Slashdot Mirror


Nobel Prize Winning Physicist As Energy Secretary

bledri writes "Officials close to the Obama transition team say that Physics Nobel Laureate Steven Chu is the likely candidate for Energy Secretary. Some are worried that Chu is not politically savvy enough, but I'm hopeful that a scientist will base policy on evidence. Discuss among yourselves."

498 comments

  1. Terrible Idea by capt.Hij · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just because someone is a great scientist does not mean the person is a good administrator or a good politician. The sad truth is that politicians will not care if he has a Nobel Prize and will think nothing of tearing him down for no reason other than they can. Everybody has limitations, and it would be better to get someone who can listen to scientists and engineers and also be a great administrator.

    1. Re:Terrible Idea by Nerdfest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's dangerous to tear down someone who is vastly smarter than you, especially when they're right about something. The danger of doing it may temper some of the sillier political games.

    2. Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just because someone is a great scientist does not mean the person is a good administrator or a good politician.

      Out of curiosity; do you think current politicians make good politicians?

    3. Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you'd prefer to see yet another career politician shoe-horned into a job which they are barely qualified to understand? I'd much rather see people who understand the implications of their policies. It's time to end the idiocracy and get on with fixing things.

    4. Re:Terrible Idea by gravesb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not really. Someone without political savvy won't see the games until it is too late. I hope that he does well, and that his experiences encourage this kind of meritocracy in the future. However, it is far easier to appoint a technocrat to the cabinet position and surround him with brilliant academics. Let them provide him with the best courses of action, and let him go through the stupid political games to accomplish those. Of course, that requires a president who is willing to force their secretaries to listen to the academics. But if you are willing to appoint an academic to a cabinet post, then surely you are willing to make a cabinet secretary listen to his advisors.

      --
      http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
    5. Re:Terrible Idea by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Informative

      He's director of Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, a 4000-staff, 1000-student (ish) research facility with a half-billion dollar budget. I'd say he's got the "administrator" part down.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    6. Re:Terrible Idea by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everybody has limitations, and it would be better to get someone who can listen to scientists and engineers and also be a great administrator.

      So you mean this one can't?

      Just because scientists can be poor politicians, it doesn't mean all are, and this bright guy could just maybe have skills in both departments. These are things they may have found out before moving their eyes to this guy. I'm far from certain Obama in person looked at Nobel prize winners and said "Hey, let's try this guy!"

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    7. Re:Terrible Idea by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      You are spot-on here. This is like making a great programmer "VP of Engineering." Who here has seen that happen time and time again and seen that person be a horrible VP... Hands??? The two skill sets are TOTALLY different. In fact, it is a VERY VERY poor decision because it is a WASTE of a brain! Instead, you put someone in that position that is politically savvy and use this guy as the top adviser to the Energy Secretary.

    8. Re:Terrible Idea by Joebert · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's Obamas job.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    9. Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the old "Someone who is good at A is not necessarily good at B; he's good at A, and therefore necessarily isn't good at B" nonsense.

      Chu is an administrator. And one can assume that the transition team has looked into his leadership record at LBL -- at least, if one isn't committed to a negative judgement of his administrative skills simply because he happens to be a successful physicist.

    10. Re:Terrible Idea by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Enemy politicians can be attacked by other politicians.

      Anyone not a scientist can be considered "scientifically illiterate" for the purpose of understanding energy issues. One may be either a scientist or a politician, and having a politician do the job of a scientist is like assigning a salesman to be an engineer.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    11. Re:Terrible Idea by stephanruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Plus he's got a Nobel prize. Do you realize how many scientists want that prize? I say that's his political qualification right there.

    12. Re:Terrible Idea by capt.Hij · · Score: 1

      Yes, but administrating a group of scientists and grad students is nor the same as running a cabinet level agency. That is especially so if he ends up being alone and politically isolated. This kind of thing takes different skills. I agree with another poster in this thread that says we need fewer political saavy people in positions of power. At the same time just having one is a recipe for failure.

    13. Re:Terrible Idea by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just because someone is a Administrator or politician does not mean they are a GOOD administrator or GOOD politician.

      After seeing the corrupt and just plain old EVIL members of the senate and house, let along cabinet positions. If he does his job honestly he will be better than those that were in the position for the past 8 years.

      Cripes we have people in other countries comparing Dick Cheney to Saddam Hussein. And from some of his actions, I dont think a great scientist will have any problem doing a fantastic job in that position.

      I just hope he has the intestinal fortitude to tell members of the congress and other parts of the government that they are flat out stupid when they make a suggestion that is absurd.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    14. Re:Terrible Idea by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Informative

      Contrary examples everywhere. Noteworthy scientists are used to being "torn down" and often it IS personal.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    15. Re:Terrible Idea by Threni · · Score: 0, Troll

      > Just because someone is a great scientist does not mean the person is a good administrator or a good politician.

      Yeah, but it can't be any worse than the current lot, who believe the earth was made by some cunt with a white beard 6000 years ago, and that dinosaur bones were planted as a trick, etc.

    16. Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      yes but what you liberal communists don't get is that how exactly is this boffin supposed to understand the complex and dynamic needs of the oil companies?

    17. Re:Terrible Idea by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

      The one nice thing about being a politician is that their is no experience necessary. In fact most politicians who get their first political job never had experience of being a politician before.

      Just because scientists can be poor politicians

      What scientists are politicians? And which one of those are poor?

    18. Re:Terrible Idea by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Certainly, there's a whole lot of skills there that he's not necessairly got. However he's not just some Nobel-winning basement-dweller as one might assume, he's got some serious credentials when it comes to organising and funding research efforts, which is a pretty substantial proportion of the DoE's work. I'm surprised there hasn't been a scientist of any kind in that position before.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    19. Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes because Mike "you're doing a heckuva job" Brown was just sooo qualified to run FEMA. You know, the guy who used to breed horses before Bush appointed him. I could go on, but I'll spare the history lesson.

    20. Re:Terrible Idea by sam0vi · · Score: 5, Interesting

      it is far easier to appoint a technocrat to the cabinet position and surround him with brilliant academics

      And that's exactly what they are doing. It's just that the technocrat in this case would be the President, and the academics would be his staff, whose primary goal is to advise him. How far along the chain of command do you want to place the smart guys? Down on the basement? Don't forget they are just coming with the ideas; every single decision is the President's.

      --
      When my Karma level reaches 0 I feel in piece with the Universe
    21. Re:Terrible Idea by purpledinoz · · Score: 1

      This is a much better choice than choosing an oil baron as the Energy Secretary. This is a step in the right direction. It may not be the perfect choice, but everyone should rejoice the end of the Bush era of taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

    22. Re:Terrible Idea by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would rather see an inventor run a business than a marketer. Too much of what is wrong with business today is related to the inevitable shift away from decisions favoring integrity and quality to decisions about what is thought to improve the "bottom line." Dell has always made good computers and was the leader in service. They have since moved the vast majority of those key advantage points out of the country and the result has made them less competitive. It is simply a bad business decision that has resulted in a loss of a loyal customer base. And I don't care what business school you went to, in business, there is NOTHING more important than keeping your customers.

      Placing experts in their fields in control of policy making is smarter than putting politicians in those seats for the very same reasons.

      And to be fair, it is true that some people with one skill set may not often have others. But I have also known many technical experts ALSO have good skills with people. They are rare, but they exist. I work for an architectural firm. My CEO is an architect, not a marketer. He understands marketing and is also an outstanding speaker. But he will not compromise on quality nor on integrity because he sees clearly where that leads. And in today's business environment where construction is slowing and even halting, our office has work stacked up for the next two to three years to come. The reason for this is that he works and plans for the horizon and he has a reputation for taking very good care of his clients with non compromise in honesty or quality of work and he owns his mistakes completely. And yes, I thought he was too good to be true as well. But I have seen it all happen and there is no faking actions. My company has --zero-- debt. My CEO is a multi-millionaire. He is the unquestionable picture of success and he is an Architect, not a salesman.

      I am not claiming that technical experts are ideal choices, but I will say that non-experts making decisions about things they don't fully understand is ALWAYS a mistake waiting to happen... and while the experts with social and political savvy are rare, they are not extinct. I've got one right here.

    23. Re:Terrible Idea by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just because someone is a great scientist does not mean the person is a good administrator or a good politician.

      There's also the little matter of whether we should have such a thing as a Department of Energy in the first place.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    24. Re:Terrible Idea by gravesb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is too much for the president to handle for him to be in that role. That's why they created cabinet positions, OPM, and the like. The executive branch is too large for the president to be the main political player. Besides, you need someone playing the political games when the President is doing figure head stuff. Someone with some savvy needs to be down in the weeds why the president is glad-handing.

      --
      http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
    25. Re:Terrible Idea by javaxjb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, but administrating a group of scientists and grad students is nor the same as running a cabinet level agency. That is especially so if he ends up being alone and politically isolated. This kind of thing takes different skills.

      Because we all know, of course, that there are no politics in decision making at research facilities and educational institutions (or the research journals that help advance such careers).

      --
      Programmers in mirror are brighter than they appear
    26. Re:Terrible Idea by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Having scientific skills and administration skills are not mutually exclusive. Being incompetent as a scientific and as an administrator are not either.

      In fact, being a scientist gives him a political edge : when a politician supports an energy policy while having only a partial understanding of the underlying problems, one can question his ethics, his agenda, his reasons and he'll elude, he'll retort and counter-attack. When a scientist supports an energy policy, he is more likely to defend his opinion with facts (a scientist's job) and less likely to hide an agenda behind vague factoids (a politician's job (among other things, ok))

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    27. Re:Terrible Idea by Yvanhoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, administrating a company was considered a good enough proof of managerial and administrator skills even if a company is very different from a government agency. The result was that government agencies were managed like private companies. Now this man will probably manage a government agency like an educational and scientific institution. This will be different, that is sure, but how is this worse ?

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    28. Re:Terrible Idea by Cowmonaut · · Score: 2, Informative

      The DOE was one of the few things Carter did right. Several issues have been solved that wouldn't of without this kind of organization. Besides, do you really want the military building their own nuclear weapons and reactors? As it is now they have to ask the DOE if they can have one, or any. They're all owned by the DOE and the DOE can just say no if they feel like it.

    29. Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know. I think it is a dynamite idea.

    30. Re:Terrible Idea by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I was thinking exactly the same thing. Just because someone has the ability to appeal to the majority of dumb voters does not mean the person is a good administrator or a good politician.

    31. Re:Terrible Idea by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Much as I hate Margret Thatcher nobody could say that she was not an able politician. (I hesitate to use the word good). Thatcher had a BSc degree in chemistry. Her one redeeming feature was that she did take global warming seriously and could see through the petrochemical industries FUD.

    32. Re:Terrible Idea by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And another important point is that this appointment says quite clearly that Obama expects the DOE to use scientific methods and procedures as the basis for what it's doing. When you're charging an organization with the task of fixing the US energy problem, that's exactly what you want.

      Imagine, if you will, a Department of Energy focused on keeping the oil, coal, and gas companies happy. Oh wait, you don't need to imagine that, because that's what we've had for several decades.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    33. Re:Terrible Idea by Throtex · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just because you can split the atom of a molecule doesn't mean you can lead the nation with a microphone.

    34. Re:Terrible Idea by MPAB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      in business, there is NOTHING more important than keeping your customers.

      Yes, there is: making new ones.

    35. Re:Terrible Idea by jcr · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The DOE was one of the few things Carter did right.

      Nope.

      The Department of Energy is just another federal agency with no constitutional justification for its existence. It's about as useful as the other DOE (Department of Education).

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    36. Re:Terrible Idea by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You don't necessarily want to listen to academics all the time. Anyone who has had to follow a manual of some sort to get some thing to work or experimented in the thought process of applied principles will tell you that what works in theory doesn't always work in practice in the real world. All to often, academics is too far removed from the real reality of things that they can at times be detrimental to sound policy.

      If you have any doubts on this, take a real look at President Carter's administration and how he failed fabulously enough that people not only ran from him but jumped to Reagan. I think most people will say that Mr Carter, when outside that role in American history, is a rather remarkable man. The hallmark of a good politician is going to be where they can take the advice but also apply it in real world practices. Otherwise you will get policies with stubborn leaders insisting they are working and I was under the impression that Bush would be gone.

    37. Re:Terrible Idea by MrMr · · Score: 1

      Down on the basement
      I think you have just discovered how large corporations and governments have become organized in the last couple of decades.

    38. Re:Terrible Idea by Nikker · · Score: 1

      Excellent comment. If we say this is a terrible idea because of what others will not allow / make difficult for him to do then if we appoint someone who is primarily a politician how do we know he's not just getting the wool pulled over his eyes? In a part of government where they still don't understand at the political level what's going on then how will we advance?

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    39. Re:Terrible Idea by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If he is going to focus on using scientific methods and procedures an so on for policy recommendations, there no reason that the policy will move away from keeping the oil, coal, and gas companies happy. It will be most likely that any policy will favor them much more based around the scientific method then the politically religious methods of praying that 80+ year old tech will somehow becomes financially viable as well as reliable when it has failed to do that so far.

      That's right, most of this alternative and green energy is surrounded by unscientific claims as well as exaggerations and a leading religious argument about the environment that can't be altered by human presence.

      Don't mistake the cheer leaders as the players in the game. The oil, gas, and coal companies are in business because scientifically, they are the most productive and cheapest sources of energy. Add nuclear deregulation to the mix and it is most likely that making those techs cleaner is going to be more viable then anything else. In other words, you won't see any difference in policy.

    40. Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umm - sorry let me help you fix that:

      Cripes everyone on the planet is comparing Dick Cheney to Saddam Hussein.

      i feel better now thanks!

    41. Re:Terrible Idea by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      With no offense to Steven Chu, this sort of post is why I have to hope his time as the Secretary of Energy goes very poorly. The idea that there is one correct policy and that all we need to do is get a scientist smart enough to tell us what Science says that is come from a gross misunderstand of the nature science.

      Any real policy involves trade offs between what's best for a large number of different groups, each of which has different needs, goals, tolerance for risk, etc. Deciding how to make those tradeoffs and select who's interests take priority in any given situation is largely subjective. While science can help determine how feasible a given proposal is (and even then, it's more in the realm of engineering than science), it's silent on which solution is best.

      The general public needs to get over its delusion that scientists are some sort of priesthood that exists to tell them The One True Way and save them the trouble of having to understand issues well enough to make their own informed decisions about what is best.

    42. Re:Terrible Idea by blind+biker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is too much for the president to handle for him to be in that role. That's why they created cabinet positions, OPM, and the like. The executive branch is too large for the president to be the main political player. Besides, you need someone playing the political games when the President is doing figure head stuff. Someone with some savvy needs to be down in the weeds why the president is glad-handing.

      You just described the vice president. And never was this description best fitted than in this case, with the VP being more experienced than the president himself.

      I completely support the appointment of a Nobel laureate scientist to important govt positions. The problem is not the scientist's lack of political experience, the problem is the system - which is not just broken but fetid-rotten.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    43. Re:Terrible Idea by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If someone in a government position takes the attitude that other politicians have no say because they aren't smart enough, I can guarantee that they will find themselves looking for employment fast.

      This is not a post for a position at slashdot or some other anonymous forum where you can ignore something based on where it comes from or who said it. All the politicians- whether they are technically literate enough or not- have a constitutional obligation to have somewhat of a say at their discretion. If any appointed position attempts to take the position that the politician's voice in the matters don't count, they will be impeached and removed quite fast as well as finding their department underfunded severely.

      This is why everyone is saying that it takes a politician to do man this position. The attacks will come from everywhere and they have to be very diplomatic in how they respond. If they are not, they will end up broken and ineffective like President Carter's administration and in the very next election, the people will run in mass to any opponent of the administration supporting these persons.

      Having a politician do the job of a scientist is like having the politicians duties dip into scientific areas where the duties of the politician has expanded. You can't take the jobs of a politician away from them and expect to keep yours.

    44. Re:Terrible Idea by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

      I agree. It's actually far more trollish than a lot of other posts that get modded troll (regardless of your beliefs on the matter - and I don't believe the earth was created 6000 years ago).

    45. Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having worked in academia I can say that Scientists have to be highly political creatures â" they have to be to deal with all the interdepartmental politics and turf wars. To get there money in the first place scientists also have to be highly successful at raising money and writing grant applications â" i.e. administrators. So yes he is probably an excellent choice.

    46. Re:Terrible Idea by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The general public needs to get over its delusion that scientists are some sort of priesthood that exists to tell them The One True Way and save them the trouble of having to understand issues well enough to make their own informed decisions about what is best.

      Mankind needs to get over its delusion that some sort of priesthood exists to tell them the One True Way.

    47. Re:Terrible Idea by Nick+Ives · · Score: 1

      Unless you piss off your old customers in the process. Then you're making lots of new customers who quickly get pissed off and join your old customers who are still bitching about how you screwed them over.

      When the whole market knows how crap you are then you go bankrupt, although not without first squirreling away large sums of money to run away with!

      --
      Nick
    48. Re:Terrible Idea by sumdumass · · Score: 1, Insightful

      One of these days when you grow up, try look past the last 8 years of your political awareness and look into the last 100 years of American history. Pay specific attention to the political portions of it and the Carter administration's push for increasing Nixon's alternative energy initiatives.

      Then look at the entire taking from the poor and giving to the rich statement you made. See if you can justify it. I know you will fail trying now, but you won't understand why you failed until you learn a little more in life.

    49. Re:Terrible Idea by shadoelord · · Score: 1

      Not really. Someone without political savvy won't see the games until it is too late.

      We could start by shooting all the politicians that play political games....

      --
      this is my sig, there are many like it, but this one is mine.
    50. Re:Terrible Idea by tbannist · · Score: 3, Informative

      For most businesses, that's actually less important. It's usually much cheaper to get repeat business from an existing customer, than it is to seek out new customers.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    51. Re:Terrible Idea by Angostura · · Score: 1

      It would have been interesting to have had Feinman in the position, would it?

    52. Re:Terrible Idea by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      In fact, being a scientist gives him a political edge : when a politician supports an energy policy while having only a partial understanding of the underlying problems, one can question his ethics, his agenda, his reasons and he'll elude, he'll retort and counter-attack. When a scientist supports an energy policy, he is more likely to defend his opinion with facts (a scientist's job) and less likely to hide an agenda behind vague factoids (a politician's job (among other things, ok))

      Lol.. Nope. I can give you an example right now. James Hansen of NASA fame. When asked if he knew his numbers and calculations were off, he said that he thought exaggerating the claim of global warming was important to get awareness of the problem. Now what he basically said there was that he felt it was ok to make shit up in order to push his agenda. He pulled facts and figures out of his ass, he even has people buffaloed into believing he is the second coming of Christ or something in that they don't care that he lied to the people and government for the better part of two decades.

