Yeah, the tech is there. We just need to get infrastructure to support it. That's a lot of work, but not a lot of R&D.
Besides the currently insane expense of actually produce the cars(clarity is estimated at 300k a pop). Where does the hydrogen come from?
Fracturing light hydrocarbons(Generally heating methane with steam)
edit: you have to drill to get methane, normally in the same spots you drill for oil.
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
edited May 2010
It does seem odd for Obama to be apologizing, but I imagine it's a smart political move. Even if it's not his fault, it makes him more personable or something.
It's the same reason he doesn't call half of Congress fucking idiots for pulling the shit they do, even though it's very obvious to most of us.
It certainly is, BP admits it is in the Daily Beast article. It's not really surprising, this sort of purposefully fanciful and "funny" example is ubiquitous in neoclassical economics, MBA programs, and internal corporate communications like this. It distances the example from reality and trivializes the actual human cost, which I suppose is the point.
It does seem odd for Obama to be apologizing, but I imagine it's a smart political move. Even if it's not his fault, it makes him more personable or something.
It's the same reason he doesn't call half of Congress fucking idiots for pulling the shit they do, even though it's very obvious to most of us.
I wouldn't be upset if he had certain members of congress flayed alive for the shit they do, but I'd really really like at least the acknowledgment of how bad they are
It certainly is, BP admits it is in the Daily Beast article. It's not really surprising, this sort of purposefully fanciful and "funny" example is ubiquitous in neoclassical economics, MBA programs, and internal corporate communications like this. It distances the example from reality and trivializes the actual human cost, which I suppose is the point.
The issue is that most likely in real life, the "best" option in this scenario would be the straw option because it would probably be cheap enough to justify it, but it ignores externalities like the value of a life that make brick the option you should choose.
Just like "we can save money and statistically the cost-benefit analysis says it is worth it to half ass the concrete around the BOP". Which ignores the giant disaster that affects the entire gulf region if an accident occurs.
It certainly is, BP admits it is in the Daily Beast article. It's not really surprising, this sort of purposefully fanciful and "funny" example is ubiquitous in neoclassical economics, MBA programs, and internal corporate communications like this. It distances the example from reality and trivializes the actual human cost, which I suppose is the point.
The issue is that most likely in real life, the "best" option in this scenario would be the straw option because it would probably be cheap enough to justify it, but it ignores externalities like the value of a life that make brick the option you should choose.
Just like "we can save money and statistically the cost-benefit analysis says it is worth it to half ass the concrete around the BOP". Which ignores the giant disaster that affects the entire gulf region if an accident occurs.
It's mostly, as I've mentioned in the old thread, we suck as a species at evaluating risk and probability. Especially when lots of money is involved.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The assumptions in this are strawmen to the point of absurdity. What kind of ridiculous equipment costs as much as the *potential* damage it could prevent, especially when we're talking about damage potential up to and including the corruption of an ocean, the poisoning of states worth of people, destruction of economies, tsunamis, and extinction of species (if you could even put prices on those things)?
...Also, what enlightenedbum said.
Marty81 on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited May 2010
It's not a strawman, it's an example of a cost-benefit analysis of an uncertain/risk situation (typical in the insurance industry, which is what this example basically is, house insurance for piggies). You take the cost of the fix (in this case a house). You then estimate the value of the thing you're insuring: in this case we have a simple number of $1000, but in reality this is where the meat of the calculation comes into play if you actually act properly (like a general insurance company) and bring into account all variables (sicknesses, life expectancy, geographical location, etc). You get this value and you multiply it by the likelihood that the situation you're insuring against is likely to happen. You add this to the cost of the fix and you get your cost-benefit number for how much the insurance is going to cost you.
Which is why the Straw house, which is the cheapest to make is not the best option in the example because of its high vulnerability of blowing down. Instead, it's the Brick house that comes out as the option to pick.
It's an entirely economic approach to illustrating how to quantify uncertainty for the purposes of things like insurance. It's neither wrong nor right if you're using it for that purpose, and if your sole operating value is profit maximization. If it's worker safety, then you wouldn't strictly use this.
