Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
And because the major refineries and pumping facilities are there. We should take the geologists and hydrologists advice and work out a design that does less damage to the wetlands because we are [expletive deleted] in the soup. I don't want to abandon. Again, it is a multiple inheritance problem. We may need to rethink the abstract classes. :-) Seriously, we have to something about the erosion, the levee designs, and the canal designs. It costs. So I want to see more in kind investments from the petroleum companies that don't get passed on to consumers. Obscene profits are profits but still obscene. A bit of cultural adjustment is necessary. If that puts more pressure on the auto designers, I believe that's a good thing. Hey, the web is killing fat clients, yes? len From: Ken North [mailto:kennorth@s...] Len Bullard wrote: >> ... as an engineer, I recommend bulldozing New Orleans and rebuilding in Arizona. Your remark may be tongue-in-cheek, but it hasn't been in other online discussions. People have asked why we plan to rebuild in locations that are at risk because of proximity to the sea. The answer is because they are by the sea. We can't replace major seaports with airports, even if we convert half of Arizona to runways and the other half to air freight terminals. New Orleans and the nearby ports struck by Katrina handle 8-9,000 foreign vessels per year, about 500,000,000 tons of cargo. A very large crude carrier has a cargo capacity of 300,000 tons. The C-17 aircraft has a cargo capacity of 85.45 tons. It would take 5.88 million C-17 flights to move that amount of cargo. >> as an engineer ... as a musician Wearing either hat, you'll find there are good reasons to rebuild. We're going to be dependent on shipping for generations.
|