      But you see, the politician has an obligation to more then just the scientific numbers. They are obligated to keeping costs down, they are obligated to the welfare of the people they serve to some extent, and they have their own scientists who will represent the numbers in ways they want. A politician can look at a scientific study that says anything and use it for their own purposes. We see this in crime studies where they claim gun control causes more crime or whatever their position of the day is.

    53. Re:Terrible Idea by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Interesting


      Just because someone is a Administrator or politician does not mean they are a GOOD administrator or GOOD politician.

      That's true of any job. I guess I don't really understand your point. That we shouldn't assume someone we don't know will be good at a job they've never done?

      I don't know if he'll be any good at being Energy secretary. I did see him speak a couple years ago at the Nobel Conference on Energy, and he was a great speaker with very good ideas. From what I recall one of his main messages was "Fail fast", in other words try a lot of ideas and see which ones work and which don't quickly. IMO that's really _exactly_ what we need to do. I will say this though. The past Energy secretaries certainly haven't done jack-squat for energy policy in this country, and the vast majority of them were politicians. So it's not like the politicians have some great track record that Chu has to live up to.

      --
      AccountKiller
    54. Re:Terrible Idea by maxume · · Score: 1

      The current Secretary of Energy was an associate professor of Chemistry at MIT, before he left to work in the finance industry:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Bodman

      The previous Bush choice for energy secretary looks pretty political, but he was a lawyer, not an oil baron:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_Abraham

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    55. Re:Terrible Idea by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's because your market segment is top-of-the-market. Those are barely affected by recessions...the rich always need new houses and offices.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    56. Re:Terrible Idea by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Funny

      Also, she apparently played a pivotal role in the development of soft-serve ice-cream. In a world with runaway global warming, soft-serve would not be necessary. She was just protecting her time investment in that work.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    57. Re:Terrible Idea by DirkBalognapantz · · Score: 1

      Just because someone is a great scientist does not mean the person is a good administrator or a good politician.

      Out of curiosity; do you think current politicians make good politicians?

      Brilliant. How do I post a rim-shot?

    58. Re:Terrible Idea by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Your mistake is assuming that a great scientist isn't a great administrator. Chu has been leading LBL with incredible success for four years, and under his leadership LBL has become the most focused national lab, and that focus is on alternative energy generation and storage. I've never met anyone who had a better understanding of both the science and practicality of alternative energy than Steven Chu. Picking Chu is Obama's best choice to date.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    59. Re:Terrible Idea by MrCrassic · · Score: 1

      I agree with this. Having scientific prowess does not immediately translate into making progressive political decisions, though there have been exceptions to that rule. In fact, it's often the more technical people that have trouble making these precise decisions because they lack the skills needed to understand how the public works. He might be different, though. I know that Wikipedia is not the most credible outlet for information, but he seems a bit diverse: read here.

      I do like how he is forward thinking in attempting to solve the global warming crisis, and has dedicated manpower for creating solutions. Despite this, will he have answers to address the diminishing supply of petroleum and really initiate the movement to alternative energy sources?

      I think Barack Obama is definitely up to something here.

    60. Re:Terrible Idea by swillden · · Score: 1

      However, it is far easier to appoint a technocrat to the cabinet position and surround him with brilliant academics.

      I think you mean bureaucrat, not technocrat. A technocracy is a government in which the scientists and engineers are in charge, so Chu, if appointed secretary, will be a technocrat. Actually, "bureaucrat" isn't quite right, either. I think the word you really want is "politician".

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    61. Re:Terrible Idea by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Informative

      I should correct myself here, Bodman (current DoE secretary) is a former MIT professor of chemical engineering. So there's a precident here for putting high-ranking academics in that position.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    62. Re:Terrible Idea by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      [running a cabinet level agency] takes different skills.

      It's such a shame that he'll be unable to learn them, what with being such a notorious doofus.

      We should instead continue to appoint loyal political apparatchiks who - as we all know - can pick up all that silly old "science" stuff overnight, should they ever feel the need.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    63. Re:Terrible Idea by Rytr23 · · Score: 1

      Actually I would think that would indeed make him a great "politician".. after all, if they do that and manage to get elected/re-elected, they will continue to be a politician. Which is of course the only goal of a politician.

      --
      So many injustices..so little time..
    64. Re:Terrible Idea by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

      What is his stance on global warming? I think that is the "litmus test."

      Personally I don't think global warming is caused by humans, and there are many scientists who have that stance and have very clear evidence to point to other causes (I'm not a scientist).

      If he blindly thinks global warming is caused by humans without admitting that there is still much discussion and contrary evidence to be addressed, then he has already proven himself to have good politician qualities.

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    65. Re:Terrible Idea by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We see this in crime studies where they claim gun control causes more crime or whatever their position of the day is.

      New laws always cause more crime (by definition).

    66. Re:Terrible Idea by dhudson0001 · · Score: 1
      I'm reminded of how impressed I was upon hearing Christine Peterson's talk at the 2007 Singularity Summit where she addresses the same issue on how science desperately needs a stronger voice in politics.

      2007 Singularity Summit

      As this speech was given at Eliezer Yudkowsky's summit-some of you will undoubtedly want to riff on the merits of speculation that occur there. However, her suggestions during the talk are overall on firm ground and seem to apply to what has happened here.

      I for one welcome our new Geeky-Politica Overlords...cough,cough...

    67. Re:Terrible Idea by danceswithtrees · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To play devil's advocate, do we question whether politicians tapped for technologically related positions have enough scientific savvy?

      Instead of appointing a politician who can listen to scientists, perhaps a scientist who can listen to politicians is a better idea for certain positions. Change we can believe in, anyone?

      Plus Chu already has administrative credentials-- he is the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab! He shakes hands, brings in money, makes deals, makes plans and gets the job done. What more could you possibly ask for?

    68. Re:Terrible Idea by MikeBabcock · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Mankind appears to be made up primarily of sheep who'd rather follow than lead and blindly at that, so long as the story's good.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    69. Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're confusing "politician" with "statesman"- by definition, the ability to appeal to the masses makes a good politician, as politics are a game and the ability to manipulate indicates mastery. However, that does not mean that a good politician will be a good statesman, possessing the administrative qualities you mention and a selfless love of country.

      Sometimes, I'm a word nazi.

    70. Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Normally yes. But consider this: the last three well-known winners of the Nobel Prize have been members of the American Left, like the notorious Al Gore who can't read a chart.

      Nobel Prizes also seem to go to people who merely have a science background and hate George Bush. Given this, doesn't it seem like it would earmark the scientist as having a political, and presumably administrable background?

      Starting with the Wright Brothers for their creation that would "make future wars impossible", the Nobel folks were (at least initially) funded by the discovery of dynamite.

      For decades it was the mark of a world-class scientist to have a Nobel Prize, but much like journalism and representative democracies, the meaning has become more than a little watered-down.

      But in the bigger question...since when does capability have anything to do with a political appointment? :)

    71. Re:Terrible Idea by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      If you use the yardstick of the past 16 years that the USA has had for "good leaders"....

      Bill Nye the Science Guy would be the United states
      BEST politician and administrator seen on 2 decades!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    72. Re:Terrible Idea by dkleinsc · · Score: 2, Funny
      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    73. Re:Terrible Idea by swillden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would rather see an inventor run a business than a marketer.

      Such businesses don't usually last long. The reality is that you need both the inventor AND the marketer, as well as the salesman, the finance guy and someone to manage operations, and they should all be under the direction of someone who understands just enough of all of their jobs to make sure that every aspect of the business works -- which, unpleasant as it may be to geeks, means what you need is a person who knows business administration.

      Too much of what is wrong with business today is related to the inevitable shift away from decisions favoring integrity and quality to decisions about what is thought to improve the "bottom line."

      Hmm. You started out talking about businesses run by marketers and here shifted gears to businesses run by finance. Which one are you complaining about? Marketing != finance, you know. It's also the case that marketing != sales, marketing != operations and marketing != administration. Marketing == marketing.

      Dell has always made good computers and was the leader in service.

      And now you shift again, to an example of a company that was founded on operations. Michael Dell was somewhat technical, but he wasn't an inventor. What he was really good at was designing and running a highly EFFICIENT assembly and distribution operation, allowing him to sell decent-quality, customized PCs at rock bottom prices. Oh, and he also did a decent job of marketing, sales and financial management, and as his company grew was able to make the transition to an effective administrator. No real invention, though; he didn't even invent his own business model -- just executed it very effectively.

      My CEO is a multi-millionaire. He is the unquestionable picture of success and he is an Architect, not a salesman.

      No, he's an architect, and an administrator, and maybe a marketer and salesman, too. Your company would not be so successful if he were a great architect, but a lousy administrator. You'd be better off with a great administrator who is not an architect. Better yet is to have someone who is both, of course.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    74. Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So...how do people become politicians in the first place?

    75. Re:Terrible Idea by docgiggles · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think that having a scientist rather then an administrator is key for change in the Obama administration because it shows that people who actually know their fields will be chosen to lead them. Also, as a Nobel winner, he has been proven to be extremely intelligent and a good choice

    76. Re:Terrible Idea by mzs · · Score: 1

      He's the director of LBNL, he has dealt with his fair share of political BS.

    77. Re:Terrible Idea by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      While technically true assuming that people won't stop doing what was actually legal before the new law took effect, that wasn't the point. The point is that two different politicians can look at the same document and make it support their positions even when they contradict each other.

      Hell, look at the mortgage meltdown where they are blaming the non payment of loans on deregulation or the increased risk requirements on Fannie and Freddie or the corrupt operations of the GSE's management in the mid 90's to mid 2000's and somehow all of that is the republicans fault or the democrats fault and so on. Everyone knows the meltdown came from people not being able to make their payments which was primarily effected by the price of energy and the connected availability of jobs and even though energy costs like Gas Prices didn't skyrocket until after the dems took control of congress in 2006, it is blamed on either party in exclusion of the other. Each position has plenty of proof to back their stories up depending on how they want to show themselves or their opponents.

    78. Re:Terrible Idea by Palpitations · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Any real policy involves trade offs between what's best for a large number of different groups, each of which has different needs, goals, tolerance for risk, etc. Deciding how to make those tradeoffs and select who's interests take priority in any given situation is largely subjective. While science can help determine how feasible a given proposal is (and even then, it's more in the realm of engineering than science), it's silent on which solution is best.

      I'd like to direct you to Dr. Chu's opening speech from UC Berkeley's California & The Future of Environmental Law & Policy event. While 45 minutes is far too short to go over everything (and far too long for a crowd that almost never bothers to RTFA), he addresses some of the points you make. This is from back in 2005 or so, I gather, but it's clear he has a good grasp on the challenges and potential solutions to be found. I can only imagine that he's refined his positions and proposals since then, but is the first related thing I found when I looked this morning. There's probably something more recent and relevant out there.

      In any case, I applaud this choice. It sure beats the venture capitalist/CEO/treasury wonk we've got now (in his credit, he does have an Sc.D. in chemical engineering - but it seems like he's never used it, preferring to go into the financial sector instead). Before him, we had a law professor. Before that, someone who studied French/poli-sci/foreign affairs. Before that, another lawyer. I'm sure you get the idea... There has never been someone with anywhere near his credentials appointed to the job.

    79. Re:Terrible Idea by dkleinsc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The costs of oil, coal, and gas start going up rather rapidly when you start factoring in the costs that are currently foisted on the public. Environmental damage, wars to take over oil fields, and drilling rights to name a few.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    80. Re:Terrible Idea by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Jimmy Carter was a smart guy but didn't know how to play the D.C. game either. And they pretty much hung him out to dry.

      Now, with this guy, hopefully is deputy will be a seasoned politico who can play the game, and will work with this guy as far as guiding energy policy.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    81. Re:Terrible Idea by mzs · · Score: 4, Informative

      Do you have any evidence to support that opinion? Look the DOE is great at running big science projects. Ones that involve tunnels, cryo, massive underground detectors, etc. The DOE almost always does it under budget and on time (the big disaster was the SSC but that fell apart because of politics from the Congress and president). Compare that to the record of the NSF and NASA. NASA is great at large projects at well, but the project management comes in over budget and late more than 50% of the time and anytime the NSF has done anything big approaching the scale of medium DOE, it has always been late and over budget.

      If it was not for the DOE big physics outside of astro and cosmo would be run by the military and NSF. Finally the office of science is only one aspect of the DOE.

    82. Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, it is a VERY VERY poor decision because it is a WASTE of a brain! Instead, you put someone in that position that is politically savvy and use this guy as the top adviser to the Energy Secretary.

      Or he could hire that guy. That way the smart guy has the last word, and doesn't get overruled on some critical point.

    83. Re:Terrible Idea by kaiser423 · · Score: 1

      No, not if you work well enough with your current customers and provide them enough of a service, that they also grow....

      Customers aren't static unchanging entities. I've ridden many a wave to the top by keeping just current customers and doing a good enough job that they keep growing, and hence my company keeps growing.

      New customers are excellent, but you should only need them if your current customers aren't solid customers to begin with.

    84. Re:Terrible Idea by drinkonlyscotch · · Score: 1

      I don't think so. This is a welcome change from Bush's "science advisers" who don't believe in evolution. Further, just because he's not a career politician doesn't mean he doesn't have political or administrative savvy.

    85. Re:Terrible Idea by moondawg14 · · Score: 1

      It would have been interesting if there were a scientist named Feinman, wouldn't it? Maybe you meant Feynman? :) sry. couldn't resist.

    86. Re:Terrible Idea by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      It is called different skill sets. Steven Chu is a great physicist but would you want him to perform surgery on you or design an bridge?
      You are greatly mistaken that being vastly smarter means that you can win in a political fight. It really is all about telling people what they want to hear.
      In a political fight he may do about as well as the MIT vs the University of Florida at Football.
      In fact if Steven Chu has your attitude then odds are very good that he will fail.
      Of course he may be not only smart but wise as well, we can hope.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    87. Re:Terrible Idea by Alinabi · · Score: 1

      it would be better to get someone who can listen to scientists and engineers and also be a great administrator.

      Not at all. you should get somebody who is a scientist and just give them a political adviser who understands the political infighting. You can teach politics to a scientist, but you cannot teach science to a politician.

      --
      "You can't allow somebody to commit the crime before you detain them." [Condoleezza Rice]
    88. Re:Terrible Idea by Sybert42 · · Score: 1

      Went to the 2008 summit--I'm all in for it. We're out there.

    89. Re:Terrible Idea by stewbacca · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We're talking about the Energy Secretary. How much leading does that person do? What microphone are you talking about? Name two Energy Secretaries in the past 30 years (no cheating).

    90. Re:Terrible Idea by Khisanth+Magus · · Score: 1

      The story isn't very original though, having been completely stolen from other religions.

    91. Re:Terrible Idea by HardCase · · Score: 5, Funny

      Pfft, Al Gore got one of those by making a PowerPoint presentation. How tough can it be?

    92. Re:Terrible Idea by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I do tire of the praise heaped on Carter. He was President during the worst energy crisis in history. Just because he made a Department to handle that doesn't mean deserves any credit for anything other than presiding over the country during the worst energy crisis in history. And most sane people will blame Carter's stupid policies for said crisis, not credit him.

    93. Re:Terrible Idea by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      Tell that to all the:
      Insurance companies
      Funeral Homes
      Car dealerships
      Realtors
      Banks
      Cell phone service provider
      Internet service provider
      or ANY big-ticket item/service vendor

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    94. Re:Terrible Idea by Kentaree · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do you have one? ;)

    95. Re:Terrible Idea by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...I just hope he has the intestinal fortitude...

      I would more want testicular fortitude in the candidate. Although the implication that Congress makes someone who opposes them too sick-to-their-stomach to continue is interesting...

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    96. Re:Terrible Idea by ChromaticDragon · · Score: 1

      Yes two politicians can often look at the same thing and walk away touting diametrically opposite viewpoints.

      Indeed, in many areas where there is a fair degree of uncertainty scientists do the same.

      Nonetheless, I applaud the approach towards meritocracy shown with this appointment.

      One of the things I've so often been troubled by with our current administration was that in uncountable examples, they look like a small child playing chess who can see no more beyond a couple of moves. The incompetence at all levels has been staggering. The disdain for facts and science over "gut" and pet policies (and blatant corruption) has been deplorable.

      An accomplished scientist need not champion the "CORRECT" solution. They would do far better than recent folk simply by doing a good job weeding out the bad solutions.

      The credit crisis is a great example. Parent's understanding seems weak. The slew of people going into foreclosure was just the match struck in the shed full of explosives with tons of gas on the floor. How this catastrophe was set up can indeed be investigated and the proper folk (on both sides of the aisle politically, but primarily business) castigated. But was lacking (with few exceptions) was the foresight of how bad things could get and how quickly. Part of what blinded the "experts" was FAITH in deregulation (namely that we could simply trust the banks not to do stupid things with credit swaps) over FACTS.

      If you need a pithy, simplistic summary cause of the credit crisis, I can give you a better one: the assumption that valuations would always go up. Difficulties making mortgage payments due to increased energy costs pale in comparison to what happens if your adjustable rate resets while your property value has plumetted. You gambled that you could just refinance later given increased property value (same thing with banks and credit swaps). You bet wrong.

    97. Re:Terrible Idea by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Evidence? Hell, I'd accept an opinion, but he couldn't be bothered to give that. I guess I missed the part of the Constitution (or just skipped my local Libertarian meeting) that prohibits government from standing up new departments to handle emerging issues over time (like nuclear energy, or public school policy, or...) Oh, but that's right, I forgot...anything slashdot users disagree with is automatically unconstitutional...what was I thinking?

    98. Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in business, there is NOTHING more important than keeping your customers.

      Yes, there is: making new ones.

      You act as if the two activities were incompatable, have you ever heard of "word of mouth" advertising? It is a very effective form of advertising, especially among those who are cinical about most other forms of advertising. Even better the only investment that it requires on the part of the company in question is something the company should be attempting to do already, statisfy its current customers.

    99. Re:Terrible Idea by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let me explain something to you. After the U.S.A. developed nuclear weapons during WWII, they made a very smart decision, they decided that the potential destructive power of these weapons was far to great to entrust them to the military. Thus they created the atomic energy commission to be responsible for the weapons and development and to provide some checks and balances on the military industrial complex. The waste from nuclear power is goverened by the DOE as well, do you really want corporate america disposing of all your waste for you? Any sane person would look at how corporate america spends vast amounts of money to dodge responsibility for hard decisions and would say no.

      All Carter did was roll this functionality as well as the nuclear power waste disposal into a single agency. As for the extended missions of alternative energy, I'd say we need someone to do this because private industry has been sitting on their ass for the last three decades and spending more time developing marketing campaigns about alternative energy than actually developing the energy sources.