It's not a strawman, it's an example of a cost-benefit analysis of an uncertain/risk situation (typical in the insurance industry, which is what this example basically is, house insurance for piggies). You take the cost of the fix (in this case a house). You then estimate the value of the thing you're insuring: in this case we have a simple number of $1000, but in reality this is where the meat of the calculation comes into play if you actually act properly (like a general insurance company) and bring into account all variables (sicknesses, life expectancy, geographical location, etc). You get this value and you multiply it by the likelihood that the situation you're insuring against is likely to happen. You add this to the cost of the fix and you get your cost-benefit number for how much the insurance is going to cost you.
Which is why the Straw house, which is the cheapest to make is not the best option in the example because of its high vulnerability of blowing down. Instead, it's the Brick house that comes out as the option to pick.
It's an entirely economic approach to illustrating how to quantify uncertainty for the purposes of things like insurance. It's neither wrong nor right if you're using it for that purpose, and if your sole operating value is profit maximization. If it's worker safety, then you wouldn't strictly use this.
Well, the problem is that somehow the pig evaluates its own life as being worth only $1000. Which is also the price of the Blast Resistant House... So... um....
Edit: I mean, according to this, it'd be a good deal for one of the pigs to sell one of his brothers for a house.
hippofant on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited May 2010
Can anyone tell me why my mother is being fanatical about right wing radio praising Kevin Costner about having a solution for cleaning the oil and how President Obama is evil for getting in the way? I'm curious.
Henroid on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
It's not a strawman, it's an example of a cost-benefit analysis of an uncertain/risk situation (typical in the insurance industry, which is what this example basically is, house insurance for piggies). You take the cost of the fix (in this case a house). You then estimate the value of the thing you're insuring: in this case we have a simple number of $1000, but in reality this is where the meat of the calculation comes into play if you actually act properly (like a general insurance company) and bring into account all variables (sicknesses, life expectancy, geographical location, etc). You get this value and you multiply it by the likelihood that the situation you're insuring against is likely to happen. You add this to the cost of the fix and you get your cost-benefit number for how much the insurance is going to cost you.
Which is why the Straw house, which is the cheapest to make is not the best option in the example because of its high vulnerability of blowing down. Instead, it's the Brick house that comes out as the option to pick.
It's an entirely economic approach to illustrating how to quantify uncertainty for the purposes of things like insurance. It's neither wrong nor right if you're using it for that purpose, and if your sole operating value is profit maximization. If it's worker safety, then you wouldn't strictly use this.
Well, the problem is that somehow the pig evaluates its own life as being worth only $1000. Which is also the price of the Blast Resistant House... So... um....
Edit: I mean, according to this, it'd be a good deal for one of the pigs to sell one of his brothers for a house.
It's a shorthand figure for the purposes of providing a simple number for an example. The purpose of the example is to demonstrate the cost-benefit calculation process, not to examine the separate valuation process of individual elements.
Which is why I mentioned that humans suck at evaluating risk, especially with lots of money involved.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited May 2010
Okay so apparently Kevin Costner has machines that can clean up oil that is on the surface but the president won't OK their use. The most I could find on the story though is that BP ran several of the machines for test use and that's it. What's going on with this, so I can tell my mother next time we talk to fuck off with her incomplete stories?
machines that can clean up oil that is on the surface
Isn't the vast majority of oil below the surface anyway? Wouldn't it require a shitload of these machines due to the vast amount of miles the oil covers even if you only include water near the coast?
It's a shorthand figure for the purposes of providing a simple number for an example. The purpose of the example is to demonstrate the cost-benefit calculation process, not to examine the separate valuation process of individual elements.
Look, I don't dispute the value of the concept being taught here. I mean, in the last thread, I was doing calculations to demonstrate that pretty much anything BP could have done to hedge against such an event would have been a statistically supported action due to the ridiculously large, negative expectation from such an event.
