Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Unfortunately, that's sort of like using a hand grenade to patch a leak in the roof.
Or not. Since a roof leak drips down only when it rains, not at a continuous 2K psi. And a roof is in the air, not 1 mile underwater. etc. etc. Maybe I'm missing it but this analogy seems to weak to support your argument.
While I agree BP will probably go to almost any lengths to preserve access to this field, the big problem with using explosives to attempt to cap this blowout is the roof of the chamber seems very brittle. Any explosion large enough to cap the well could fracture the roof of the chamber to the extent it would start leaking over a wide area of sea floor, which could then never be stopped, or a large section of the roof would collapse entirely, resulting in a catastrophic release of oil and gas.
I'd like to see a source for the "very brittle" comment, as well as data on how thick the chamber roof actually is as I just don't know. The wikipedia article on the spill states BP rejected conventional explosive use and that no one has ever considered a nuclear option, because of treaty issues and environmental impact (like there's none now). I think the whole "blow it up" meme has traction simply because of BP's inability to fix their mess and the US government's ineffectiveness in getting anything done about it.
You mean hiring awesome staff to work on independent projects designed in advance breaks Brooks Law?
Genius! Pat yourself on the back some more.
So your problem is with the man and not his argument? Sorry, you lose, automatically.
Good news. He can rot in jail along with all the bankers the feds arrested for stealing hundreds of billions via fraud. Oh wait...
I firmly support others right to believe they're "chosen" and their "supreme being" dictates how they should live.
They just don't get to have a say in any public policy decisions since they're unable to differentiate physical evidence from make-believe friends. In addition, their inability to reason out a sound argument disqualifies them from telling any else what to do or how to behave.
I.E., You're free to delude yourself to whatever extent you can tolerate but you don't get to tell me or my kids how to live.
"They're saying their sister is loose but you're going to lose your head if you go there."
Is this OK?
"They're saying their sister is loose but you're going to lose if you go there."