      I can't believe I bothered spending ten minutes writing this comment, libertarians are so blind, it's pathetic.

      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
    100. Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What all the political neophytes fail to realize is... the entrenched bureaucracy (which really runs Washington...) tends to put political upstarts in their place pretty quickly... best of luck to him though...

    101. Re:Terrible Idea by Xest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thatcher also wanted to see fibre cable rolled out across the UK back in the 80s but was never given chance also.

      Had she been allowed to push this through, the UK would've been a global leader in terms of broadband running alongside Sweden, South Korea and Japan in that area.

      The decisions they made were really forward thinking and exactly the decisions needed to take the country forward, the downside is they also involved a lot of pain for many people, hence the reason she was overthrown. Sadly, these people are the people that somewhat deserve the pain- we're talking about people who believe the world owes them a job without them ever having to look for one, without ever having to change jobs, without ever having to retrain. These are exactly the type of people that have eaten away at the UK for over a decade now and are the people who overspend and have got us into such a financial mess.

      But the Labour government still doesn't see this, they think no one is at fault, so they try and increase money available for loans, they try and reduce VAT to make people spend even more.

      It's sad, because good politicians force people who aren't willing to play fair to play fair and that ultimately leads to their undoing whilst bad politicians protect the incompetent to keep their votes up or simply because they are themselves equally incompetent.

      I'm not a Conservative by the way, nor would I ever vote Conservative or Labour. I'd just rather see people take responsibility for their lives somewhat and this is what Thatcher tried to make people do improving the country as a result whilst Labour has done the opposite, destroying the country as a result.

    102. Re:Terrible Idea by Kent+Recal · · Score: 1

      You are mistaken, in our system this is the exact definition of a good politician. We have no metrics other than vote-counts (and, in some cases, lawsuits...).
      Appealing to the masses is part of the game. Remember: The first step towards being a good administrator is to *become* an administrator in first place.

      If you can't manage to climb the ladder on your own, using all the dirty tricks that it takes, then you'd probably not survive long on the top anyways.

    103. Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a job for Rahm Emanuel.

    104. Re:Terrible Idea by jerpyro · · Score: 1

      Actually that was Tom Carvel... Geeks should know their ice cream trivia!

    105. Re:Terrible Idea by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      What about appointing an industry surrogate that can shape public policy to benefit a few companies and the directors of those companies?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    106. Re:Terrible Idea by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Working at another national lab, yeah, he'll have some experience playing the game. Still, he doesn't have the Schwartzenegger accent.

      Yoo will all do poosh-ups to generate dah powah!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    107. Re:Terrible Idea by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Yes, but administrating a group of scientists and grad students is nor the same as running a cabinet level agency. That is especially so if he ends up being alone and politically isolated. This kind of thing takes different skills. I agree with another poster in this thread that says we need fewer political saavy people in positions of power. At the same time just having one is a recipe for failure

      I don't know about you, but administering a bunch of a bunch of scientists is far more a headache than you think. They're all smart, and some have egos because they know they're smart. Some of them have problems with social norms and communication. As for physics grad students, the word "eccentric" doesn't do most of the justice. :P Being able to lead them is not easy.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    108. Re:Terrible Idea by radl33t · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You hope the government fails because of a slashdot comment? Let me get this straight then, you want to "teach" the general public a lesson that scientists are fallible. In order to do this, you call for the failure of US energy policy through 2012. Nice plan.

      You're deeply confused. "science" isn't going to make any decisions. Steven Chu is going to make decisions. From all accounts, he's a capable guy. I'll take someone with roots in physical science, a clear understanding of numbers, and the ambition to get stuff done over a clueless political gamesman any day of the week. I find irony in your description of "real policy" , as it sounds very similar, from my experience, to a description of "real research."

    109. Re:Terrible Idea by Dragonslicer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Do you have one? ;)

      I bet if I search my computers at home I could find a couple old PowerPoint presentations.

    110. Re:Terrible Idea by J.+Charles+Holt · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Considering how a number of the Conservatives (and, to be fair, some of the Libertarians as well) have been attacking Obama for his appointment of "smart" people, I get the impression that there are quite a few of them who don't value intelligence, and won't hesitate for a moment to try and attack them.

      Arguing that we need someone "well-heeled" in politics seems maybe a bit far reaching. Being a politician is, in many ways, simply having the ability to get along with others. It's the kid on the playground who is willing to share his toys, while knowing which bullies are likely to steal them. People who are successful at their work and have advanced to high positions within their fields generally have already demonstrated those skills.

    111. Re:Terrible Idea by orielbean · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So you think a politician is better equipped to weigh long-term decision making in the realm of science, vs a scientist who might possibly understand the language, risks, methodology used in describing potential crises and future developement? Good luck with that. That's where we are today - crippled by the religion of politics where only the loudest hungry voice or needy lobbyist is heard. God forbid a person with knowledge earned is asked to weigh evidence and drive policy.

    112. Re:Terrible Idea by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think your exaggerating things quite a bit. I also think your doing it for your own self interest. First of all, environmental damages are already charged to the oil companies and spread across their costs. Unless your going to attempt to claim that some unseen damages are present because using oil does the same thing that being alive does- emite Co2, then there isn't really any costs not already covered. If you are going to invent a damage, the costs are still ofset by your ability to purchase products cheaper so you are already accepting and covering the costs yourself. As for wars to take over oil fields, Name one in the last 50 years where this has happened? And no, Iraq wasn't about oil, Saddam and Iraq wasn't hoarding their oil, they were forbidden to sell it except in controlled ways in which France and Russia were abusing for their own gain. Now that Iraq is under new and sovereign control, the oil is put on the free and open market and sold at market prices, not some secrete contract were we benefit. Drilling rights have little to no costs that aren't already covered either. There has been no major environmental or economic damage or costs that weren't already covered by the companies and taken care of in the last 30 or more years.

      The costs of these are already figured into the costs of energy or the costs you pay at the stores. There is no advantages given to any oil product and there are no hidden costs that aren't already accounted for. When Oil jumped in prices it was nothing more then speculators using other people's money and when that source of money dried up, you can see what we were left with, oil selling for one third of the cost it was. But there are no hidden factoring of wars or unpaid for environmental claims or drilling rights and all. You need to look around a little more if you really think that way.

    113. Re:Terrible Idea by BenSnyder · · Score: 4, Informative

      Obama's pick to solve the energy crisis

      "You should interview Steven Chu," the scientist at the Joint Genome Institute in Walnut Creek, Calif., told me. "He already has one Nobel Prize. He wants to get a second one for solving the energy crisis."

      That was two years ago, and I sorely regret not following through and landing an interview with Chu, a physicist who has dedicated his post-Nobel Prize career to the development of alternative sources of energy. Because as Barack Obama's nominee for secretary of energy, Steven Chu is going to get a chance to make his dreams come true, with the full backing of the U.S. government.

      Since 2004, Chu has served as the director of the University of California-managed Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, spearheading, among other things, a massive research effort in solar power. To get a sense of the man's interests, here's the second sentence of his bio at the LBNL Web site. (LBNL, located in Berkeley, Calif., should be distinguished from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which does weapons research for the U.S. government.)

      Chu, an early advocate for finding scientific solutions to climate change, has guided Berkeley Lab on a new mission to become the world leader in alternative and renewable energy research, particularly the development of carbon-neutral sources of energy.

      Environmentalists and climate change activists are understandably delighted. Consider this: For eight years the United States has boasted an Energy Department that for all intents and purposes was a subsidiary of the U.S. oil industry. Now, should he be confirmed, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist who specializes in climate change and renewable energy and already knows how to run a decent-size bureaucracy is going to be in charge of realizing Obama's bold promises to lead the United States toward an energy-sustainable future. Symbolically speaking, one would be hard put to draw a sharper contrast between the Bush and Obama eras than what is achieved by this single appointment.

      That said, Steven Chu is no stranger to Big Oil. He was instrumental in helping U.C. Berkeley land one of the biggest corporate bonanzas ever -- $500 million from British Petroleum to establish the Energy Biosciences Institute, an ambitious joint venture that has been controversial from the get-go at Berkeley because of its plans to use oil money to do research and development into energy crops and other biofuel wizardry.

      And, as I noted after seeing him talk in early 2007 at a symposium titled "Domestic Bioenergy: Weaning Ourselves From Foreign Oil Addiction," held at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, he is on record as being a bit hyperbolic as to the potential of biofuels.

      There is enough marginal, unused agricultural land in the United States to generate the biomass necessary to reach the one-third goal [of displacing annual American gasoline consumption with biofuels,] without displacing food production, said Steven Chu, the Nobel physics prize winner who runs the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. And the laws of thermodynamics won't need to be broken -- there is more than enough energy hitting the earth every day as sunlight to supply all of humanity's energy needs.

      You can find plenty of scientists who will dispute such assertions, right

    114. Re:Terrible Idea by master_p · · Score: 1

      New laws always cause more crime (by definition).

      New laws create more crime types, not more crime.

    115. Re:Terrible Idea by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1, Interesting

      But he's accomplished something significant in one particular field. How does that make him qualified to do anything outside of that field? And let's leave aside the potential that the Nobel prizes themselves are awarded based on a political basis.

      Just because he's a smart guy and an accomplished scientist doesn't make him a good candidate any more than me, who am also a smart guy and an accomplished software developer (albeit significantly less accomplished than a Nobel laureate). I do like the idea of having someone presumably objective and informed in the post, don't get me wrong, but politics is a game where success (i.e., accomplishing something truly constructive, not just 'political success' which means acquiring power, money and/or fame) seldom depends primarily on being objective and well-informed.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    116. Re:Terrible Idea by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I bought Al's because he needed the money to pay his electric bill.

    117. Re:Terrible Idea by drew · · Score: 1

      *twitch*... wouldn't have! wouldn't have!

      Sorry, not sure what just came over me there...

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    118. Re:Terrible Idea by VeryLargeNumber · · Score: 0

      True, actually. Nobel Prize for Physics is given solely for scientific achievement, as opposed to many "lifetime achievement" scientific awards which are actually given to politicians among scientists.

      How about the Nobel Peace prize? Should it also qualify a person? However, it would be weird for Dalai Lama to advise the US president:)

    119. Re:Terrible Idea by Chrisq · · Score: 1
      According to this Margaret Thatcher worked on a team that managed to put more air in icecream, giving a softer taste and allowing the production of soft icecream.

    120. Re:Terrible Idea by Jon-1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Gore's Nobel Prize isn't in a scientific category.

    121. Re:Terrible Idea by tmosley · · Score: 2, Informative

      Right, because there have been so many new nuclear reactors built in the last thirty years.

      If it weren't for the DoE, we'd probably get 50%+ of our energy from nuclear now, and we'd be reprocessing our spent fuel rods, giving us an unending energy supply for the next 10000 odd years.

      Instead we're going to war for oil and choking on CO2. Good job, Big Gubamint!

    122. Re:Terrible Idea by Bootsy+Collins · · Score: 2

      But he's accomplished something significant in one particular field. How does that make him qualified to do anything outside of that field? And let's leave aside the potential that the Nobel prizes themselves are awarded based on a political basis.

      Can you give me an example of a Nobel prize in physics that was awarded on a political basis?

    123. Re:Terrible Idea by Kid+Zero · · Score: 1

      Bill Richardson would be one. I think you've heard of him.

    124. Re:Terrible Idea by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      I think the trade-off is more along the lines of "Can this guy tell me what is snake-oil and what isn't, or is he going to just help me bend some arms?"

      Quite often, that's where the issue is with underlings. You either get the smart ones who can tell you "this is stupid, this might work, and this has the best chance of accomplishing that goal", or you get the ones who play all the political games you need to have played to get your decision implemented. Judging from the appointment, it seems to me that Obama decided he needed someone in place who understood the basic physics of energy. I'm hoping that that means that we will get away from the idiocy that is corn-based ethanol.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    125. Re:Terrible Idea by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Or, you know, he could think that global warming is largely influenced by humans after having researched the issue. You realize that there is a chance that you could be wrong, no?

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    126. Re:Terrible Idea by extrasolar · · Score: 1

      The general public needs to get over its delusion that scientists are some sort of priesthood that exists to tell them The One True Way and save them the trouble of having to understand issues well enough to make their own informed decisions about what is best.

      This is exactly right. We already have a priesthood to tell us the one true way, which makes you wonder why even listen to the scientists at all in making policy decisions.

      Oh wait, we don't.

    127. Re:Terrible Idea by guyminuslife · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're missing the point. In fact, the point that you got was the exact opposite of the actual point. We've had the One True Way for 8 years now. Evidence...hah! We don't need no stinkin' evidence, we already know we're right!

      The scientist, having an understanding of the issues at stake, and the trade-offs in play, will be able to make informed decisions.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    128. Re:Terrible Idea by ClubStew · · Score: 1

      But what does it mean to be politically savvy? Seriously. And with some agreement on a definition in mind, then does it matter?

      IMO, politicians are often not fit to make decisions on what they do nor are their constituents, so many times it falls to the lobbyists who either make the best argument or, frankly, put the most money into their argument.

    129. Re:Terrible Idea by tehcyder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's dangerous to tear down someone who is vastly smarter than you, especially when they're right about something

      I've always found it much more dangerous tearing down stupid people, they're less likely to worry about the rights and wrongs of an argument and much more likely to take it personally.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    130. Re:Terrible Idea by bozo88 · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is also a video of his 2007 Nobel Conference lecture titled "The World's Energy Problem and What We Can Do About It" available http://gustavus.edu/events/nobelconference/2007/chu-lecture.php which as the title suggests, is very relevant to this discussion.

    131. Re:Terrible Idea by rengav · · Score: 1

      The man is the head of a national laboratory. You don't get to that position without knowing how to navigate highly political waters.

    132. Re:Terrible Idea by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      The DOE was one of the few things Carter did right. Several issues have been solved that wouldn't of without this kind of organization.

      But, I note you don't actually cite any.
       

      Besides, do you really want the military building their own nuclear weapons and reactors? As it is now they have to ask the DOE if they can have one, or any. They're all owned by the DOE and the DOE can just say no if they feel like it.

      Except we didn't need to create a DOE to supervise the military - as the ERDA and the NRC (both carved out of what had been the AEC) already existed and fulfilled those functions as the AEC had for decades.

    133. Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's true. Everyone knows how easy it is to get those non-scientific Nobel Prizes. The Nobel Institute won't stop ringing me, trying to offer me Peace prizes!

    134. Re:Terrible Idea by AgentTim3 · · Score: 1

      Just because someone is a great scientist does not mean the person is a good administrator or a good politician.

      Just because someone is a great scientist does not mean the person is a bad administrator or a bad politician.

      What makes administrators or politicians "good" anyway? An MBA, or a PoliSci degree? Hardly.

      I'd say a reasonable degree of expertise in your domain, coupled with an ability to listen and evaluate the merits of many different viewpoints are the primary attributes to look for.

    135. Re:Terrible Idea by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

      Sure, but isn't someone in a very high position like that required to be more objective than you or me?

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    136. Re:Terrible Idea by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      One of the things I've so often been troubled by with our current administration was that in uncountable examples, they look like a small child playing chess who can see no more beyond a couple of moves. The incompetence at all levels has been staggering. The disdain for facts and science over "gut" and pet policies (and blatant corruption) has been deplorable.

      I sort of agree and disagree. Things like James Hansen of NASA and Global Warming fame, his Facts were tainted by his beliefs which amounts to the same justifications as god willed it. He has been shown wrong on many things and actually publicly stated that he believes it was ok to exaggerate claims on global warming just to get attention drawn to it. This administration had to deal with these contradictory facts that were little more then some zealot's twisting of words in order to push their opinion. To this day, people still believe that the Mann hockey stick graph is accurate when it isn't, they still believe that the 90's and 2000's were the hottest years on record, just a few weeks ago, he attempted to claim that October or November was the warmest month on record until someone pointed out that they used the previous months data, and we have had this type of crap poison all attempts to get to the bottom of things. The work that the IPCC has done didn't include any original research of their own, they simply studied other people's research, including the crap Hansen has been bastardizing and attempted to create a sane conclusion or interpretation over it. Of course the problem there is garbage in garbage out so we can't even trust their reports 100%.

      So while there was disregard for facts, a lot of facts needed to be disregarded to the extent of the claims being made of them. If the warmest year on record over the last century and a half is actually 1934 (in that area) and not some point in the late 90's and Co2 is the main problem, then they need to explain why the mid 1930's was so hot with so little Co2 and how that doesn't effect the current explanation of the problem answer. to date, Hansen has only said that the differences are insignificant and doesn't change his position and he totally ignores that some natural or man made force that he himself claims wasn't Co2 was having an effect in the mid 30's.

      In other words, a lot of the Facts are little more then political agendas in the same ways I already mentioned which you are also considering ""gut" and pet policies (and blatant corruption) has been deplorable."

      An accomplished scientist need not champion the "CORRECT" solution. They would do far better than recent folk simply by doing a good job weeding out the bad solutions.

      Well, no. Not when they cherry pick the data to prove their positions. I could take any data set and form it to support my theories and show that other solutions are bad. The ability to see this bullshit and act on it is more important then assuming that somehow a person with a science background is magically immune. When you politicize anything, there is no expectation that politics won't be a part of it. We are in no better or worse of a situation until such time that they prove themselves which would be true of anyone in the positions. Being a scientist makes little difference because politics isn't science, it is a philosophy more like religion and the two don't speak of each other. One may have control over the other but they aren't intertwined in a way that you can ensure good science in the other. Remember when politicians attempted to legislate the value of pi? It turns out that it was on the basis of facts as presented by a doctor seemingly qualified.

      The credit crisis is a great example. Parent's understanding seems weak. The slew of people going into foreclosure was just the match struck in the shed full of

    137. Re:Terrible Idea by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Just because scientists can be poor politicians, it doesn't mean all are, and this bright guy could just maybe have skills in both departments.

      It's certainly not unheard of. The current Dutch minister of science and education is a respected scientist, and he's one of the best ministers we've got, and probably one of the best we've ever had in that department.

      On the other hand, our prime minister used to be a professor, and he's a complete idiot and a bumbling fool (despite his 7 year reign).

    138. Re:Terrible Idea by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Like I said "most businesses", I'll give you funeral homes, car dealerships and realtors, because repeat business takes so long to come back. However, insurance, banks, cell phone providers and ISPs are all highly dependent on monthly (ie. repeat) services.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    139. Re:Terrible Idea by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      However, it is far easier to appoint a technocrat to the cabinet position and surround him with brilliant academics. Let them provide him with the best courses of action, and let him go through the stupid political games to accomplish those

      This seems inverted from how I understand the Clinton administration functioned. The Cabinent level people had the ideas and were smart. Their staff knew politics and told them what moves got them the results they wanted.