But there are many examples with which you can teach the concept of expectation vis a vis cost benefit analysis without having to value a life. In terms of teaching, it's generally advisable to avoid examples that will have obvious problems that will distract from the concept being taught; in terms of PR, an oil company probably doesn't want to be caught showing its employees how lives can be valuated in cost benefit analyses, never mind with such low valuations; in terms of morality, what is a company doing assigning monetary values to lives, even if it's imaginary money to a fake life. It's just....
I mean, look, I can try to teach someone about supply and demand and proper pricing using the example of gangs demanding protection money from slum residents, but there are just so many reasons not to.
hippofant on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
machines that can clean up oil that is on the surface
Isn't the vast majority of oil below the surface anyway? Wouldn't it require a shitload of these machines due to the vast amount of miles the oil covers even if you only include water near the coast?
The counterpoint she provided is that the machines are privately owned and it wouldn't cost anyone anything for them to go to use, aside from the actor. Who already gave his okay, I guess. I mean he bought the company that makes that stuff when the Exxon Valdez thing happened.
It's not a strawman, it's an example of a cost-benefit analysis of an uncertain/risk situation (typical in the insurance industry, which is what this example basically is, house insurance for piggies). You take the cost of the fix (in this case a house). You then estimate the value of the thing you're insuring: in this case we have a simple number of $1000, but in reality this is where the meat of the calculation comes into play if you actually act properly (like a general insurance company) and bring into account all variables (sicknesses, life expectancy, geographical location, etc). You get this value and you multiply it by the likelihood that the situation you're insuring against is likely to happen. You add this to the cost of the fix and you get your cost-benefit number for how much the insurance is going to cost you.
Which is why the Straw house, which is the cheapest to make is not the best option in the example because of its high vulnerability of blowing down. Instead, it's the Brick house that comes out as the option to pick.
It's an entirely economic approach to illustrating how to quantify uncertainty for the purposes of things like insurance. It's neither wrong nor right if you're using it for that purpose, and if your sole operating value is profit maximization. If it's worker safety, then you wouldn't strictly use this.
Well yeah, the math is right. My point is the situation they've set up to do the math on is completely absurd. MJS=how much they will have to spend in case of disaster. In this example MJS is exactly equal to the cost of the best readily available protection, which never happens in real life, and if it did happen it would never result in choosing that option if *any* cheaper option were available. That's why it's an absurd.
In the kinds of situations BP operates in, MJS >>>>>>>>>>>> that cost, if MJS can even be quantified in terms of $. If this is just a silly training sheet, fine. If it's an attempt at indoctrination towards risky safety practices (unlikely but possible), that's awful. In either case the example they set up to do the math on is purely ridiculous.
Marty81 on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited May 2010
It's an example used to demonstrate the concept, I really don't see how what particular imaginary situation they used somehow alters the economic point behind the example (hippofant's contention, if I read it right). It's an economic tool (somewhat of a political science tool as well if you're dealing with risk/uncertainty analysis), there is no inherent moral or ethical component to it unless one is arguing that it leads to the debasement of human life in general and that is far less of a fault of the tool itself and includes a number of other factors including culture, widespread industry ethical norms (or lackthereof), shoddy instruction in the tool itself and its proper applications, ineptitude of actually considering all the externalities, etc. Personally I found the three little piggies + home material way of demonstration quaint (and probably easily relatable to anyone who grew up in America).
As to optics, it has terrible optics. That was the entire thrust of the link that accompanied the letter: it was found during the course of an actual situation where people died and there was litigation and served to otherwise tar BP's image. I don't necessarily think it was connected to widespread non-consideration of actual human life (the link doesn't provide evidence of such beyond the posted example), but brought up in a political situation (namely, its associated court case) it can be easily connected with such a theory. But this is a political negative associated with how the tool is used and not an inherent flaw with the tool itself.
As to optics, it has terrible optics. That was the entire thrust of the link that accompanied the letter: it was found during the course of an actual situation where people died and there was litigation and served to otherwise tar BP's image. I don't necessarily think it was connected to widespread non-consideration of actual human life (the link doesn't provide evidence of such beyond the posted example), but brought up in a political situation it can be easily connected with such a theory. But this is a political negative associated with how the tool is used and not an inherent flaw with the tool itself.
