down there are blocking the press. Here is the Newsweek article on it. I wonder how long until some reporter grows some balls and just goes out into the blocked off areas on his own.

    Also there are more and more conflicting reports that the whole mud thing is working, or is half working.

    Hee, reporters with balls. I love idealists.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • BarcardiBarcardi All the Wizards Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Ok, so there is probably a greater chance of a volunteer or even a angry employee bringing along a camera.

  • Best AmericaBest America __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    well, half-working is better than nothing.
    the issue with half-working is that the top-kill is the top-kill; it's not something which will work more or work less over time, once we've taken enough time to see just how effectively it's working to begin with

    I never had much confidence in the top-kill, but I was pleasantly surprised to wake up this morning to, "We did it!" Of course, when I poked and prodded I found out that they hadn't actually succeeded at anything other than not failing. I was only nervous at that point about whether or not they'd be able to get the cement plug in after having succeeded stabilizing the kill, but now there's skepticism about whether or not they've even managed to do that. :/

    right you got it
  • TofystedethTofystedeth veni, veneri, vamoosi Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Well, if it is halfworking, then it's presumably slowed the amount of oil gushing out by some fraction, which means that there's that much less oil that comes out before the relief wells are done.

    steam_sig.png
  • lsukalellsukalel Registered User
    edited May 2010
    well, half-working is better than nothing.
    the issue with half-working is that the top-kill is the top-kill; it's not something which will work more or work less over time, once we've taken enough time to see just how effectively it's working to begin with

    I never had much confidence in the top-kill, but I was pleasantly surprised to wake up this morning to, "We did it!" Of course, when I poked and prodded I found out that they hadn't actually succeeded at anything other than not failing. I was only nervous at that point about whether or not they'd be able to get the cement plug in after having succeeded stabilizing the kill, but now there's skepticism about whether or not they've even managed to do that. :/

    K look I am not a huge BP defender but lets not act like plugging this thing up is easy. It isn't and because we all apparently love italics I will use them too. It isn't at all

    We the Jury find the Defendant, "Kind of Bad."
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I heard that BP wants Twitter to shut down an account someone made parodying BP.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    lsukalel wrote: »
    well, half-working is better than nothing.
    the issue with half-working is that the top-kill is the top-kill; it's not something which will work more or work less over time, once we've taken enough time to see just how effectively it's working to begin with

    I never had much confidence in the top-kill, but I was pleasantly surprised to wake up this morning to, "We did it!" Of course, when I poked and prodded I found out that they hadn't actually succeeded at anything other than not failing. I was only nervous at that point about whether or not they'd be able to get the cement plug in after having succeeded stabilizing the kill, but now there's skepticism about whether or not they've even managed to do that. :/

    K look I am not a huge BP defender but lets not act like plugging this thing up is easy. It isn't and because we all apparently love italics I will use them too. It isn't at all

    how dare you defend bp

    how dare you

    how much are they paying you hmm

    did you just finish reading atlas shrugged

    hurrr


    On a serious note, yes, I imagine this thing to be fucking hard. 5000 feet of water complicates things.

    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    lsukalel wrote: »
    well, half-working is better than nothing.
    the issue with half-working is that the top-kill is the top-kill; it's not something which will work more or work less over time, once we've taken enough time to see just how effectively it's working to begin with

    I never had much confidence in the top-kill, but I was pleasantly surprised to wake up this morning to, "We did it!" Of course, when I poked and prodded I found out that they hadn't actually succeeded at anything other than not failing. I was only nervous at that point about whether or not they'd be able to get the cement plug in after having succeeded stabilizing the kill, but now there's skepticism about whether or not they've even managed to do that. :/

    K look I am not a huge BP defender but lets not act like plugging this thing up is easy. It isn't and because we all apparently love italics I will use them too. It isn't at all

    Who's acting like it's easy?

  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    I heard that BP wants Twitter to shut down an account someone made parodying BP.

    SpillBPSpill?

    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    I heard that BP wants Twitter to shut down an account someone made parodying BP.

    SpillBPSpill?

    *Facepalm* Why do they try and do things like that when parody is explicitly covered in our laws.

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    I heard that BP wants Twitter to shut down an account someone made parodying BP.

    SpillBPSpill?

    *Facepalm* Why do they try and do things like that when parody is explicitly covered in our laws.

    I was just making a wild guess. Is that the actual username?

    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • Saint MadnessSaint Madness Registered User
    edited May 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    I heard that BP wants Twitter to shut down an account someone made parodying BP.

    SpillBPSpill?

    *Facepalm* Why do they try and do things like that when parody is explicitly covered in our laws.

    I was just making a wild guess. Is that the actual username?

    Nope

    BPtweet.jpg

This discussion has been closed.