      And, to be fair, I'd rather have the guy at the top in charge of strategy, and his assistant in charge of tactics than vice-versa.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    140. Re:Terrible Idea by imric · · Score: 0

      ROFL. Because academics have no exposure to vicious politics.

      Not an academic, are you?

      --
      Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
    141. Re:Terrible Idea by DragonWriter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      With no offense to Steven Chu, this sort of post is why I have to hope his time as the Secretary of Energy goes very poorly. The idea that there is one correct policy and that all we need to do is get a scientist smart enough to tell us what Science says that is come from a gross misunderstand of the nature science.

      I think its more likely that Steven Chu was chosen to head the Department of Energy because he is an effective current administrator of a major Department of Energy research facility who, in that role, has done lots of work (including establishing partnership with outside entities) on policy issues that are important to the President-Elect than because the President-Elect views scientists as a mystical priesthood and Chu as the priest most in touch with the deity "Science".

      Chu is a Nobel laureate, but he's not just a Nobel laureate.

    142. Re:Terrible Idea by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      It's dangerous to tear down someone who is vastly smarter than you, especially when they're right about something. The danger of doing it may temper some of the sillier political games.

      Contrary to popular rumour, Nobel Prize winners aren't necessarily "vastly smarter than you". Nor does knowledge of physics transfer necessarily to, say, energy policy.

      Far better to pick someone who knows how to make decisions and let him/her/it ask experts for advice on the details.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    143. Re:Terrible Idea by nacturation · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How far along the chain of command do you want to place the smart guys?

      Ideally, you want smart guys throughout the entire chain of command, from way down in the basement all the way up to the ebony tower. Ah, but one can dream...

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    144. Re:Terrible Idea by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Yes, but administrating a group of scientists and grad students is nor the same as running a cabinet level agency.

      Administering one of the biggest operations run by the Department of Energy, which also involves briefing Congress on its operations, working to justify its budget, dealing with many of the government, business, and academic stakeholders that the Department deals with, etc., may not be the same thing as running a generic cabinet level agency, but its certainly about as relevant experience as it is possible to get to running the Department of Energy, short of actually having already had that job.

      This kind of thing takes different skills.

      Skills I think that Chu has demonstrated in his tenure at LBNL. What skills do you think he is lacking, and on what basis do you think that?

    145. Re:Terrible Idea by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 1

      Not everyone on the planet . . .only those who really hated Saddam Hussein.

    146. Re:Terrible Idea by paketto · · Score: 1

      I think you meant to say a Keynote presentation. ;-)

    147. Re:Terrible Idea by lysergic.acid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      well, part of the reason it's broken is because we have career politicians/lawyers/corporate executives running everything. i think one of the smartest moves made by India as a society was to elect a scientist as president. and while that may never happen in the U.S., having science-related cabinet positions filled by scientists is the next best thing.

      in itself this may not fix all of the problems inherent to our political system, but it will at least put people who have some intelligence & integrity in positions of power. also, by putting policy decisions in the hands of scientists/academics rather than conventional politicians, you introduce the possibility of change/reform for the first time. otherwise, if every government official fits the same mold of the archetypal politician you're just setting yourself up for more of the same.

      the idea that someone needs to be a career politician who knows how to "play political games" in order to be a good politician is patently false. you might need to be experienced in making backroom deals, giving kickbacks, pandering to interest groups, etc. in order to sleaze your way up to the top in politics, but if someone is simply being appointed straight to the top, then that clearly isn't requisite anymore. and in this case it would indeed be better to appoint a non-politician who hasn't been corrupted by years of being in Washington (and political fund-raising) and will not compromise their morals so easily.

    148. Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The general public needs to get over its delusion that scientists are some sort of priesthood that exists to tell them The One True Way and save them the trouble of having to understand issues well enough to make their own informed decisions about what is best.

      I can't disagree with that, but scientists are hardly some special case here. The public thinks that politicians are a priesthood too, and (no offense to Obama) that guy and the "yes we can!" rhetoric leading up to his election makes him look about as priestly as it gets.

      If it's not a scientist, it'll be someone else, and both the public and that "someone else" will still have the same relationship that you fear. Might as well get a scientist. Teaching the public to think for themselves is a separate issue.

    149. Re:Terrible Idea by Socguy · · Score: 2

      Much of what you say is true, however, I feel that in this case Mr. Chu might be just what the proverbial doctor ordered. Up to this point, the majority of decisions made in regards to environmental policy have been ideologically driven with the whims of business overriding sound environmental practise. Thus, the majority of environmental policy over the last decade or so, has been a dismal failure (unless your idea of environmental policy is to extract more resources with less government interference from said envronment).

      I guess, the hope with a physicist in charge is that he will see through the lobbyist bullsh*t of 'this can't be done' as he knows full well that it can be done, you just don't want to.

    150. Re:Terrible Idea by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      Wait a minute, back it up, back it up. I have a question.

      What's an Energy Secretary?

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    151. Re:Terrible Idea by Ichoran · · Score: 1

      Running a national lab requires a good deal of political acumen. He's also running a green energy initiative at LBL. He seems pretty qualified to me.

      My main concern is that he might do more good at LBL than at Washington.

    152. Re:Terrible Idea by seriv · · Score: 1

      I would guess that anyone who heads a national laboratory should probably be thought of as more of an administrator than scientist, regardless of background in science. He isn't just an administrator, he is a high ranking administrator for a DOE run lab. He will know who and what he is dealing with far better than some random politician. Bush appointed a NASA insider as an administrator (so a background in science), and most anyone in NASA will say he is far better than any of their previous bosses. This story has proven, if nothing else, how few details people need to know to make bold, outlandish statements.

    153. Re:Terrible Idea by Kent+Recal · · Score: 1

      That's not entirely true. Gas and oil are the most affordable resource today because the technologies are long established, because the material itself has been comparably cheap so far but also because the gas/oil lobby is continiously lobbying strong against the development of alternative technologies (in their own best interest, ofcourse).

      It's not as clear as you make it out to be that oil/gas are *really* the cheapest option anylonger, at least when you take the cost for oil-wars and the measurable cost for natural disasters due to global warming into the equation. Pretty much everyone agrees by now that the reliance on oil/gas can not be sustained in the long-term for that very reasons, plus: We're simply running out of it within the next hundred years or so.

      I could very well see a difference in policy coming. Ofcourse the US is not going to give up on oil/gas over night, but they'd be very dumb if they didn't raise the investments into alternative technologies big time.

    154. Re:Terrible Idea by Ichoran · · Score: 1

      Yeah, actually, I'd have him design a bridge--he'd get up to speed quickly enough, and figure out what he needed to know in order to do a good job.

      But the real point is that he's running a National Lab. Which means that "Steven Chu is a great physicist AND a proven administrator".

    155. Re:Terrible Idea by Ichoran · · Score: 4, Informative

      Steven Chu is an expert on the technical side. He also runs LBL, so he knows how to make decisions. Why get two people when you can get one who can do both?

      Also, Steven Chu is probably smarter than you. Nobel Prize winners aren't *necessarily*, but in this case, Chu is a very, very sharp guy.

    156. Re:Terrible Idea by glassware · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I look forward to the day when people like you, who seem to hate scientists for no reason other than that they study science, are proved wrong.

      When people who hate smart people for being smart are somehow put in their place.

      When it is no longer okay to claim that dumb people are somehow more honest than smart people.

      Oh wait - Obama got elected. Maybe we're okay after all. :)

    157. Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Someone hasn't heard of the Flobots.

    158. Re:Terrible Idea by Manchot · · Score: 1

      True, but given that Obama has stated that energy is his number one priority, one would think that the Energy Secretary will command his attention.

    159. Re:Terrible Idea by Ichoran · · Score: 1

      It's easy to take from the poor and give to the rich. You just devise an economic system where return on investment scales increasingly with investment (so that you earn a better rate on an investment of, say, $10M, than one of, say, $1k), don't apply other factors that more than compensate, and let the process run on its own.

      You don't have to work very hard to get this to happen because of economies of scale. All you have to do, really, is not get in the way too much.

      The rich get richer, and the poor get--well, that depends on the overall economy and the scale of the investment return imbalance. They could get richer or poorer. Lately it's been "poorer".

    160. Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God is a cunt though.

    161. Re:Terrible Idea by Zibblsnrt · · Score: 1

      I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb here and assume that someone who's spent the last four years as a director of a major national research lab with 4,000 employees just might have administrative experience.

      But no, go ahead and kneejerk on the fact that he's a scientist and therefore unable to do anything else.

      (Also, LOL at the idea that the academic world doesn't involve politics.)

      --
      "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
    162. Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insurance companies actually have 'continuous' customers, and one might actually use insurance multiple times, in fact the ones who pay the most (delivery companies, for example), deal with them often.
      Funeral Homes are hired by the surviving relatives, though I guess this one was mostly a joke :)
      Car dealerships? On a website with mostly US people? Most people buy more than one car in their lives. Who keeps a car for 10 years?
      Realtors, well, this one might fit the bill, I guess! I hate them :)
      Banks have continuous customers as well. See how long a bank with a bad rep lasts.
      Cell phone companies have it easy, since they all suck. Another case of continuous customers
      ISPs have continuous customers as well. And many areas have only shitty ISPs, like with cell phone companies. Geeks have a lot of influence on this one, everyone I know who has internet access has asked me for advice, even geeks ask other geeks for their experience.

    163. Re:Terrible Idea by K.Murx · · Score: 2, Informative

      What scientists are politicians? And which one of those are poor?

      The chancellor of Germany holds a PhD in theoretical quantum/molecular mechanics.

      --
      Marx ist die Theorie, Murx ist die Praxis
    164. Re:Terrible Idea by IronChef · · Score: 1

      If politics gave us what we truly wanted, it would be called "leadership" instead.

    165. Re:Terrible Idea by ergean · · Score: 1

      Is that bigger then Wasilla, Alaska? You Betcha!

    166. Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the hell did being right have anything to do with politics or success?

      Politics is about consensus building. If he can't do it, it doesn't matter if he is right, smart or what have you, he's going to fail. What so many people fail to understand is that there are very few absolute truths. Without an absolute truth, you can't really be right. Go find someone one the debate team. Ask them to pick a topic and argue for it. They will, effectively. Then ask them to argue against it. They will, effectively.

      Politician don't get paid to make the right, smart or best choices. They get paid to make the choices that keep their voters happy lest they get voted out of office.

      Of course I'm going to hope he is right, smart and capable. That would be refreshing.

    167. Re:Terrible Idea by srleffler · · Score: 1
      Don't forget they are just coming with the ideas; every single decision is the President's.

      That's not actually true. The cabinet secretaries do have to run their own departments and make most decisions on their own. the President makes the big policy decisions. It wouldn't be efficient if the President had to run everything with only advisors to assist him. The cabinet secretaries are managers, not merely advisors.

    168. Re:Terrible Idea by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      ... However, insurance, banks, cell phone providers and ISPs are all highly dependent on monthly (ie. repeat) services.

      And yet, somehow the far majority of the most successful (i.e. largest) of these companies (BofA, Wells Fargo, WaMu, Verizon, ATT, Sprint, etc) are almost ALL considered to have terrible customer service when it comes to dealing with their current customers. There is nothing like the oily appeasement of the sales people, when you're trying to get a fraudulent (or mistaken) charge removed from your account. Everyone knows this. Yet how could this be, if keeping their current customers was the MOST important thing? Simple. It's not. They've realized that it's cheaper to invest in marketing gimmicks to pull in new customers than it is to invest in the quality of their customer service. There are some rare exceptions to the big-ticket/recurring-charges companies. Apple is one of them. And they succeed because they built a culture "It just works" around their products, and that culture requires a higher level of customer service.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    169. Re:Terrible Idea by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's not entirely true. Gas and oil are the most affordable resource today because the technologies are long established, because the material itself has been comparably cheap so far but also because the gas/oil lobby is continiously lobbying strong against the development of alternative technologies (in their own best interest, ofcourse).

      The gas and oil industries are not lobbying against the development of alternative energy. They are lobbying against laws mandating their use instead of traditional energies. Oil and Gas dind't care when hydro power is being installed, they didn't care when nuclear power is being use, what they care about is a law that put them out of business because it mandate the use of something else. That is not lobbying against the development, that is lobbying against unfair disadvantages. There is nothing stopping the development of alternative energies and the oil and gas industries are funding a lot of research into them because they have the infrastructure set up to deliver it.

      Do you realize that the so called alternative energy technology has been around and developing for almost a century or more? Solar cells date back to the late 1800's wind energy was in use in the 1930's and 40's until cheaper power sources started making it to rural homes. Methanol and ethanol alcohols have been around and in use long before that. The otto engines originally ran on different alcohols (coal gas contained methanol) but was later adapted to run on gasoline which was a by product of kerosene. The Diesel engine was originally introduced running on coal dust then Kerosene which later became diesel (names after the diesel engine's creator) which turned out to be a more practical use.

      s not as clear as you make it out to be that oil/gas are *really* the cheapest option anylonger, at least when you take the cost for oil-wars and the measurable cost for natural disasters due to global warming into the equation. Pretty much everyone agrees by now that the reliance on oil/gas can not be sustained in the long-term for that very reasons, plus: We're simply running out of it within the next hundred years or so.

      Wow.. I didn't realize how many people are truly drinking the coolaid. First, there is no more proof that global warming is causing natural disasters then there is for God creating the world. Natural disasters have always been here, always will be, and will always be random in their appearances as well as strength and/or devastation. I'm not even sure how you can say that with a straight face. Second, I have yet to see any wars over oil. You can repeat the notion that a war is for oil but it doesn't make it so. There has never been a quid pro quo established indicating that any war was over oil. Iraq invaded Kuwait because of claims of slant drilling, we didn't go in because Kuwait was had oil but because Kuwait had long be an ally of the US and in fact, our relationship with Iraq before this can be traced back to Kuwait and their fear of Iran invading them. Only if you close your eyes to everything else relevant, can you make the claim of war for oil (at least where the US is concerned).

      Finally, we have enough oil to last several hundred years that we know of. It's possible that there are more deposits that we don't know about. The problem is that it will become increasingly difficult to get to it so unless breakthroughs and advancements happen, it will start getting really expensive. This is the only thing that lend truth to your comment on the viability of oil. Of course there is the problem with peak oil theory in that as soon as advancements make the extraction of oil easier, the peak moves and people don't like moving it because it turns their true statements of a year ago into fallacies of today.

      I could very well see a difference in policy coming. Ofcourse the US is not going to give up on oil/gas over night, but they'd be very dumb if they didn't r

    170. Re:Terrible Idea by srleffler · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but the reverse can also be bad. Sometimes you need a marketer-type running a business. A lot of tech start-ups fail because the business is run by an inventor or engineer who understands the technology really well, but doesn't understand what the customers want or what kind of business model will work.

    171. Re:Terrible Idea by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

      People seem to think that scientists are different from academics; one sits in a lab with beakers while the other sits in an office filling out paperwork and wrestling for budget. I'd say a Nobel laureate has the right balance of bureaucratic experience and experience not being dependent on grant money (the Nobel prize is quite large after all) to bring change to the table.

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

    172. Re:Terrible Idea by mrrudge · · Score: 1

      As the son of a skilled Yorkshire mining engineer who lost his *lifelong* job in Thatchers power battles with the unions, I'd like to point out that no, this didn't affect just people who were sat around waiting for handouts.

      From his perspective, you've probably never done a days work in your life, ( I certainly havn't ) his friends lost life, limbs, eyesight... doing dangerous, hard work and expecting only fair pay for that.

      What Thatcher did do, was break the working spirit of a skilled manufacturing country, leaving little pride and allowing work trained skill sets to die. As a modernisation it was short sighted and led to the current situation where most of the country's economy is based in London.

      I'm not saying that there aren't people who are asking for handouts, but please don't generalise for everyone, in a lot of this country there is now very little opportunity, retraining or not.

      Disclaimer : I work in London, in one of those fancy *new* jobs.

    173. Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great idea.

      Chu isn't your ordinary lab-dweller. Running a facility like Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory means that the guy has had his fair exposure to politics - both inside the lab and out. There are serious politics in any large lab or company.

      I wouldn't worry about his ability to handle politicians.

    174. Re:Terrible Idea by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      I think it goes something like "smart" (i never liked that word anyway, but the common conception of it) people are clever, cleverness can be used to trick others, therefore smart people are untrustworthy.

    175. Re:Terrible Idea by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Lets be clear here, the Cabinet secretaries are not the "advisors" of the President in any way but as a formality. The functional component of their advisory role is presenting reports compiled by their subordinates.

      Additionally, Secretaries are not simply responsible to the President, they are also confirmed by the Senate and they will frequently be called afterwards to give testimony to Congress.

      These people are executives in their own right running large government bureaucracies. That is a huge reason why the corporate executives that many love to hate frequently end up in charge of Cabinet departments. Their past experience is often just as applicable, and possibly more applicable to the realities of running a department.

      There is no reason to believe that a Nobel laureate cannot run such a department, and many such scientists do go on to run large research projects with a decent number of colleagues and staff, but the point is entirely valid that you do need a skillset beyond sheer research ability to be a cabinet secretary.

      Indeed, the true answer to most of the dreams of those who would try and see science be less politicized would probably be someone with the skills of a consummate bureaucrat whose one necessary redeeming quality is the faith in the well-researched reports of his expert scientist subordinates. This individual would then have the savvy to get that report into the hands of the president and get him to act on its well-researched recommendations. The individual would also have the ability to cause the bureaucracy to actually carry out the President's and his intent.

      It is possible that in 1789, one man in the Secretary of State or Treasury or Energy (had it existed then) would have been selected and useful for his own knowledge and skills rather than bureaucratic finesse or political adeptness. That is not the case today and it is important for people to bear that in mind.

      Don't forget they are just coming with the ideas; every single decision is the President's.

      No. No. No. Not in the slightest. I'd be surprised if the president makes more than 2% of the actual decisions that operate the government. If you think he does, please obtain a copy of the National Budget and try and read it and understand every page of it before the next budget is released. And I mean the proposed budgets, not the ones that are adopted AFTER Congress gets its hands on it.

      The President sets policy, just as any executive does, but he can only act on the information he is given, he only has so much time in a day to make decisions, and he simply has no way to adequately supervise the people who implement his desires.

      The cabinet secretaries make *real* decisions every day, just as real and important as the President's, if perhaps more limited in scope. The President can order whatever he likes, but he can't do it himself. He can't even give orders to the military unless they are passed through the Secretary of Defense to the unified Combatant Commanders. There are probably huge swaths of governmental actions that a president technically controls that he doesn't even think about more than once a month. Who is making decisions independently in that time? The cabinet secretaries and undersecretaries.