You're right. I'm just ranting because the example itself is so stupid (IMO).
As to optics, it has terrible optics. That was the entire thrust of the link that accompanied the letter: it was found during the course of an actual situation where people died and there was litigation and served to otherwise tar BP's image. I don't necessarily think it was connected to widespread non-consideration of actual human life (the link doesn't provide evidence of such beyond the posted example), but brought up in a political situation it can be easily connected with such a theory. But this is a political negative associated with how the tool is used and not an inherent flaw with the tool itself.
You're right. I'm just ranting because the example itself is so stupid (IMO).
It would be fitting for a 101 type class, but if the company needs a situation this basic to help them understand risk I am concerned.
machines that can clean up oil that is on the surface
Isn't the vast majority of oil below the surface anyway? Wouldn't it require a shitload of these machines due to the vast amount of miles the oil covers even if you only include water near the coast?
The counterpoint she provided is that the machines are privately owned and it wouldn't cost anyone anything for them to go to use, aside from the actor. Who already gave his okay, I guess. I mean he bought the company that makes that stuff when the Exxon Valdez thing happened.
Costner has a number of these machines that can do low volumes of water and in and of themselves would have virtually no effect.
Significantly larger versions could be built, but good luck getting someone to pay for that.
override367 on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
machines that can clean up oil that is on the surface
Isn't the vast majority of oil below the surface anyway? Wouldn't it require a shitload of these machines due to the vast amount of miles the oil covers even if you only include water near the coast?
The counterpoint she provided is that the machines are privately owned and it wouldn't cost anyone anything for them to go to use, aside from the actor. Who already gave his okay, I guess. I mean he bought the company that makes that stuff when the Exxon Valdez thing happened.
Costner has a number of these machines that can do low volumes of water and in and of themselves would have virtually no effect.
Significantly larger versions could be built, but good luck getting someone to pay for that.
Any source on how much water they can clean? Because the bullshit number of "200,000 gallons" (per machine) came from my mother's Glenn Beck ass-kissing mouth.
I believe the company has two machines that can clean 200k gallons per day and many other machines at various speeds. It is proven technology that they want to use. There was a link to a newspage and video in the old thread around page 75 or something (25 p/pg).
SkyCaptain on
The RPG Bestiary - Dangerous foes and legendary monsters for D&D 4th Edition
So the GOp is shitting themselves with glee over this. Obama's response how would you grade it?
The coast guard was there right from the start. He did dispatch the proper cabinet officials pretty quick. However the spill ballooned beyond anyone's control pretty damn quick. I lay a significant part of the blame at BP's feet as it seems like they tried downplay the severity of the spill for a while. But I think the govt has let them twist in the wind too long.
I don't understand why people are saying Obama hasn't done much.
It's an oil spill 5,000 feet underwater. Everything that can be done is being done already. I think maybe people expect him to don a wetsuit and stop the leak with his finger or something =/
Millions of white Americans look for excuses to hate Obama. Right now they are making a big deal of the fact that he will not be in Arlington National Cemetery for Memorial Day. Reagan was not there in 1983. Bush I was not there in 1992. Bush II was not there in 2007. The wingnuts don't care. Obama's absence means that he "hates America."
So the GOp is shitting themselves with glee over this. Obama's response how would you grade it?
The coast guard was there right from the start. He did dispatch the proper cabinet officials pretty quick. However the spill ballooned beyond anyone's control pretty damn quick. I lay a significant part of the blame at BP's feet as it seems like they tried downplay the severity of the spill for a while. But I think the govt has let them twist in the wind too long.
I don't understand why people are saying Obama hasn't done much.
It's an oil spill 5,000 feet underwater. Everything that can be done is being done already. I think maybe people expect him to don a wetsuit and stop the leak with his finger or something =/
Millions of white Americans look for excuses to hate Obama. Right now they are making a big deal of the fact that he will not be in Arlington National Cemetery for Memorial Day. Reagan was not there in 1983. Bush I was not there in 1992. Bush II was not there in 2007. The wingnuts don't care. Obama's absence means that he "hates America."
