I hope he does well.
And I hope that he does good, too.
Reading comprehension fail. Dries is saying that they will not develop new features if they have 15 critical bugs - they will keep the count beneath the stated number. They are doing this so that "at most the release is only 15 critical bugs away from being ready"
The new features are more important than bug free code.
What was stated in the article is the exact inverse of the problem you are claiming. They are stating that they will stop new feature development if there are more than 15 critical bugs. Their statement is about bug-free code being more important than new features.
The only people in the US that will be able to see it live in Alaska - likely an extremely insignificant portion of the
On behalf of the Alaskans who are a part of the
If it makes you feel any better, our weather here in Anchorage will not likely permit viewing, either
The trawling concept is not that far removed from dragging boom around, and would be subject to some of the same problems prone to traditional boom designs. Notably, oil has a tendency to spill over the top of boom when the current or tow speed is greater than half of a knot (that is very, very slow). While not a problem when chasing fish, it would defeat the purpose of dragging stuff through the water to collect oil.
If, as recommended, a more traditional surface trawl design was used, including an open mouth that is submerged and a boom / cork line that is floating, some additional benefits could be realized. Crude can quickly become mixed into the water column as the boat and boom move through the water, and a lot of oil can actually go under boom as it is towed. The trawling design would help here, although it may also gather animals beneath the oil/water line and force them into a concentrated bag of the stuff
One of the shortcomings of current boom design is the fact that you are going to pick up a lot of water with the oil (models of the "harbor buster" have little pouches that fill with oil and sea water and serve to contain the crude prior to throwing in a simmer to pull out the oil). Modify boom to be made of this material AND add possible changes to make it more "trawl-like" in its subsurface design, and some improvement might be seen.
One of the things discussed during our breaks was that the survival rate of rescued birds and mammals was somewhere around 10% during the Exxon disaster. That does not include all of the wildlife that was missed
Perhaps the best quote of the day on this topic basically boiled down to "pictures of people scrubbing ducks is just good PR."
The whole process of what you described as "skimming" (which is very different in the recovery lingo - means using a floating pump system to recover oil, not dragging stuff through the water) would likely kill all animals that were captured. Critters would be submerged within a cloth net of oil and gunk. Regular trawling is damaging enough to them
Eight hours a day, five days a week was good enough for illiterate industrial workers doing manual labor when it was invented 150 years ago. I see no reason it shouldn't be a perfect fit for highly educated software engineers in 2010!!
Wait, you get to work with highly educated software engineers? Lucky
To respond to your comments:
- The patrol was not walking down a street. They were in the air, in an Apache gunship.
- There were no video cameras, aside from the ones the US military had, and perhaps some on the cellphones that were being used by the people on the ground at the time of the attack.
- The people DID have cameras and stands. The lens, based upon other stuff that I have read, and the image of the photographers gear after the fact (the image from the video was too blurry to be certain), was a 70-200 f2.8L IS USM Canon lens. Pretty big, has a tripod mound on the bottom, and does look impressive. Almost like a weapon from the front. When the Apache circled behind him and saw no extended tube over his shoulder AND people gathered where the backblast would be, they should have made sure they had a positive ID on the target before they engaged.
- The word on the ground (from the people that called in air support) was that the ACTUAL targets were on a roof somewhere nearby. Not wandering the streets.
- These guys were responding to a call for support nearby, and found these folks instead. You can see in the video that, after everyone is dead, the helicopter crew states at 16:19 "Hey, whoever was talking about rooftops, know that all the personnel we engaged were ground level. I say again ground level."
- Rules of engagement call for positive ID before firing. They indicate a need to provide a warning shot or verbal warning. Neither happened.
- Perhaps there is no need to punish the soldiers for shooting the wrong people. War is messy, and accidents will happen. What needs to be punished is the misinformation about the event told by the military, even after their investigation into the incident (some of their reports indicated that the reporters were killed in crossfire between coalition forces, Iraqi police forces, US military, and insurgents
As to the guys being merciless killing machines, I doubt it. However, they are showing some (expected but disturbing) callous behavior.
- 03:23 All right, hahaha, I hit [shot] 'em...
- 04:31 Oh, yeah, look at those dead bastards. [...] 04:36 Nice.
- (Spoken about the wounded reporter, crawling after being shot)06:33 Come on, buddy. [...] 06:38 All you gotta do is pick up a weapon.
- (Spoken about the people in the van, helping the wounded)07:36 Picking up the wounded? [...] 07:38 Yeah, we're trying to get permission to engage. [...] 07:41 Come on, let us shoot!
- 10:11 Oh yeah, look at that. Right through the windshield! [...] 10:14 Ha ha!
- (Talking about how a child is wounded)16:57 Roger. Ah damn. Oh well.
- (Talking about the Bradley vehicles rolling in) 18:29 I think they just drove over a body. [...] 18:31 Hey hey! [...] 18:32 Yeah! [...] 18:37 Maybe it was just a visual illusion, but it looked like it. [...] 18:41 Well, they're dead, so. [...]
Again, my issue is not that war should be pretty and full of sunshine and puppies, but that our leaders need to be honest with us, especially when asked directly. Fear of losing public support, as happened in Vietnam, is not a sufficient reason as far as I am concerned.
If you watch the video or read the transcript, you hear them claim several things about the supposed RPG - shot was fired, he was about to fire, he was targeting another position before he fired, etc. Perhaps we are all missing something, but there was no telltale sign of an RPG coming from the camera lens. But I will grant that the giant lens does bear a resemblance to a weapon
After the photographers, crowd, and van full of people are dead:
14:53 Bushmaster or element. Which Element called in Crazyhorse to engage the eight-elem- eight-men team on top of a roof.
16:19 Hey, whoever was talking about rooftops, know that all the personnel we engaged were ground level. I say again ground level.
ROE state that you are to positively identify (PID) the target before engaging. The gunship was called in to handle hostiles on a rooftop. They found a crew of people on the ground in the area and opened fire. The supposed RPG-carrying militant had not fired a shot, nor had he cleared the area behind him in preparation to shoot an RPG. There was no protruding launch tube behind the supposed militant, which would have been the case had he been carrying an RPG. Given that all of these things didn't add up, they should have taken more time to make sure they had the right target.
All of that said, war is messy. That isn't my big beef. I don't agree with a lot of things about the war, but that is not my main issue