    176. Re:Terrible Idea by fugue · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where are my mod points? Your final paragraph cut to the heart of the matter. Here's hoping you're right!

      Not that scientists are clueless about politics, or immune to the sweet charms of petty backstabbing. But I suspect that a Nobel laureate would be (or at least feel) mostly above politics within a domain that is still, whatever else it is, a meritocracy first. I hope he realises that government politics isn't, and finds a way to be intelligent without being an idiot.

      --
      "The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
    177. Re:Terrible Idea by Palpitations · · Score: 1
      Thanks for the heads up, watching it now.

      For anyone who doesn't want to deal with QuickTime, "The World's Energy Problem and What We Can Do About It" also appears to be on YouTube @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snuzWU4-gjc

    178. Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From his wiki page:

      Improper compensation
      Steven Chu was one of 46 employees named in a 2006 PricewatershouseCoopers audit of improper compensation practices at the University of California. [11] Records produced under the California Public Relations Act also show that he was one of at least 29 employees secretly offered unusual perks.[12]

      Given the current political climate in Illinois, I'd say his connections at receiving "under the table" personal perks and compensation make him an ideal candidate. You don't get yourself in a position for goodies like that by not knowing how to milk the system.

    179. Re:Terrible Idea by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But that's somewhat my point, you stress that he lost his lifelong job- why should anyone expect to have a lifelong job if their job becomes obsolete? Why should everyone else be expected to subsidise these industries just because these people have an expectation of a lifelong job without ever having to reskill or retrain?

      Certainly part of the disagreement is a generation thing, people nowadays on average apparently change career 4 times in their working life but I still can't help but feel it's naive to expect you can just sail through life doing the same thing without ever having to put any effort in keeping your skills relevant.

      I also don't see the issue with destroying our manufacturing base when there's absolutely no way our workforce could compete with Eastern countries in this area (Singapore, Taiwan at the time, nowadays India, mainland China) in what was and still is and increasingly global economy. Again, should other people work hard and pay to subsidise an industry that's no longer profitable or irrelevant just because the people in that industry don't feel they should have to adapt and keep their skills uptodate?

      Ironically, I live on the Wakefield/Barnsley border so I know the communities all to well that were hit hardest and meet many people who were there at the time and as you say, I shouldn't generalise because there are two classes of these people- there are those who never bothered to retrain who are sat living off handouts to this day and there are those who got past it who did bother to retrain and are now working in other areas.

      Perhaps the only mistake Thatcher made in this situation was not making more effort to help these people retrain but again, if you were laid off today because the industry you work in became irrelevant you have to ask, would anyone help you retrain? Would you expect everyone else to pay for you to keep your job? The same problem exists in France with it's heavily subsidised farming industry and it really hurts their economic potential.

    180. Re:Terrible Idea by DVSD91 · · Score: 1

      Wow someone who knows about the section they are administering. It is called taking the middleman out. All movements will be made with factual evidence as opposed to paid off back ally talks.

      Great Idea.

      We are going for change! Because the way things are structured now are NOT working!

    181. Re:Terrible Idea by fugue · · Score: 3, Interesting

      All to often, academics is too far removed from the real reality of things that they can at times be detrimental to sound policy.

      Almost by definition, academics are the people who look at evidence before coming to decisions, and revise their decisions when they receive new information. Sorry if that's removed from your reality--it's certainly alien to Bush's. And what do manuals have to do with academics?

      Carter's failure is a good point--if you ask people to act intelligently, they will resent it (I assume that's what you're referring to?). I have no doubt that Obama is quite aware of the parallels; I think that he is a more careful politician, but time will tell whether this country is worthy of him.

      Apparently what this country needs is a gangsta president.

      --
      "The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
    182. Re:Terrible Idea by fugue · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While science can help determine how feasible a given proposal is (and even then, it's more in the realm of engineering than science), it's silent on which solution is best.

      Wrong. Give me a cost function and I'll tell you which policy is best. Yes, I gave you all the hard work there, but a scientist--and apparently no politician--will clearly see that the costs are arbitrary (or axiomatic, perhaps), but that the probability distribution of various outcomes can be measured, integrated, and the plan with the best chance of success pulled out. It's not rocket science--it's rather more complex than that--but it is well enough understood to be very powerful.

      I don't think the general public has the delusion you describe. I would say rather that the general public seems to think that God provides the One True Way, that science is the enemy of God, and that therefore science must claim the same thing and be wrong. Am I nit-picking? The result is about the same...

      --
      "The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
    183. Re:Terrible Idea by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It's easy to take from the poor and give to the rich. You just devise an economic system where return on investment scales increasingly with investment (so that you earn a better rate on an investment of, say, $10M, than one of, say, $1k), don't apply other factors that more than compensate, and let the process run on its own.

      I'm not sure I understand your point here? Are you saying that if you invest 10 million dollars into mycomp you will get a higher rate of return then I would buy only buy 1000 dollars worth of shares? FEC rules and regulations say that you have to pay the same per share so it the company posts earning and pays out 3 cents a share, you will get the same 3 cents as I do. If the price of the stock goes up, you will get the same price that I do when you sell or buy, there is no tiered or progressive pricing levels on publicly traded companies. Or are you talking about putting 10 million in the bank getting a higher interest rate the someone with just 1000 in the bank, at least at my bank, the difference in interest rates for more money is less then a quarter percent except in the money market accounts where you need a $2500 minimum so the $1000 wouldn't qualify. CD's at my bank are the same, $2500 minimum but the interest rates are exactly the same for the minimum up to 10 million or more. Actually, I'm kind of glad you mentioned that, the current 120 Month rate is CD 4.431% which isn't bad for a recessions. I think I will had to move some stuff around.

      Please elaborate a little on what you mean by that statement. I mean if your complaining that 10% of $1000 is only 100 where 10% of $10 million is $1000, then your just being silly. 10 percent is ten percent regardless.

      The rich get richer, and the poor get--well, that depends on the overall economy and the scale of the investment return imbalance. They could get richer or poorer. Lately it's been "poorer".

      Well, inflation is about the only way this can happen without the poor switching jobs or some drastic measure on them. You do understand that you definition of rich and poor are completely arbitrary don't you? If the poor can invest $1000, they aren't poor by my standards. And if they are getting a return on their 1000, they aren't really getting poorer unless the return doesn't keep up with inflation.

      You definitely need to explain the mechanics of your argument a little more. Please include examples that we can apply some math to.

    184. Re:Terrible Idea by jerpyro · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected, then! I was under the impression that it was the semi-melted Carvel goo that drove demand for soft ice cream. My mistake on that one. Oh the irony after I made a statement like "Geeks should know their ice cream trivia!" :P

    185. Re:Terrible Idea by jerpyro · · Score: 1
      Oh, my mistake then. I was under the impression that it was Carvel's melting stock that drove the demand for softer ice cream. Sorry about that Sock!

      Oh the irony after I make a snarky comment about ice cream trivia :P

    186. Re:Terrible Idea by HeckRuler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The general public needs to get over its delusion that scientists are some sort of priesthood that exists to tell them The One True Way and save them the trouble of having to understand issues well enough to make their own informed decisions about what is best.

      Mankind needs to get over its delusion that some sort of priesthood exists to tell them the One True Way.

      .

      Mankind needs to get over its delusion that there is some sort of One True Way.

    187. Re:Terrible Idea by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Again it could be very tough for him in a political position. But running a National Lab does involve some political ability. I am hopeful but it is far from a sure thing.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    188. Re:Terrible Idea by recharged95 · · Score: 1
      So, that's politics as usual in DC.

      All those experts, lobbists, generals, etc... who know their field, and are usually right, get the smack-down from politicians every day.

    189. Re:Terrible Idea by recharged95 · · Score: 1

      This we should have elected a PoliSci expert wonk to the position of president, than a lawyer (ok, a constitutional lawyer, but still a lawyer).

    190. Re:Terrible Idea by PachmanP · · Score: 1

      Any real policy involves trade offs between what's best for a large number of different groups, each of which has different needs, goals, tolerance for risk, etc. Deciding how to make those tradeoffs and select who's interests take priority in any given situation is largely subjective. While science can help determine how feasible a given proposal is (and even then, it's more in the realm of engineering than science), it's silent on which solution is best.

      The general public needs to get over its delusion that scientists are some sort of priesthood that exists to tell them The One True Way and save them the trouble of having to understand issues well enough to make their own informed decisions about what is best.

      It's those damn trade studies! Get a damn engineer in there. Shoot, get one that isn't too loud about fudges and has a little charisma and you'll have your One True Way. I volunteer

      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    191. Re:Terrible Idea by jcr · · Score: 1

      libertarians are so blind, it's pathetic.

      What's pathetic is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Oil prices spiking? Create a new cabinet-level department to huff and puff about it! That will help, surely!

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    192. Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

        If you can say, where do you work? I'd love to work for a company like that. The co I work for currently seems clueless about what's happening right now :(

        (posted anon because I have coworkers who read slashdot)

    193. Re:Terrible Idea by jcr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Have you tried reading the constitution? It grants certain enumerated powers. It's not carte blanch for the federal government to do anything and everything the politicians want to do.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    194. Re:Terrible Idea by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about the well-established economic concept of negative externalities, where a cost is incurred by someone who didn't get the benefit. For instance, if I lived next door to you and turned my home into a dump, the accompanying drop in property value of your home would be a negative externality.

      In the case of oil, the CO2 isn't as much of a problem as the CO and SO2. Furthermore, the wars for oil definitely do happen: Even if I conceded the current Iraq War as not being about oil (which I dispute, but that's not important), that still leaves Afghanistan (fought in part to allow Unocal - with Hamid Karzai as one of their executives - to build a pipeline from the Caspian Sea), the first Gulf War (fought to protect the Kuwaiti and Saudi oil supply), and the attempted Venezuela coup (with some native backing, but the CIA was almost definitely involved). That's funded by about 25% of my tax money. If you want a better idea of how oil affects current US foreign policy, read up on the Project for the New American Century.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    195. Re:Terrible Idea by tcolberg · · Score: 1

      Isn't leadership the ability to convince a lot of other people (who may or may not agree with you initially) that what you want is actually what they all want?

    196. Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm. So why not appoint Al Gore?

      he got one too.

      Funny though, ever since he got one, everywhere he goes experiences record lows. Wonder if someone is trying to tell us something.

    197. Re:Terrible Idea by IronChef · · Score: 1

      Man, that's even more cynical than my comment!

    198. Re:Terrible Idea by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      How about all of them. Once you realize everything is political you grab a better understanding of the world around you.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    199. Re:Terrible Idea by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Mr. President, I recommend one of these 3 people as janitor of the federal building in Bumphuck Montana. Would you be able to make a decision on that soon?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    200. Re:Terrible Idea by Ichoran · · Score: 1

      First, there are a variety of lots-of-money-only ways to increase wealth, including preferred stock, invitation-only venture capital groups, companies with shares with values in the many thousands of dollars (e.g. Berkshire Hathaway), tactics that require a large investment to engage in such as overseas investing and taking full advantage of tax credits/shelters/whatever; and then, of course, the more money one has the more effectively one can attempt to start a new business or make improvements on an existing process since one can start at a larger, more efficient scale.

      Most people are in debt, so they're actually getting poorer over time all else being equal (which it is not--they presumably have other sources of income!). I've had a rather hard time finding detailed statistics, but http://www.directlendingsolutions.com/2007-consumer-statistics.htm gives an overview.

      As far as whether the poor are actually getting poorer, they seem to be getting relatively poorer, i.e., not keeping up with economic growth while the higher income brackets are pulling away from them, according to http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf

      But, anyway, whether the poor get poorer depends on the structure and availability of options to go into debt as well as the inflation rate.

    201. Re:Terrible Idea by Ichoran · · Score: 1

      Of course it's far from a sure thing, but I'm not sure how one could get much closer to a sure thing (and pick an actual person instead of an idealization of one).

    202. Re:Terrible Idea by Threni · · Score: 1

      Never mind if you personally think it's 'trollish' or whatever - that's not important. Attacking the reasons you believe a comment was posted is boring - why not instead respond to the post. Religion is bullshit, and it seems that if the reports are true, people who blindly follow their parents religion are less likely to play important parts in science-related policy making in the new American government, and that can only be a good thing.

    203. Re:Terrible Idea by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

      We have a man with PhD in Physics as our PM(head of the executive branch), this is the worst idea EVER. He generates good ideas, but FAILS miserably in implementing them.

    204. Re:Terrible Idea by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      I hope it doesn't apply to Steven Chu, but another thing to keep in mind is that as scientists and engineers we often have a tendency to have favored pet projects, which we'll often obsess over and pound away at even after it's apparent that the project is a poor use of resources. For a recent big example, there's NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, who had designed the Ares rocket pet project before he became head of NASA. He's now pouring tons of NASA resources into the project, killing off the good science and technology projects which had previously had those resources. Even though it's now looking the like the Ares is an inherently bad design, instead of admitting it he's instead commanding his subordinates to do everything they can to defend his project from members of Obama's transition team who think Ares resources may be better used on other NASA projects.

      Again, hopefully David Chu will turn out better than Griffin, but we'll have to be watchful.

    205. Re:Terrible Idea by blue+l0g1c · · Score: 1

      He was quoting a lyric from a popular song "Handlebars" by the FloBots. I don't think he really meant it :)

    206. Re:Terrible Idea by Zibblsnrt · · Score: 1

      Are we taking the "agrees with you" definition of objective here?

      --
      "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
    207. Re:Terrible Idea by Zibblsnrt · · Score: 1

      To play devil's advocate, do we question whether politicians tapped for technologically related positions have enough scientific savvy?

      A lot of the discussion of this story's giving me the impression that people seem to hope that people tapped for technologically-related positions don't have enough scientific savvy, and instead want them to have little enough scientific savvy.

      --
      "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
    208. Re:Terrible Idea by weirdo557 · · Score: 0

      whoosh!

    209. Re:Terrible Idea by Veggiesama · · Score: 1

      I knew this guy who owned a funeral home. His motto was "First one's on the house!"

      He wasn't a very good businessman, though.

    210. Re:Terrible Idea by msouth · · Score: 1

      as a Nobel winner, he has been proven to be extremely intelligent and a good choice

      That's exactly what I'm talking about! Imagine you had said this: "I'm glad you married him, because as a Nobel winner, he has been proven to be extremely intelligent and a good choice." See how it's the part after the "and" that is completely unfounded? OK, so maybe everyone's bad at relationships. How about this: "I'm glad he was made dean of the college of arts and sciences, because as a Nobel winner, he has been proven to be extremely intelligent and a good choice."? People can be really good academically, and catastrophically poor administrators.

      You've never noticed how people can be extraordinarily good at one thing (say, coding) and spectacularly bad at something that is nominally very closely related (like customer support for the very code he himself wrote)?

      --
      Liberty uber alles.
    211. Re:Terrible Idea by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

      Ideally wouldn't it be possible that someone would be open minded enough to consider the evidence for all sides?

      There's people that say there is climate change and it's human caused, people that say there is and it's caused by natural things like the sun, and people that say it isn't happening at all.

      That kind of objective.

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    212. Re:Terrible Idea by msouth · · Score: 1

      The general public needs to get over its delusion that scientists are some sort of priesthood that exists to tell them The One True Way and save them the trouble of having to understand issues well enough to make their own informed decisions about what is best.

      I'm not sure the general public actually thinks this, but the media are exactly like that, and they see their job as trying to "get that story out to" (i.e. convert) the general public. It is funny how much it is exactly like a religion (as the aren't generally scientists themselves, so "whatever the scientists do to get the answer" is pretty vague in their heads, much like most people in most religious congregations have only vague notions of what their churches actually teach as doctrine. Funny because most of them would take great pains to point out that they are being "rational", when you can see from the outside how completely religious it is.

      --
      Liberty uber alles.
    213. Re:Terrible Idea by mike_sucks · · Score: 1

      +1, Correct.

      --
      -- "So, what's the deal with Auntie Gerschwitz et all?"
    214. Re:Terrible Idea by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about the well-established economic concept of negative externalities, where a cost is incurred by someone who didn't get the benefit. For instance, if I lived next door to you and turned my home into a dump, the accompanying drop in property value of your home would be a negative externality.

      And I'm saying that is over played hogwash. People attempt to inflate it only to make a point that otherwise shouldn't be made. My right to property doesn't impede you rights and vice versa. None of my rights impede your rights or legally recognized ones anyways. Of course the answer to this is zoning where the government makes rules for establishing limits to what you can do. But if you buy a home in a commercial residential district and I decide to put a novelty and crafts store in my home right next door, that is something that you already agreed to when buying your home in that zoned district. There would be no loss to externalize because you knew what you were subject to when you purchase a home in an area that allowed that. Chances are, the price of your purchase was already adjusted to reflect those possibilities unless the rules changes after you purchased it.

      In the case of oil, the CO2 isn't as much of a problem as the CO and SO2. Furthermore, the wars for oil definitely do happen: Even if I conceded the current Iraq War as not being about oil (which I dispute, but that's not important), that still leaves Afghanistan (fought in part to allow Unocal - with Hamid Karzai as one of their executives - to build a pipeline from the Caspian Sea), the first Gulf War (fought to protect the Kuwaiti and Saudi oil supply), and the attempted Venezuela coup (with some native backing, but the CIA was almost definitely involved). That's funded by about 25% of my tax money. If you want a better idea of how oil affects current US foreign policy, read up on the Project for the New American Century.

      Lol.. So 911 had nothing to do with it? The fact that we were giving Afghanistan millions of dollars already before the war and we could do about anything in there doesn't enter your mind. Here is a hint, if you shot someone who threatened to kill me because he was attempting to kill your mom or wife, you would not have shot him for me. Do you understand that degree of separation? Because someone can find a benefit from something that happened, it doesn't mean that it happened because of the benefit to them. You conspiracy kooks and idiots can't seem to understand that.

      And yes, the coup in Venezuela, so what if the CIA was backing it? Shouldn't we fight for freedom, Liberty, and democracy? Or are you saying that because as a nation we haven't walled ourselves off from the rest of the world that we are stealing their oil or somehow promoting our own interest is only to enrich someone? I will refer you to that degree of separation again.

    215. Re:Terrible Idea by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      First, there are a variety of lots-of-money-only ways to increase wealth, including preferred stock, invitation-only venture capital groups, companies with shares with values in the many thousands of dollars (e.g. Berkshire Hathaway), tactics that require a large investment to engage in such as overseas investing and taking full advantage of tax credits/shelters/whatever; and then, of course, the more money one has the more effectively one can attempt to start a new business or make improvements on an existing process since one can start at a larger, more efficient scale.