Or it could just be that partisans are playing political sport and trying to make this Obama's "Katrina" to try and fuel the same type of dislike for him that the populace eventually had for their man, Bush. They would be saying the same things if Clinton were in office.
So the GOp is shitting themselves with glee over this. Obama's response how would you grade it?
The coast guard was there right from the start. He did dispatch the proper cabinet officials pretty quick. However the spill ballooned beyond anyone's control pretty damn quick. I lay a significant part of the blame at BP's feet as it seems like they tried downplay the severity of the spill for a while. But I think the govt has let them twist in the wind too long.
I don't understand why people are saying Obama hasn't done much.
It's an oil spill 5,000 feet underwater. Everything that can be done is being done already. I think maybe people expect him to don a wetsuit and stop the leak with his finger or something =/
Millions of white Americans look for excuses to hate Obama. Right now they are making a big deal of the fact that he will not be in Arlington National Cemetery for Memorial Day. Reagan was not there in 1983. Bush I was not there in 1992. Bush II was not there in 2007. The wingnuts don't care. Obama's absence means that he "hates America."
Or it could just be that partisans are playing political sport and trying to make this Obama's "Katrina" to try and fuel the same type of dislike for him that the populace eventually had for their man, Bush. They would be saying the same things if Clinton were in office.
Clinton got pillaged mostly for his, and his wifes, treatment of the military while they were in office. While a lot of the stuff was simply because he was a liberal, there were a couple snafu's that came off as disrespectful.
So the GOp is shitting themselves with glee over this. Obama's response how would you grade it?
The coast guard was there right from the start. He did dispatch the proper cabinet officials pretty quick. However the spill ballooned beyond anyone's control pretty damn quick. I lay a significant part of the blame at BP's feet as it seems like they tried downplay the severity of the spill for a while. But I think the govt has let them twist in the wind too long.
I don't understand why people are saying Obama hasn't done much.
It's an oil spill 5,000 feet underwater. Everything that can be done is being done already. I think maybe people expect him to don a wetsuit and stop the leak with his finger or something =/
Millions of white Americans look for excuses to hate Obama. Right now they are making a big deal of the fact that he will not be in Arlington National Cemetery for Memorial Day. Reagan was not there in 1983. Bush I was not there in 1992. Bush II was not there in 2007. The wingnuts don't care. Obama's absence means that he "hates America."
Or it could just be that partisans are playing political sport and trying to make this Obama's "Katrina" to try and fuel the same type of dislike for him that the populace eventually had for their man, Bush. They would be saying the same things if Clinton were in office.
Ya know, I really do wonder. I don't mean that sarcastically, either. I see at least three major variables at play that have to do with this rabid "we must find a reason to hate Obama", and I can't really think of any way to gauge their relative strengths:
1. Recession. People's lives are not awesome and they're hungry for someone to vent their frustrations out on and to blame for this.
2. The onset of 24/7 media, blogs, and general Internet discussions. There's a whole lot more incentive to constantly find new things to dramatize and try to get people's attention about these days, so even "Obama didn't put ketchup on his hamburger" gets spinned to extreme degrees.
3. Obama is a Black dude. We live in an age where racism is not okay... to discuss openly. Nonetheless, there's a near-infinite number of studies demonstrating we're still all pretty racist. But since we can't consciously point our finger to his blackness and go "there's what I dislike" we make slight tangents. He's a Muslim! He loves Islam! He's not a good Christian! Where's his birth certificate?? I'd say that those attack points are due more to his race than the recession or 24/7 media, but I have no way to prove this.
What do you guys think? Valid 'factors'? Am I missing some important ones? Is there any way to figure out relative weights?
1. The country is in the crapper, time to hate the boss.
2. Blogs and biased media catering to one view point on both sides increasing tensions.
3. Old people hate liberals
4. Race
I'd say those are the factors in order. I don't know how old you are, but a lot the same sort of crap happened when Clinton got elected, and a lot of it was even more hysterical and insane. And even after he fixed the economy, they still went after him cause liberals!
And let's not forget that Bush was routinely painted as a monkey, Hitler, ect. Nobody called racism then. But now that we have Obama it must be racism! Doesn't make much sense.