      Lol.. opertunity doesn't mean taking from the poor and giving to the rich. It doesn't even mean " return on investment scales increasingly with investment". Preferred stock generally happens when a person take a significantly higher amount of risk and the company in question is in a position of need. You can pool your money with others and do the same. Everything else you listed is nothing but opportunity. So what if rich people have more opportunities? It doesn't mean they are taking anything from anyone else. As long as the mechanics of the investment if creating value and worth, new wealth is being created and nothing it takes from anyone- rich or poor.

      Most people are in debt, so they're actually getting poorer over time all else being equal (which it is not--they presumably have other sources of income!). I've had a rather hard time finding detailed statistics, but http://www.directlendingsolutions.com/2007-consumer-statistics.htm gives an overview.

      Being in debt is a conscious decision on their part. You can't expect to penalize someone else for an action you take. Personally, I am not in debt, I don't make much more then most people, I just spend my money more wisely. But because you decide to go into debt to get what you can't afford, it doesn't mean that the rich are taking anything from the poor.

      As far as whether the poor are actually getting poorer, they seem to be getting relatively poorer, i.e., not keeping up with economic growth while the higher income brackets are pulling away from them, according to http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf

      Even if they are getting poorer, it isn't because the rich are taking anything from them and it isn't because of any policies that was put in place because of Bush. In fact, there are no substantially different policies under Bush then there was under Clinton other then taxes collected. And even the tax cuts were across the board percentage wise. And no, Clinton didn't ballance the budget, he approves things that cause an increase in revenue that was temporary and can not be repeated.

      But, anyway, whether the poor get poorer depends on the structure and availability of options to go into debt as well as the inflation rate.

      The only way the poor get poorer is when they make an action or transaction that costs them money. It is all up to them. Inflation would be the only way this could happen in absence of that and inflation would effect the rich just the same as the poor.

      If you would have provided numbers and attempted to do some math on this, you would know that it just isn't happening. Not like you or the GP is trying to claim anyways. Currently, the poor are getting poorer because energy costs is causing a run on inflation and that wasn't a part of a bush policy. Of course energy costs effect those with less more because it isn't an infinite usage model. There is a certain amount that everyone will use then it stops after a certain point making it easier for people with more money to handle it better. At the root of everything, energy costs can be blames. When it is low, poor people do well. When it is high, they spend all their extra income on it and there is a lag between the inflation adjustments where people demand more wages to cope with the problem.

    216. Re:Terrible Idea by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Almost by definition, academics are the people who look at evidence before coming to decisions, and revise their decisions when they receive new information. Sorry if that's removed from your reality--it's certainly alien to Bush's. And what do manuals have to do with academics?

      I sure am glad you said almost because there are varying opinions about a lot of things in academics. You have people in academics who claim socialism is the key political environment, you have them that claim communism or capitalism is better, you also have them that look to pure Marxism too. You have academics calling the drone office workers in the twin towers like Eichmann(s) who deserved to die. You even have academics claiming the holocaust never happened while other claim it is the worst genocide even in history.

      Yes, they look at the evidence, but how they process that evidence really means little. There are academics who just get it wrong which means you don't always want to listen to them. FOr years, academics thought it was impossible to go to the moon. Even when the evidence said otherwise.

      Carter's failure is a good point--if you ask people to act intelligently, they will resent it (I assume that's what you're referring to?). I have no doubt that Obama is quite aware of the parallels; I think that he is a more careful politician, but time will tell whether this country is worthy of him.

      Well, That's sort of what I was going for. Carter didn't really expect people to act intelligent, he assumed he was more intelligent and isolated many people by assuming they were inferior. You can't expect someone to help you when you act like they don't know anything. Rumsfield is another example of this. People hated him because he came off as a know it all who acted like no one else had as much of a clue as he did.

      Apparently what this country needs is a gangsta president.

      What I think this country needs is for the American people to actually understand that the president doesn't have a bunch of power and that the government isn't there to babysit the failures in their lives. Congress controls the most power, the president is more or less a figure head that attempts to steer the direction congress goes and administrates the executive branched of governmnet like the justice department, the state department and so on. It is really interesting in the misconceptions people have abuot the president and the government. If you ask, most laypeople will think the president can sign us onto a treaty with congress, they think the president can spend money on anything without congress, and quite a few other things. Up until the DC second amendment case, some people though the right to keep and bear arms was to ensure you could go hunting, they think free speech means they can interrupt someone elses free speech, most of them actually think the constitution was the words wall of separation in the first amendment and as recently as the last presidential election, I had to explain to a person why he didn't get to vote the other parties candidates into office during the primaries. He just didn't understand why we had to vote for them again a year later and didn't think it would be necessary if we were able to vote for both parties in the first election- because they took his candidate off the second election.

      What we need is a president who is willing to communicate these ideas to the public and one who isn't afraid of saying congress needs to do this or whatever because the constitution say that or something.

    217. Re:Terrible Idea by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't we fight for freedom, Liberty, and democracy?

      We only care about that when trade isn't beneficial. You won't see the United States supporting a coup of the king in any Middle Eastern country that we have favorable trade with. By the way, Chavez was democratically elected.

    218. Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hello? this is about energy policy!! there's nothing one group needs that another one doesn't. everyone benefits from sound choices in energy policy. maybe some 'more' than others... but all benefit!

    219. Re:Terrible Idea by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised that I've read this far down the thread without encountering some mention of the political strength you need to rise to the top of any academic organisation, much less LRL. Why do you think tweed coats have leather elbows, anyway?

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    220. Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i second this! there may eventually be found one true way for one thing--being the most efficient in all respects, but even if we think we've found that one best way we should always make a point of considering and occasionally trying other ways, and always searching for ways to improve everything.

      and we also need a societal system that allows for extremely fluid transitions in order for possible improvements to made, or for changes to be reversed if they prove to be bad choices.

    221. Re:Terrible Idea by joocemann · · Score: 1

      I think putting a relative educated professional in the position is a good idea to try.

      You call it a 'terrible idea', yet do you have substantial references and evidence to back that up? Or is this just a slander attempt (aka: political game)?

      Sorry, I'm a scientist. I believe data, not opinion.

    222. Re:Terrible Idea by Zibblsnrt · · Score: 1

      Omitted options notwithstanding, at least some of those people are utterly wrong, even if all of them can claim lots and lots of evidence, and most advocates of any of them seem only to consider people who agree with them to be objective.

      I'm not sure how much room for objectivity there even is in the whole debate anymore. It's a religious issue; people have their views on it, most of them are transparently political ("global warming is false because if it is true we'll have to do stuff and that's not libertarian!" "global warming is true because conservatives think it's false!" etc). I really don't think anyone's going to change their mind even if someone hammers out The Truth Of The Matter - and there is one, whatever it is - and I really am convinced by now that most peoples' definition of "objective" on the issue is "this person's conclusions match my own."

      I probably can't consider myself exempt from that either, which bothers me.

      --
      "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
    223. Re:Terrible Idea by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Academics have to job to figure out stuff before it gets in the manual :)

      The real world can be difficult to work out. Experts get to where they are by doing more than just reading books, they are after all the ones that write the things and that extra knowlege has to come from somewhere. I really think you have been fed the wrong line at some point if you think that all the people in academia have no experience. The people that taught me for instance worked on things like the C-5 Galaxy, various parts of various Airbus aircraft, medical prostheses, satellites, computers from the PDP-10 up or even developing a new method of finding fingerprints before heading to academia or even while they are there. Even the guy teaching statisics had stories of his encounters with cannibals in 1970s New Guinea.

      The Tom Clancy magical uneducated expert doesn't really exist - an expert has to have some way of finding out things and just because it is some kind of apprenticeship with a master or on the job training does not mean they are uneducated. People in non-technical office jobs can smirk and talk about how academics don't have a clue about the "real-world" office or motor mechanics about the "real-world" street and garage can do the same but meanwhile some of the academics they smirk about are on oil rigs, at third world farms or even trying out ways to detect land mines in war zones. Even the most insular academic has probably lived in three countries before they get to 40 and many have put in more hours of work by that age than an auto-mechanic does in their entire working life. It is different work but it is still work.

    224. Re:Terrible Idea by dbIII · · Score: 1

      She saw through the nuclear industry too. It was the odd situation of a nuclear power advocate having to cut back the nuclear industry because they prefered a raid on the public purse to any sort of real progress towards being a viable method of making electricity. Carter faced the same thing but with an order of magnitude more cash at stake due to paying for weapons material projected to be required sometime around 2220 (or thereabouts) due to previous administrations being blinded by science and scammed into building a massive stockpile. The nuclear industry killed itself through greed and underestimating governments while making no effort at making itself self supporting. Meanwhile South Africa made far more progress than the USA and UK combined on probably less than 1% of the budget.

    225. Re:Terrible Idea by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      What is his opinion on Global Warming?

    226. Re:Terrible Idea by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Chu is a very, very sharp guy.

      I agree. He's likely the pointy-est knife in the drawer. Or the least dull hammer in the bag. Maybe even never seen tits on a bull.

      I like him.

    227. Re:Terrible Idea by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      why should anyone expect to have a lifelong job if their job becomes obsolete?

      When I'm done with my current role (automating stuff) I will have made myself obsolete along with a few dozen other existing jobs. Where do I and those people go after I'm finished?

    228. Re:Terrible Idea by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      one of his main messages was "Fail fast", in other words try a lot of ideas and see which ones work and which don't quickly.

      But this takes dedicated, brutally honest, cooperative, expert engineering professionals with fast-and-loose budgets willing to fail often, make notes and then move on. Where do I sign up?

    229. Re:Terrible Idea by rasputin465 · · Score: 1

      Chu is already the director of LBNL, which is a large Department of Energy laboratory. He is already a high-ranking official IN the DOE; not only does he have the knowledge of the scientific subject material, he also intimately knows the inner bureaucratic structure of the DOE. Putting someone in charge who has experience with EITHER of those two categories would be a good idea; the fact that Chu knows both makes him almost perfect for the job.

    230. Re:Terrible Idea by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      So your oversimplified interpretation of ONE word in the constitution means everything the government has ever created not specifically enumerated in the constitution has been unconstitutional? That's very tautological, to say the least. I'm also glad our country isn't run based on YOUR interpretation.

    231. Re:Terrible Idea by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      What's an Energy Secretary?

      The United States Secretary of Energy. Surely you can't be so pedantic?

    232. Re:Terrible Idea by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I never said that he was a bad choice. I was commenting on the idea that he is so smart that nobody could make a fool out of him.
      Truth is I don't really know the man and even looking at the little public stuff I have found doesn't give me enough info to be sure. I some "brilliant" people but all to often their knowledge tends to be deep but narrow. I think that in this kind of position that broad and not so deep will tend to be better. Of course we could be really lucky. This gentleman could one of those very rare people that combine the two. A very deep knowledge of one subject and a very wide knowledge of other subjects.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    233. Re:Terrible Idea by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      Surely you can't be so pedantic?

      No, it wasn't pedanticism. It was just that I was reading all this talk about it, and leadership came up, and then realized I didn't have a clue what the job is. ;)

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    234. Re:Terrible Idea by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Ah, ok. Good, then my original point is validated! Whomever is appointed is still pretty much a non-issue.

    235. Re:Terrible Idea by Ichoran · · Score: 1

      From seeing him speak and answer questions, I think he's one of the very rare people who combine the two. Whether it will be enough is another question, of course.

    236. Re:Terrible Idea by Ichoran · · Score: 1

      Selectively giving opportunities to the rich while being in an environment of easy access to credit is a good way to make the baseline wealth of everyone go down, while giving only the rich a way to get out of it.

      Debt is a conscious choice, but it is the kind of choice that you can assume that many people will make, especially if you are poor and something unexpected happens and it's easy to gain access to it.

      What exactly do you believe that Clinton did with the budget that caused a temporary increase in revenue?

      And I *did* provide numbers--specifically, I provided a link to the census data on income distributions. If you'd looked, you'd have seen that the bottom 10% or so has stayed pretty much flat in buying power over the past 15 years, while the top 10% has enjoyed a nice increase. The poor aren't getting poorer, but they're getting *relatively* poorer; or, alternatively, they haven't been sharing in the economic growth of the country/world.

      Other than those numbers, I'm not sure what you want to see.

    237. Re:Terrible Idea by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Academics have to job to figure out stuff before it gets in the manual :)

      I think I haven't been clear with my position on this as it seems you don't really understand it. I'm not against academics, I'm just saying that people in academics can be wrong just like people outside of it and that what works in the manual doesn't always work in real life. How many times have you seen a manual that said to achive Y you need to do A, B, an C, just to find it left out D, and probably should have had another step somewhere between B and C.

      The real world can be difficult to work out. Experts get to where they are by doing more than just reading books, they are after all the ones that write the things and that extra knowlege has to come from somewhere. I really think you have been fed the wrong line at some point if you think that all the people in academia have no experience. The people that taught me for instance worked on things like the C-5 Galaxy, various parts of various Airbus aircraft, medical prostheses, satellites, computers from the PDP-10 up or even developing a new method of finding fingerprints before heading to academia or even while they are there. Even the guy teaching statisics had stories of his encounters with cannibals in 1970s New Guinea.

      There is a saying, those that can-do. Those that can't-teach, Those that can't teach- coach, and those that can't coach- become politicians. This doesn't mean that they didn't know what they were doing at one point in time, it means that they appears as if they can't do what they know enough to be successful at it. That's why those that can-do.

      Anyways, because there is so many different politics in academics, it does mean that someone is wrong somewhere. I'm not saying who or when or how they are wrong or that they are wrong all the time. I'm saying that there are times when you should ignore their consideration because it will and up being wrong, even if only to the end game your trying to realize. I would put no more stock in what an academic has to say then I would someone in the relevant fields for a number of years, they have no greater chance of being correct and they have no less of a chance of basing their opinions in politics instead of fact. Academics works best when there are lots of them coming to the same conclusions, not when one person attempts to ride on the coattails of the process.

      The Tom Clancy magical uneducated expert doesn't really exist - an expert has to have some way of finding out things and just because it is some kind of apprenticeship with a master or on the job training does not mean they are uneducated. People in non-technical office jobs can smirk and talk about how academics don't have a clue about the "real-world" office or motor mechanics about the "real-world" street and garage can do the same but meanwhile some of the academics they smirk about are on oil rigs, at third world farms or even trying out ways to detect land mines in war zones. Even the most insular academic has probably lived in three countries before they get to 40 and many have put in more hours of work by that age than an auto-mechanic does in their entire working life. It is different work but it is still work.

      The idea of academics is that you are always studying and learning. No matter what or how high you think of them, they will not be able to learn everything or study every aspect of anything. Oil rigs or motor mechanics of today are very different then they were 10 or even 20 years ago. Someone who jumped out of the game to take a political position wouldn't be intimate with the newer tech and even someone in the game but in a third world country or some other place might be in the same positions.

      One of the biggest problems Bush had with his administration is that he attempted to grab the biggest and brightest from his father's and Reagan's and other administrations.

    238. Re:Terrible Idea by defaria · · Score: 1

      Politics be damned! Politicians do little else but get in the way. We need a real thinker, not somebody who's good at playing the political back stabbing/scratching game!

    239. Re:Terrible Idea by defaria · · Score: 1

      With no offense to Steven Chu, this sort of post is why I have to hope his time as the Secretary of Energy goes very poorly. The idea that there is one correct policy and that all we need to do is get a scientist smart enough to tell us what Science says that is come from a gross misunderstand of the nature science.

      Quite the contrary! While there may be many paths, there is a general direction to what it right and true. Take, for example, a simple bar magnet. Sprinkle iron fragments about. While they make a pretty pattern there's no mistaking what direction North (or South) is. IOW while there may be many greys, the direction toward black (North) or white (South) is clear, even if it's not clear to you!

      Any real policy involves trade offs between what's best for a large number of different groups, each of which has different needs, goals, tolerance for risk, etc.

      Poppycock you situationalist! You can play that game and call yourself a politician, or you can peep your head out of your hole and look and see what that sort of mentality has gotten us to...

      Deciding how to make those tradeoffs and select who's interests take priority in any given situation is largely subjective. While science can help determine how feasible a given proposal is (and even then, it's more in the realm of engineering than science), it's silent on which solution is best.

      Hardly. Science can, and often does, speak as to which is best.

      The general public needs to get over its delusion that scientists are some sort of priesthood that exists to tell them The One True Way and save them the trouble of having to understand issues well enough to make their own informed decisions about what is best.

      The vast majority of people do not hold that scientists are priests. My proof? Just look at how well the paranormal bullshit artists thrive! Watch an episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit show or listen to a few skeptical podcasts once in a while. The vast majority of people believe in a talking snake, heaven, ghosts, etc. None of these things has anything to do with science or scientists. You, my friend, have everything upside down. What we don't need here is a non-scientist telling us about what's good, what the tradeoffs should be WRT highly technical stuff like energy.

    240. Re:Terrible Idea by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      New laws always cause more crime (by definition).

      Um, no. Laws creating additional criminal offenses create more criminal offenses, by definition, but plenty of laws don't create any criminal offenses -- many laws aren't criminal laws after all. New criminal laws may reduce the number of criminal offenses, or may simply change (either expanding or contracting) the definition of, defenses to, or punishment for existing criminal offenses.

      And, of course, whatever laws do to the number of criminal offenses has no necessary relation to the crime rate.

    241. Re:Terrible Idea by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Selectively giving opportunities to the rich while being in an environment of easy access to credit is a good way to make the baseline wealth of everyone go down, while giving only the rich a way to get out of it.

      No one selectively gives opportunities. They make opportunities availible based on their needs. It is up to whoever wishes to participate to meet those needs. And no, it doesn't make the base line wealth go down. What does that is when someone uses credit to buy something that will destroy welth rather then create it. Putting a $2000 LCD tv on a credit card that will be dead by design in 10 years destroys wealth. Borrowing $2000 to get your car fixed so you can take a job 30 miles away for more pay creates wealth. The rich tend to make money with their investments because they aren't stupid but you can hardly blame the results of that on any administration in a free world with the set of facts that we have. If you want to waste you money away, that is your free choice, if you want to invest it soundly, that is your choice too. If you do the later, you will end up in the rich category eventually by you own choices, if you don't, then your right where you can complain about it.

      Debt is a conscious choice, but it is the kind of choice that you can assume that many people will make, especially if you are poor and something unexpected happens and it's easy to gain access to it.

      Debt alone isn't the enemy. Who cares that someone is willing to go into debt to purchase something they haven't saved enough for or that they couldn't otherwise afford. If that is put to good use, it can generate way more wealth then it costs to borrow. Making stupid purchased on debt is stupid but it's a choice the person makes, not that of any administration. As far as being poor and something happens, that is the risk that you and the banks knew of when taking that debt out.