There are racists. However half of this country will lose their collective shit after each election, and act really stupid for a while.
BP engineers failed again to plug the gushing oil well on Saturday, a technician working on the project said, representing yet another setback in a series of unsuccessful procedures the company has tried a mile under the sea to stem the flow spreading into the Gulf of Mexico.
BP made a third attempt at what is termed the “junk shot” Friday night, a procedure that involves pumping odds and ends like plastic cubes, knotted rope, and golf balls into the blowout preventer, the five-story safety device atop the well. The maneuver is complementary to the heavily scrutinized effort known as a “top kill,”which began four days ago and involves pumping heavy mud into the well to counteract the push of the escaping oil. If the well is sealed, the company plans to then fill it with cement. ...
“Right now, I would not be optimistic,” the technician, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak publicly about the effort. ...
The technician said Friday that despite all the injections, at various pressure levels, engineers had been able to keep less than 10 percent of the injection fluids inside the stack of pipes above the well. He said that was barely an improvement on the results Wednesday, when the operation began and was suspended after about 10 hours.
also there are some terrorble pictures of dead dolphins circulating but I'm not sure they aren't hoaxes intended to incite public rage so I won't crosspost them
BP engineers failed again to plug the gushing oil well on Saturday, a technician working on the project said, representing yet another setback in a series of unsuccessful procedures the company has tried a mile under the sea to stem the flow spreading into the Gulf of Mexico.
BP made a third attempt at what is termed the “junk shot” Friday night, a procedure that involves pumping odds and ends like plastic cubes, knotted rope, and golf balls into the blowout preventer, the five-story safety device atop the well. The maneuver is complementary to the heavily scrutinized effort known as a “top kill,”which began four days ago and involves pumping heavy mud into the well to counteract the push of the escaping oil. If the well is sealed, the company plans to then fill it with cement. ...
“Right now, I would not be optimistic,” the technician, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak publicly about the effort. ...
The technician said Friday that despite all the injections, at various pressure levels, engineers had been able to keep less than 10 percent of the injection fluids inside the stack of pipes above the well. He said that was barely an improvement on the results Wednesday, when the operation began and was suspended after about 10 hours.
also there are some terrorble pictures of dead dolphins circulating but I'm not sure they aren't hoaxes intended to incite public rage so I won't crosspost them
Honestly, even if the top kill is failing, every day that you keep it up is a day the oil isn't flowing into the gulf and thats 10,000 barrels. Now, I don't know how much MUD costs, but I'm sure that it's less than the damage done by 10000 barrels of oil into the ocean. So unless BP has a damn dome to drop right now, they should keep pumping mud 24/7. I've heard some sources say there is a shortage of mud? Which is the silliest thing I've ever heard.
Obama has handled the situation admirably, and within the laws he is obliged to follow. The only problem is that he should demand government people be present to observe every step and report it accurately, but I'm fairly confident that demand would be illegal.
The annoying thing is simply that BP seems to be doing one thing at a time. They should be building a new dome right now, so what if they don't need it. They can have it standing by for the next one. They should be commisioning giant oil sucking submarines which can run 5000 feet of pipe behind them which can go down to the leak and just suck directly on it. This 'one attempt at a time' approach is what is frustrating. Again however I'm sure it's the law stopping us demanding this, not Obama being overly nice.
Posts
Besides the currently insane expense of actually produce the cars(clarity is estimated at 300k a pop). Where does the hydrogen come from?
Fracturing light hydrocarbons(Generally heating methane with steam)
edit: you have to drill to get methane, normally in the same spots you drill for oil.
Wait, is this real?
It's the same reason he doesn't call half of Congress fucking idiots for pulling the shit they do, even though it's very obvious to most of us.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
It certainly is, BP admits it is in the Daily Beast article. It's not really surprising, this sort of purposefully fanciful and "funny" example is ubiquitous in neoclassical economics, MBA programs, and internal corporate communications like this. It distances the example from reality and trivializes the actual human cost, which I suppose is the point.
I wouldn't be upset if he had certain members of congress flayed alive for the shit they do, but I'd really really like at least the acknowledgment of how bad they are
It really is just an endless amount of crap floating around.
The issue is that most likely in real life, the "best" option in this scenario would be the straw option because it would probably be cheap enough to justify it, but it ignores externalities like the value of a life that make brick the option you should choose.
Just like "we can save money and statistically the cost-benefit analysis says it is worth it to half ass the concrete around the BOP". Which ignores the giant disaster that affects the entire gulf region if an accident occurs.
It's mostly, as I've mentioned in the old thread, we suck as a species at evaluating risk and probability. Especially when lots of money is involved.
The assumptions in this are strawmen to the point of absurdity. What kind of ridiculous equipment costs as much as the *potential* damage it could prevent, especially when we're talking about damage potential up to and including the corruption of an ocean, the poisoning of states worth of people, destruction of economies, tsunamis, and extinction of species (if you could even put prices on those things)?
...Also, what enlightenedbum said.
Which is why the Straw house, which is the cheapest to make is not the best option in the example because of its high vulnerability of blowing down. Instead, it's the Brick house that comes out as the option to pick.
It's an entirely economic approach to illustrating how to quantify uncertainty for the purposes of things like insurance. It's neither wrong nor right if you're using it for that purpose, and if your sole operating value is profit maximization. If it's worker safety, then you wouldn't strictly use this.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Well, the problem is that somehow the pig evaluates its own life as being worth only $1000. Which is also the price of the Blast Resistant House... So... um....
Edit: I mean, according to this, it'd be a good deal for one of the pigs to sell one of his brothers for a house.
It's a shorthand figure for the purposes of providing a simple number for an example. The purpose of the example is to demonstrate the cost-benefit calculation process, not to examine the separate valuation process of individual elements.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
He made Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves though!
Isn't the vast majority of oil below the surface anyway? Wouldn't it require a shitload of these machines due to the vast amount of miles the oil covers even if you only include water near the coast?
Look, I don't dispute the value of the concept being taught here. I mean, in the last thread, I was doing calculations to demonstrate that pretty much anything BP could have done to hedge against such an event would have been a statistically supported action due to the ridiculously large, negative expectation from such an event.
But there are many examples with which you can teach the concept of expectation vis a vis cost benefit analysis without having to value a life. In terms of teaching, it's generally advisable to avoid examples that will have obvious problems that will distract from the concept being taught; in terms of PR, an oil company probably doesn't want to be caught showing its employees how lives can be valuated in cost benefit analyses, never mind with such low valuations; in terms of morality, what is a company doing assigning monetary values to lives, even if it's imaginary money to a fake life. It's just....
I mean, look, I can try to teach someone about supply and demand and proper pricing using the example of gangs demanding protection money from slum residents, but there are just so many reasons not to.
The counterpoint she provided is that the machines are privately owned and it wouldn't cost anyone anything for them to go to use, aside from the actor. Who already gave his okay, I guess. I mean he bought the company that makes that stuff when the Exxon Valdez thing happened.
Well yeah, the math is right. My point is the situation they've set up to do the math on is completely absurd. MJS=how much they will have to spend in case of disaster. In this example MJS is exactly equal to the cost of the best readily available protection, which never happens in real life, and if it did happen it would never result in choosing that option if *any* cheaper option were available. That's why it's an absurd.
In the kinds of situations BP operates in, MJS >>>>>>>>>>>> that cost, if MJS can even be quantified in terms of $. If this is just a silly training sheet, fine. If it's an attempt at indoctrination towards risky safety practices (unlikely but possible), that's awful. In either case the example they set up to do the math on is purely ridiculous.
As to optics, it has terrible optics. That was the entire thrust of the link that accompanied the letter: it was found during the course of an actual situation where people died and there was litigation and served to otherwise tar BP's image. I don't necessarily think it was connected to widespread non-consideration of actual human life (the link doesn't provide evidence of such beyond the posted example), but brought up in a political situation (namely, its associated court case) it can be easily connected with such a theory. But this is a political negative associated with how the tool is used and not an inherent flaw with the tool itself.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
You're right. I'm just ranting because the example itself is so stupid (IMO).