      What exactly do you believe that Clinton did with the budget that caused a temporary increase in revenue?

      Lol.. I hope your not serious in that you don't know. First was the capitol Gains tax cuts where the capitol gains was separated from the income levels and maxed out at a much smaller tax rate of the investment was held more then a year. This mean that anyone in the top income tax bracket automatically saw a 25 to 30 percent increase in wealth on their investment which prompted them to cash out earlier. This caused a readjustment in the stock holding which was a primary reason for the market runs under his administration. Once the bulk of those movements were done, the investments were adjusted and settled into a previous market conditions with the gains benefits removed. Sure, you can slash capitol gains again, but it wouldn't increase tax revenue.

      The second is the Roth IRA and the associated conversions. When they were created, it was an after tax retirement investment vehicle instead of a before tax like the traditional IRAs. You pay taxes at the current rates and not down the road when you needed the funding for retirement. This meant that a portion of retirement income savings was now getting taxed where it wasn't before. With the Roth Ira conversions, you could take a traditional pretax account and turn it into an after tax vehicle buy paying the unpaid taxes on the amounts saved. To entice people to do this, they allowed the repayments to be stretched over 4 years. The effect this has was that for around 4-5 years after the programs were created, all the money that avoided taxes for 20 years in specific retirement accounts rolled over and was collected between those 4 years instead of either when the money was first earned or during retirement. But specifically because people who actually worry about their retirement also end up increasing their income over the years, the amounts paid were at higher taxable rates then they would have been when originally deducted or when they would ha

    242. Re:Terrible Idea by dbIII · · Score: 1

      There is a saying, those that can-do. Those that can't-teach, Those that can't teach

      Which is of course simplistic bullshit that can apply to something embarrassing your grade four teacher did once but has no actual use in the "real world". Those who do often have to teach so they can get somebody to help them out with their work or to continue after they retire.

      Bush had with his administration is that he attempted to grab the biggest and brightest from his father's and Reagan's and other administrations

      The other notably being Nixon's, and I would argue that instead of "best and brightest" it was only people that he already knew. That was the way we ended up with horse judges instead of experts. Mistrust and making choices based on ideology which was usually not relevant to the job really limited the number of people to choose from - if George didn't know them they were not going into his modern interpretation of a Royal court.

      Nice example with the educated first world "dirt farmer" - one of my adademic freinds has the job of taking the sort of stuff the educated first world farmers know and applying it to local conditions in various third world countries to feed more people, save lives, and generally improve standards of living. The "dirt farmer" knows a lot more than you appear to think and is most likely far more intelligent and educated than you think, even if the education is just paying attention to what the farmers nearby are doing and keeping up with developments in farm technology.

      I really hate the "dumb is good" philosophy. While it is true that getting to be good at something is bloody hard work in most cases that doesn't mean that it is not worth trying. What did people studying things to find out how they work do for you? Just about everything.

    243. Re:Terrible Idea by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Which is of course simplistic bullshit that can apply to something embarrassing your grade four teacher did once but has no actual use in the "real world". Those who do often have to teach so they can get somebody to help them out with their work or to continue after they retire.

      Well, no. It talks about the difference in wages between teachers and the people in the professional worlds. If you can, you do, because it gets you the most money. If you can't do, you teach and it regresses from there. You don't find many successful people jumping to take pay cuts just to teach.

      The other notably being Nixon's, and I would argue that instead of "best and brightest" it was only people that he already knew. That was the way we ended up with horse judges instead of experts. Mistrust and making choices based on ideology which was usually not relevant to the job really limited the number of people to choose from - if George didn't know them they were not going into his modern interpretation of a Royal court.

      Your simply either not paying attention or your blinding yourself by your own prejudices.

      Nice example with the educated first world "dirt farmer" - one of my adademic freinds has the job of taking the sort of stuff the educated first world farmers know and applying it to local conditions in various third world countries to feed more people, save lives, and generally improve standards of living. The "dirt farmer" knows a lot more than you appear to think and is most likely far more intelligent and educated than you think, even if the education is just paying attention to what the farmers nearby are doing and keeping up with developments in farm technology.

      Fuck dude, I am a dirt farmer. The comment wasn't a slam on farmers, it was a point in that the schooled people don't always know more then anyone else. They thought they were superior and rolled in thinking they could show us how to save money and the end result was they were humbles a couple of pegs.

      really hate the "dumb is good" philosophy. While it is true that getting to be good at something is bloody hard work in most cases that doesn't mean that it is not worth trying. What did people studying things to find out how they work do for you? Just about everything.

      It's not a dumb is good philosophy. Your the one bringing that to the table. It's a people can be wrong philosophy and simply because they were in academics, it doesn't mean they are always right. Going back to my original statement, You don't necessarily want to listen to academics all the time. The entire point is that they have been and can be wrong and there is no guarantee that they are smarter or more accurate then someone who spent that last 10 years working in the same or similar industry related field.

    244. Re:Terrible Idea by Ichoran · · Score: 1

      You have some interesting points to make about the deficit, but unfortunately the dates of the capital gains tax bill (1997) and the creation of Roth IRAs (1998) don't match any significant change in what's going on in the budget (see http://www.scribd.com/doc/3015540/US-Budget-Deficit-or-Surplus-1960present where the decrease in the budget deficit was remarkably linear over Clinton's eight years).

      Unless you have compelling quantitative data that supports the importance of these revenue streams (not offset by something else), it looks to me like you're wrong that these were major factors.

      It is true that Clinton got a nice dividend from the end of the Cold War. There is, to say the least, considerable controversy over whether the spending in the War on Terror was necessary or even useful (and whether it even makes sense to call it a war). So I don't think the Presidents can entirely escape from responsibility for government spending, even if happenstance plays a part.

      Before I go to the trouble of tracking down difficult-to-find data, I want to get some indication that it might actually satisfy you. So far you have appealed to individual choice to "refute" a point about human nature ("you don't have to go into debt"--well, yes, true, and you don't have to eat more than will barely avoid starvation, nor do you have to keep warm and/or cool, etc.), and you have also accepted, as far as I can tell, that the natural state of affairs is for wealthy people to have better investment and income-growth opportunities than poor people--and then somehow seem to think that this isn't relevant to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

      The natural state of affairs, given the long human history of kings and wealthy merchant houses and so on, seems to be for the rich to get richer and stay very rich indeed (until some calamity or revolution) and for the poor to stay about the same. The great feat of the 20th century was to create a large "middle class" that defied this historic trend.

      What Bush has done to encourage enhanced income disparity is (1) to lower taxes at the top end, allowing the natural aggregation of wealth to proceed faster; (2) to pay less attention to environmental and labor and similar issues so that companies can profit through activities that make many people's lives a little worse; (3) spend prolifically in ways that do not help the economy; and (4) allow the debt/credit situation to get entirely out of hand with the relative burden falling more heavily on the debtors than the creditors.

      Let me repeat: accumulation of wealth is the *natural state of affairs*. Any argument that simply says that something is natural, a choice, or whatever, is *irrelevant* to the point about the rich getting richer and the poor not getting richer. Maybe the poor do things that make you think they should stay poor--but then you should agree that the disparity exists and is widening and say that that's the way things should be.

      Now, I'll find quantitative data to back up bits of my argument as you request, but only if you specify what sort of thing you think is relevant to the argument. ("If we get this piece of data and it says this, it's good evidence for my position; and if it says that, it's good evidence for yours.")

    245. Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He could hire a great administrator and a politically savvy person , could he not?

    246. Re:Terrible Idea by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You have some interesting points to make about the deficit, but unfortunately the dates of the capital gains tax bill (1997) and the creation of Roth IRAs (1998) don't match any significant change in what's going on in the budget (see http://www.scribd.com/doc/3015540/US-Budget-Deficit-or-Surplus-1960present where the decrease in the budget deficit was remarkably linear over Clinton's eight years).

      ?Your chart doesn't contain enough information to accurately assess the situation. Despite that, you cannot deny that the Roth IRA conversion as well as the capitol gains reductions created an increase Taxable income which also increase taxes as well as Social security revenue. It's all smoke and mirrors that has convinced you of the surplus or that the mechanics were sound.

      Unless you have compelling quantitative data that supports the importance of these revenue streams (not offset by something else), it looks to me like you're wrong that these were major factors.

      No, I'm not wrong, I'm just looking at all the facts, not the ones that allow me to create an illusion. It's all there and availible.

      It is true that Clinton got a nice dividend from the end of the Cold War. There is, to say the least, considerable controversy over whether the spending in the War on Terror was necessary or even useful (and whether it even makes sense to call it a war). So I don't think the Presidents can entirely escape from responsibility for government spending, even if happenstance plays a part.

      I never said they could. I said that circumstance that were happening during the Clinton years won't be repeatable and it gave him an advantage that other administrations won't have. In other words, if you win the lottery and pay off all your bills but don't adjust your spending appropriately for when the funds run out, you will be broke and in debt once again. Clinton in effect won the lottery.

      Before I go to the trouble of tracking down difficult-to-find data, I want to get some indication that it might actually satisfy you. So far you have appealed to individual choice to "refute" a point about human nature ("you don't have to go into debt"--well, yes, true, and you don't have to eat more than will barely avoid starvation, nor do you have to keep warm and/or cool, etc.), and you have also accepted, as far as I can tell, that the natural state of affairs is for wealthy people to have better investment and income-growth opportunities than poor people--and then somehow seem to think that this isn't relevant to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

      No one is going into debt to eat enogh food to not only satisfy them but to be happy. It simply isn't happening. Going into debt isn't even a problem. The problem is where people are going into debt by purchasing new cars instead of older ones when they can't afford the new one. It's when they buy a boat or jet skis instead of paying their health insurance. It's where they are buying too much house for what they can afford for vanity reasons. Making $22,000 a year and having a $700 a month mortgage payment is just stupid. That's 38 percent of their income and they either need to get a better job or rent. Throw a $300 a month car payment plus the costs of insurance on top of that when a couple year old used car would do for far less, and you can easily see how their poor choices made them poor. If we guess that someone is single, under 25, or has a few tickets or something on their record, they should see around a $100 or more a month insurance rate on that new car, They will be spending 60% of their income on debt that they don't need. In contrast, if you rent for $500 a month, or even look at the practical side of things and get mar

    247. Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "nuclear industry"? You mean British Energy, which was fully owned by the national government? How did she see through something directly controlled by her cabinet (in the persons of Cecil Parkinson, Norman Tebbit, Leon Brittan, Paul Channon and Lord Young, her most loyal supporters throughout her entire premiership, and the Secretaries of State for Trade & Industry from 1983-1989; Parkinson was Secretary of State for Energy from 1987-1989, preceded by Peter Walker and Nigel Lawson)?

      Nuclear power generation was 100% in the government domain throughout the Thatcher years.

      Nuclear power generation evolved from the use of MAGNOX reactors whose origins were in breeding weapons fissiles; it wasn't until Sizewell B's third or fourth redesign that the best practices of private nuclear industries elsewhere in the world were even considered. Even then, the choice was made to keep the entire design, development, construction and operation of the plant in the government domain, and unsurprisingly it ran into delays, cost overruns, mistakes, and inefficiencies; nevertheless Sizewell B, a PWR, has performed better than Torness and Heysham 2, both of which were AGRs brought into service in 1988, the year Sizewell B construction began.

      The nuclear industry killed itself through greed and underestimating governments while making no effort at making itself self supporting. Meanwhile South Africa made far more progress than the USA and UK combined on probably less than 1% of the budget.

      Until 2006, the nuclear industry in the UK was the government.

      South Africa has exactly one nuclear power plant, at Koeberg, which is a PWR modelled on a French design; construction started in 1976, servce began in 1984.

      Do not think for a moment that the modular pebble bed technology is something ready for bringing into service, or an indicator of the success of South Africa's nuclear technology. They have yet to build even a demonstrator plant (they have not even had a formal groundbreaking), and it is unclear whether their triso facility is anywhere close to being ready to assemble its first deliverables, let alone production fuel.

    248. Re:Terrible Idea by smithmc · · Score: 1

      Do you have one? ;)

      I bet if I search my computers at home I could find a couple old PowerPoint presentations.

      I probably do, too - but if I did, I wouldn't go around telling anybody...

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    249. Re:Terrible Idea by Ichoran · · Score: 1

      I agree that the Roth IRA stuff is a little tangential, but I've now bothered to look up the numbers, and there were only $77B in Roth IRAs in 2000. Even taxed at the highest rate (40%) and with nobody contributing to new Roth accounts but only doing a one-time rollover, and with the remaining trillions in non-Roth IRAs never being converted, the income to the government was at most $50B or so spread over the previous two years--a factor, perhaps, but a modest one at best given the differences in deficits (>$200B over several years).

      Roth IRA data: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2893/is_4_23/ai_n6171206
      Honest deficit data: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/32

      I had noticed that the "surplus" didn't actually decrease the debt (easy enough to do, if you look at the debt graph), but I appreciate the article pointing out why. Of course, that wasn't unique to Clinton, and it didn't matter for my point (or yours, as far as I know) that Clinton actually ran a surplus--the point, which remains true when one avoids accounting gimmicks, is that Clinton reduced the level of deficit spending over quite a number of years.

      But, anyway, back to the question of whether Bush did anything to impact whether the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. First, the point that the poor got a larger fractional tax cut than the rich is not the right number to look at--it's the *fraction of income* not the *fraction of tax* that leads to a flattening or accentuation of wealth differences. From http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html in 2004, the net wealth increase from the tax cuts was about 2% for middle-income people and about 4.5% for the top income bracket. At the same time, it is true that the tax code was more "progressive" afterwards than before when looking at the rates of taxation; it's just that we already barely tax middle-to-lower income folks so that we're out of room to make income more progressive (as opposed to tax levels) while still lowering taxes.

      I don't think we actually disagree about debt all that much. People at all income levels go into debt to buy nonessential items, and that always makes it harder to build long-term wealth. To some extent, these are errors in judgment--and to some extent, therefore, saying that if you make these errors you will be in bad shape is a fair way to discourage these sorts of errors. But it is still of concern that people *do* make these sorts of errors and do so on a sufficiently large scale to hobble the entire economy.

      The whole economic system is a human construct. People create a certain quantity of goods and services, and they also are entitled (via their income) to some fraction of those goods and services. Surely you are not saying that one cannot distribute the fraction unequally (perhaps "fairly" but unequally), and then from that starting point make it even more unequal. Of course one can do that! The key question is does that *actually* happen, and if so is the decrease in the fraction more than offset by an inexorably linked increase in the total created goods and services (inexorably because the increase comes from the incentive to increase one's own fraction).

      Here's an example of such a policy: the minimum wage. The evidence that I can find: http://www.ibrc.indiana.edu/IBR/2008/fall/article1.html suggests that modest increases in the minimum wage do not influence employment numbers. Thus, within modest limits at least, altering the minimum wage is a way to influence the fraction of economic output given to various groups. Republicans blocked minimum wage increases until the Democrats had too great of control over Congress. See http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth

    250. Re:Terrible Idea by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I agree that the Roth IRA stuff is a little tangential, but I've now bothered to look up the numbers, and there were only $77B in Roth IRAs in 2000. Even taxed at the highest rate (40%) and with nobody contributing to new Roth accounts but only doing a one-time rollover, and with the remaining trillions in non-Roth IRAs never being converted, the income to the government was at most $50B or so spread over the previous two years--a factor, perhaps, but a modest one at best given the differences in deficits (>$200B over several years).

      Actually, that $127B number is a bit misleading. The total value was the reported values as of tax year 2000. We have the Dot com bubble bust and a lot of money fall from the markets which most likely deflated that a little. The article even mentions on the first page about a decline in market value of $177 Billion. So the conversion rates could have been a lot larger.

      But we are also talking about capitol gains Cuts too. If you look to the very last graph, you'll notice that they underestimated the impact of capitol gains by 84 billion dollars over the first three years (97,98,99). Now, we can't take a direct inference of the total amount benefit from the capitol gains cuts because they already estimated for an increase. If we look at Table one on this page, you will notice that it took 15 years for the capitol gains realizations to move 100 billion dollars (1980-1995) but between 1997 and 200, it moved almost 300 billion. Of course the capitol gains reduction was effective in may of 1997. So when you start adding them all together, you start seeing numbers equal to most of the so called surplus.

      I had noticed that the "surplus" didn't actually decrease the debt (easy enough to do, if you look at the debt graph), but I appreciate the article pointing out why. Of course, that wasn't unique to Clinton, and it didn't matter for my point (or yours, as far as I know) that Clinton actually ran a surplus--the point, which remains true when one avoids accounting gimmicks, is that Clinton reduced the level of deficit spending over quite a number of years.

      Lol.. I think you missed the entire point of the articles. You see, it wasn't that Clinton did anything special or spent the money on something other then paying the debt. As was noted in the link I provided, which was created by the same author you cited in your second link as well as that article being additional support for the one I posted.... Anyways, I lost myself for a second. The point is that the article you pointed to was in support of the first article I used which stated that the surplus was only because they counted debt as income due to public trust fund laws. The example they gave was "If in a given year you earn $30,000 and a friend loans you $5,000, and you spend $32,000, is that a surplus? While you can claim "I received $35,000 and only spent $32,000, thus I have a surplus," that's a pretty weak argument when you know that $2,000 of the money you spent was actually borrowed and has to be paid back later. That's pretty much what happened in 2000."

      But, anyway, back to the question of whether Bush did anything to impact whether the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. First, the point that the poor got a larger fractional tax cut than the rich is not the right number to look at--it's the *fraction of income* not the *fraction of tax* that leads to a flattening or accentuation of wealth differences. From http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html in 2004, the net wealth increase from the tax cuts was about 2% for middle-income people and about 4.5% for the top income bracket. At the same time, it is true that

    251. Re:Terrible Idea by Ichoran · · Score: 1

      There are too many factors that affect accuracy of projections for me to find the first graph compelling. The second is interesting; it suggests that there was about $70B more revenue from capital gains in 2000 than 1996; the deficit went down by about $230B over the same period. ($45B and $150B if we use 1999.) But then there was a 50% increase from 1995 to 1996, before the capital gains tax cut. It looks to me like the main thing is that the economy was doing well, partially sustainably and partially not. If you combine these with the Roth IRA numbers, it's a nice little boost for Clinton, but I simply don't see the support for a huge temporary revenue stream that made the difference between the $280B in his first years and the $20B-$130B in the later years. If you could find a total of $600B or so over the latter four years, I'd believe your argument. But the Roth IRA is well under 10% of that, and the capital gains is only about $40B/year off projections, and given the large 95-96 rise, it's doubtful that even that much can be attributed to the change.