It would be fitting for a 101 type class, but if the company needs a situation this basic to help them understand risk I am concerned.
Costner has a number of these machines that can do low volumes of water and in and of themselves would have virtually no effect.
Significantly larger versions could be built, but good luck getting someone to pay for that.
Any source on how much water they can clean? Because the bullshit number of "200,000 gallons" (per machine) came from my mother's Glenn Beck ass-kissing mouth.
Millions of white Americans look for excuses to hate Obama. Right now they are making a big deal of the fact that he will not be in Arlington National Cemetery for Memorial Day. Reagan was not there in 1983. Bush I was not there in 1992. Bush II was not there in 2007. The wingnuts don't care. Obama's absence means that he "hates America."
Or it could just be that partisans are playing political sport and trying to make this Obama's "Katrina" to try and fuel the same type of dislike for him that the populace eventually had for their man, Bush. They would be saying the same things if Clinton were in office.
Clinton got pillaged mostly for his, and his wifes, treatment of the military while they were in office. While a lot of the stuff was simply because he was a liberal, there were a couple snafu's that came off as disrespectful.
Ya know, I really do wonder. I don't mean that sarcastically, either. I see at least three major variables at play that have to do with this rabid "we must find a reason to hate Obama", and I can't really think of any way to gauge their relative strengths:
1. Recession. People's lives are not awesome and they're hungry for someone to vent their frustrations out on and to blame for this.
2. The onset of 24/7 media, blogs, and general Internet discussions. There's a whole lot more incentive to constantly find new things to dramatize and try to get people's attention about these days, so even "Obama didn't put ketchup on his hamburger" gets spinned to extreme degrees.
3. Obama is a Black dude. We live in an age where racism is not okay... to discuss openly. Nonetheless, there's a near-infinite number of studies demonstrating we're still all pretty racist. But since we can't consciously point our finger to his blackness and go "there's what I dislike" we make slight tangents. He's a Muslim! He loves Islam! He's not a good Christian! Where's his birth certificate?? I'd say that those attack points are due more to his race than the recession or 24/7 media, but I have no way to prove this.
What do you guys think? Valid 'factors'? Am I missing some important ones? Is there any way to figure out relative weights?
2. Blogs and biased media catering to one view point on both sides increasing tensions.
3. Old people hate liberals
4. Race
I'd say those are the factors in order. I don't know how old you are, but a lot the same sort of crap happened when Clinton got elected, and a lot of it was even more hysterical and insane. And even after he fixed the economy, they still went after him cause liberals!
And let's not forget that Bush was routinely painted as a monkey, Hitler, ect. Nobody called racism then. But now that we have Obama it must be racism! Doesn't make much sense.
There are racists. However half of this country will lose their collective shit after each election, and act really stupid for a while.
also there are some terrorble pictures of dead dolphins circulating but I'm not sure they aren't hoaxes intended to incite public rage so I won't crosspost them
Honestly, even if the top kill is failing, every day that you keep it up is a day the oil isn't flowing into the gulf and thats 10,000 barrels. Now, I don't know how much MUD costs, but I'm sure that it's less than the damage done by 10000 barrels of oil into the ocean. So unless BP has a damn dome to drop right now, they should keep pumping mud 24/7. I've heard some sources say there is a shortage of mud? Which is the silliest thing I've ever heard.
Obama has handled the situation admirably, and within the laws he is obliged to follow. The only problem is that he should demand government people be present to observe every step and report it accurately, but I'm fairly confident that demand would be illegal.
The annoying thing is simply that BP seems to be doing one thing at a time. They should be building a new dome right now, so what if they don't need it. They can have it standing by for the next one. They should be commisioning giant oil sucking submarines which can run 5000 feet of pipe behind them which can go down to the leak and just suck directly on it. This 'one attempt at a time' approach is what is frustrating. Again however I'm sure it's the law stopping us demanding this, not Obama being overly nice.
However, my mom says she'll be happy to donate her bag of xanthan gum to help make more drilling mud.