      I thought that the point of the article is that there are accounting gimmicks that the government uses and which are fundamentally dishonest. They're not unique to Clinton. The take-home message is not "Clinton lied!" but "Everyone lied!" and in terms of balancing the budget, Clinton *still* did relatively better than the Bushes before and after him. (The Republican-controlled congress deserves some of the credit during Clinton's years, though more through partisan pigheadedness than any great principled stand, sadly, given how quickly money was spent when Bush 2 got in.)

      I think we have rather different perspectives on what the point of society is. I think the point is to improve the human condition. One improvement is to have freedom; another is to be materially comfortable. Often, single aspects of society will have multiple beneficial effects (e.g. freedom plus incentives to be productive tends to help with both points I made); sometimes there will be tradeoffs (caring for unproductive people, improving their conditions at the cost of our own). Specifically in response to all of your "letting people keep what they already have" argument--well, no, if you let people keep more money that can be inflationary (just like raising the minimum wage!), and if you take a smaller fraction of higher income brackets, the net effect is to make the poor poorer via inflation unless they can keep ahead of it via other economic means (e.g. being employed by the wealthy person with lower taxes). But in general, I do *not* assume that it is inappropriate for a society to do *some* redistribution of wealth. I think it's an empirical question as to what works better. And I do *not* think it's a reasonable argument that the poor aren't getting poorer because the reason the rich are getting richer is through their own hard work; as I've said before, simply identifying that the poor are not getting richer while the rich are has nothing to do with the causes. When we look at the causes, maybe we think they're justified, and maybe not, and certainly we should think that the government plays a role (the rich wouldn't get as much richer if they hadn't had the tax cut), and then one has to balance all these factors and decide whether society is doing its job well enough. One might decide that it's fine that there's such a disparity. One might decide that we actually do want society to put a minimum standard of living as a floor even for people who don't produce enough of value for others to want to give them that much. One thing that I don't quite understand from a logical perspective (though I do from a sociological one) is how people can on the one hand talk with passion about human rights--which presumably are only justified if humans have some sort of intrinsic value--and at the same time reject any sort of economic support as if they have no intrinsic value. I think that for the most part a relatively incentive-based system works a lot better and resu

  2. Great! by D-Cypell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For the first time in *at least* 8 years, I am quite jealous of you US guys. If you ask me, people in senior positions are are not 'politically savvy enough' is *exactly* what the world needs right now.

    1. Re:Great! by GauteL · · Score: 5, Funny

      Is it wrong of me to find this troll absolutely hilarious?

    2. Re:Great! by Sockatume · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think it's the physical improbability of fulfilling his request that does it. And the username.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    3. Re:Great! by Andr+T. · · Score: 4, Funny
      I respect Chu and I think he'll do a great job, but what you just said made me remember the Dilbert Principle:

      Leadership is nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow.

      --

      Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.

    4. Re:Great! by yttrstein · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, in fact the trolls have consistently posted the most interesting things on slashdot in the last five years. There should be a positive troll mod as well as a negative one.

      In fact, there should be negative versions of all the positive ones too. -5 NOT INSIGHTFUL

    5. Re:Great! by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      I'd take anything said by a cartoonist with a grain of salt.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    6. Re:Great! by careykohl · · Score: 1

      What? I'm OUTRAGED that you find this matter funny!
      Chu?
      Obama hasn't even taken office yet and we're already going commie!
      I seriously weep for this Great Nation unless Obama starts appointing more qualified people to these important jobs like this guy!

    7. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US-ians

      You misspelled "Americans"

  3. What is an energy secretary? by Bromskloss · · Score: 1

    (Stupid lameness filter!)

    --
    Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
    1. Re:What is an energy secretary? by chrisgeleven · · Score: 3, Informative
    2. Re:What is an energy secretary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An energy secretary dictates letters, does the filing, makes coffee, gives blowjobs etc. to the executive energy particles (scientific term: energons).

    3. Re:What is an energy secretary? by zoomshorts · · Score: 1

      Energy Secretary turns out the lights when no one is in the room, it is a sucky job, but someone has to do it.

    4. Re:What is an energy secretary? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Do energy secretaries work in energon cubes?

  4. we need a scientist by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    we have to move beyond coal and oil, for all of the obvious environmental and geopolitical reasons. we can't keep dumping carbon into our atmosphere, we can't keep funding saudi wahabbism, russian neoimperialism, and venezuelan blowhards. the only we are going to do this is through science

    so hopefully, we'll get the following out of washington dc:

    1. more nuclear power plants
    2. more funding for fusion research
    3. now that we have nationalized the car industry, we put a gun to the heads of the fuckers and detroit and force them to make more, cheaper electric cars. force this on them as a priority
    4. the infrastructure to allow for battery swapping nationwide

    of course, the american consumer has to be dragged kicking and screaming out of his SUV and into a post-oil and coal future. so be it. the only person who is going to be the visionary to do this is a scientist. he has plenty of support in his bully pulpit role from those of us who "get it". we finally just elected an administration it seems that also gets it

    where it= oil and coal need to go the way of history

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:we need a scientist by zoney_ie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More fuel-efficient cars, even just to European standards, should be an initial goal. Very little needed - in fact they could start by just selling European GM and Ford models, instant plus without all the time, money, effort and energy requirements of starting from scratch with manufacture of new technology.

      The electric tech is not necessarily a great idea. The batteries and all that's involved there is a nasty messy business, not at all "eco-friendly". The electricity still has to be generated, and there's a whopping great loss between generation and using it in your vehicle.

      I'm not saying people shouldn't investigate electric cars and spend money researching them and seeing if the problems can be surmounted, but it is simply an ideologically-driven nearly religious zeal to insist that we all switch to them now.

      As for nuclear power - it would seem the options are thin indeed on the ground for electricity generation. Nuclear power is quite expensive - it's not a matter of an emotive "oh no, all that horrible nuclear waste", it's simply the cost of building the plants, disposing of even any reduced amounts new plants create (still an enormous logistical task), and most importantly, the fixed lifespan of nuclear plants and the much more difficult to deal with nuclear waste from decommissioning. Nuclear power may be something we have to accept, but it is not at all satisfactory or even economically positive.

      So all in all, considering oil, coal and gas will be with us for some time to come, it is potentially even important to invest in more efficient and cleaner ways to convert them into energy, than to pin all our hopes on nuclear or indeed renewables. Fusion would be nice, but we still don't absolutely know that the process, on an achievable scale (i.e. not a small sun) will provide a net output!

      Sorry to burst the bubble, but the enviro nuts are as clueless and naive as the politicians are clueless and short-sighted.

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    2. Re:we need a scientist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow.

      And to think that I was blasted a few months ago for daring to mention Democrats, Obama, and Fascism in the same breath.

      Now we have some guy ADVOCATING a fascist gov't, and he gets modded insightful.

      You will do as We say because We know better than you.

      Sheesh.

      How to fix Detriot? Force them to make cars no one wants to buy!

      Fine. I'll go buy a Tundra then.

      -john

    3. Re:we need a scientist by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

      So all in all, considering oil, coal and gas will be with us for some time to come, it is potentially even important to invest in more efficient and cleaner ways to convert them into energy, than to pin all our hopes on nuclear or indeed renewables.

      There's no conversion necessary, except for mindset and lifestyle. If people would bike to work, for example, then the energy demands would be far less than today and we wouldn't have to deal with smog. If people would compost and grow even just 50% of their own food then you Americans could decrease your pollution and consumption even further.

      I don't understand why people want to live beyond their energy means and then start complaining when gas prices start rising.

      enviro nuts are as clueless and naive

      What is an "enviro nut"? Where are they, who are they, and how do you know they are clueless and naive? What school did they not go to?

    4. Re:we need a scientist by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Good points, well made!

      I've never understood why GM and Ford find it acceptable to sell such substandard vehicles to Americans when in Europe the quality and economy of the same manufacturers is significantly higher.

      As an expat American living in Europe, I used to bristle at the snide remarks about the stupidity of Americans, now, I must admit, I feel little sympathy for the vast majority of my fellow countrymen. They really are a collective bunch of ignoramouses when compared to the equivalent group of Europeans.

      Europeans enjoy more freedom (as in personal libery) than Americans do now (thanks largely to idiotic and blindly obediant acceptance of the Patriot Act). Their economy is more stable, health care is superior, international nous is glaringly superior, even their food is better (how the fuck did that happen?).

      I'm not saying Europe is not without its problems, and I'm well aware that the US essentially proped up Western Europe for a half a century while they reorganised their pathetic infrastructure (and everything else). But, now it's time for America to wake the hell up ! We have squandered our inheritence on idiocy like Moronic Celebrities (her mother is so stupid she couldn't even spell her daughters name correctly), Fugly McMansions, and Crappy SUVs , and now it's time to get back to work.

    5. Re:we need a scientist by hey! · · Score: 1

      I think we need somebody scientifically literate, with a vision. He or she also has to have a certain amount of flexibility in pursuing that vision, because as of today there is not a solution that can replace oil. He also needs to be aware of foreign policy issues; you don't want somebody to say that a particular nuclear technology is what the US should invest in if that has nuclear arms proliferation implications. It may be the right technology choice, but the security issues have to be part of that recommendation.

      In the case of nuclear power, I think we need to plan to, at the very least, replace the plants that are currently in operation. Yes, there are waste disposal issues, but we have them now, and maintaining or modestly growing the nuclear generation capacity of the country is a way of amortizing those costs over future revenues without increasing the order of magnitude of the problem. In short, as an environmentalist, I believe that if corporations aren't invested in the future of nuclear power, they will at some point simply dump the waste problem on the public as plant after plant goes offline.

      I also think that since we have the waste problem today, a marginal addition to that problem could be offset by the carbon emission benefits.

      However, I don't think a crash program to put all our eggs in the nuclear basket is the answer. It may transform (in a bad way) the waste problem, produce a massive step increase in future waste and decommissioning costs, and should the technology turn out to be economically undesirable leave us with a vast investment in obsolete white elephants.

      Rather, I think we should take steps to diversify our energy sources so that should any one energy source prove to be somewhat more environmentally, technologically or economically advantageous (or disadvantageous) than expected, the economy can adjust the mix accordingly. Look at our food supply: when there was an E. coli outbreak in tomatoes, nobody starved because tomatoes were just one of the foodstuffs used to power humans.

      A key step in this is a highly efficient, long range electrical grid. This could be high voltage DC, or in some cases we may begin to experiment with superconducting segments (with liquid hydrogen not only as a coolant but also as an energy carrier).

      Such a grid would make diversification of energy easier. Nuclear plants would not have to be located in population centers to serve them, making them politically easier to site. Wind, tidal, and solar energy can be harvested from distant sites. Even fossil fuel plants with carbon offsets like sequestration can play a part.

      It might not be possible to eliminate our dependency on fossil fuels in, say, twenty years. But it might be possible to reduce the environmental and geopolitical impact of fossil fuel use to a fraction of what they are today. Placing all our hope on a single technology such as nuclear fission is unnecessarily risky; in an environment where many technologies are able to compete, and costs such as waste disposal are not externalized onto the public, then if nuclear energy is more practical it will gain market share until the marginal problems caused by the next kWh exceed the marginal benefits. Furthermore approaching this limit will incent technological developments in new plants.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:we need a scientist by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      You're overrating Europe and underrating America. Simply by typing what you did without repercussions you have more freedom than in some Western European states; simply by being able to go to the doctor tomorrow for an ill (even though it may be more expensive) you have an advantage in healthcare, and simply by being in a country that has Louisianians your cooking is better.

    7. Re:we need a scientist by Sagara+Sozou · · Score: 1

      I think you want to replace "scientist" with engineers. They tend to have the vision and know how while scientists squabble for the next research grant.

      --
      Those poor bastards, they have us surrounded. Now we can fire at them in all directions!
    8. Re:we need a scientist by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      If you want to find an "enviro nut" go look at the rabid anti-nukies who consistently have the mantra of "Chernobyl" and maybe "Three Mile Island," practically ancient accidents with no real modern relevance with today's nuclear technology.

    9. Re:we need a scientist by Notquitecajun · · Score: 0, Redundant

      If you want to find an enviro-nut, check out anti-nukies who spew pretty much "Chernobyl" as their mantra and completely ignore modern advances in nuclear technology.

    10. Re:we need a scientist by jav1231 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      3. now that we have nationalized the car industry, we put a gun to the heads of the fuckers and detroit and force them to make more, cheaper electric cars. force this on them as a priority
      ....of course, the american consumer has to be dragged kicking and screaming out of his SUV and into a post-oil and coal future.

      Socialism is grand, isn't it?

      I'll await the inevitable mod-Flamebait from those who "get it!"

    11. Re:we need a scientist by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      You are aware that Cajuns originate from Acadia, which in turn were originally French?

      So it could be argued that most of the great cooking, world-wide, originates in France.

      (Ever had Cajun "fast food?" We have a restaurant chain here called Bourbon St. Grill. Not great, but a whole hellauvalot better than a stinky ol' burger)

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    12. Re:we need a scientist by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      Find out if there's a real "cajun" in the kitchen. Never trust one outside of Louisiana.

      Cajuns were kicked out of both places, and had to adapt with what they had. They took a bunch of mess and made it good eating. I consider them/me the lucky ones who got out.

    13. Re:we need a scientist by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      First of all no deal has been reached in the Big 3. GM and Chrysler are hemorrhaging money and you want them to loose more by making cheap electric cars. The batteries alone cost more then most new cars. Appointing a scientist to a cabinet position will not make lithium more abundant or cheaper.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    14. Re:we need a scientist by zoney_ie · · Score: 2

      There's no conversion necessary, except for mindset and lifestyle. If people would bike to work, for example, then the energy demands would be far less than today and we wouldn't have to deal with smog. If people would compost and grow even just 50% of their own food then you Americans could decrease your pollution and consumption even further.

      I don't understand why people want to live beyond their energy means and then start complaining when gas prices start rising.

      I do not believe that enforced "conversion" is either attainable or desirable. One can however bring in positive discrimination - make things easier for those cycling for example and provide tax reliefs. In many places in continental Europe for example, traffic is arranged in a far more bicycle-friendly fashion than here in Ireland (not American, sorry to blow out your prejudices, although we do betray our position as the nearest country in Europe to the US, excluding Iceland). A dose of reality is needed however. In the absence of dictatorial authoritarian enforced cycling, most people won't cycle.

      As regards growing their own food, this is not actually that useful an ambition. Certainly if someone has the means to, it isn't necessarily a bad thing, but suggesting everyone should grow 50% of their own food betrays a gross ignorance of the economies of scale that even historical farming achieves, nevermind modern food production (which yes, I do have some problems with).

      "Living beyond ones energy means" is a fairly meaningless phrase. We all have net energy consumption, all the more so to even live in rudimentary comfort. Living in even a frugal enough modern style, you are still an energy consumer. I don't know about you, but I don't have a magical energy production system of my own (and if I bought, e.g. a windmill, it cost more energy to produce than it will ever provide). I don't have land enough to grow enough trees for sustainable heating fuel.

      Scale up to a population of even just 4 million as we have here in Ireland, and you have to provide power somehow. In the provision of power, there is currently no magic solution that has zero environmental impact and satisfy even basic energy needs (and even being optimistic and assuming a sea change, we will still be quite high consumers of energy).

      Instead of ranting on a grandiose scale about the entire Western way of living, it would be far better if people focussed on basic simple measures, like building regulations to ensure homes are properly insulated, i.e. that is a more sensible first step before coming up with brilliant ideas on how to heat places with sustainable energy. Also regulations to ensure enough natural light to minimise artificial light during daytime - again, more useful than pontificating about using mercury-laden complex units instead of basic light bulbs (OK, so ordinary lightbulbs are archaic pathetically inefficient devices - but compact flourescents are a scam by lightbulb manufacturers and a sop to Joe Soap by governments to look "green"). Further regulations to avoid people using too *much* windowing, i.e. building greenhouses for the summer. Planning regulations to stop "throw-away" buildigns that are good for 10 years being built. Planning regulations to arrange rural/urban landscapes to preserve natural environment, encourage positive social fabric, and suit utility provision and transport. These are all areas where interference can be tactfully arranged rather than having an enforced change in the way we live.

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    15. Re:we need a scientist by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 1

      How big a garden do you need to grow 50% of your own food?

    16. Re:we need a scientist by neomunk · · Score: 1

      You know what, I don't think that pretending that other countries are different than they really are is necessary to be a U.S. patriot. In fact, I think having to lie to yourself about other peoples standard of living to make you feel better about your own is downright UNPATRIOTIC in a democracy due to the principle of self-government.

      Real patriotism would be a healthy competitive spirit that drove you to try and shape society in such a way as to grow stronger in the areas we've stagnated in, while leveraging the aspects in which we've excelled in order to correct our deficiencies. This nationalistic crap of "we're the best because I say so *fingers in ears* lalalalalalalalalalala I won't notice other countries changing, and history stopped after we won World War II, lalalalalalalalala" will do NOTHING but see us slide farther and farther from our potential, if only due to complacency. You're taking the soft and easy way out by simply declaring the game over and yourself a winner. Soft and easy rarely leads to improvement, and when coupled with self-deception, it is usually associated with tragedy.

      On a personal note, my direct surname ancestor in this country came here in 1775, so my family, my values, have been here since the country was founded. I'm 9th generation BTW, my children are the first of the 10th (for the branch of the family close enough for me to know) and I consider myself a patriot. Frankly, fiat declarations of U.S. superiority don't do anything for me, I'm more of a meat and potatoes kind of guy, and need to see it for myself. Just telling myself that other nations aren't as good as they really are gives me no kind of solace.

    17. Re:we need a scientist by neomunk · · Score: 1

      ...a fascist gov't...

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    18. Re:we need a scientist by maxume · · Score: 1

      "Just 50%"

      Are you trying to be hilarious, or is it an accident?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    19. Re:we need a scientist by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      I get what you're saying, but I think that the parent was almost doing the opposite - thinking that everything that has been going on in American is bad and simply because Europe is doing something differently, than it must be better (it's the common misconception of the whole health care thing, that the ONLY alternative is somehow a form of socialized medicine and not seeing that there's no real free-market health care system right now in America). It's also the overrating of what the Patriot Act actually did and who it really affected and why and how certain aspects of it are needed.

    20. Re:we need a scientist by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to be hilarious, or is it an accident?

      It's a goal, or at least an ideal, or just an idea. It's better than 5%. People need to think outside of their smugness sometimes.

    21. Re:we need a scientist by neomunk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's not Socialism, that's Communism. You can tell the difference by the level of authoritarianism.

      Socialism is about the carrot (tax breaks or even funding for truly socially beneficial policies) while Communism tends to focus on the stick (criminal laws and industry seizures). One is meant to encourage and stimulate, the other is meant to control and force compliance. There is a difference, I promise.

      As soon as people stop pretending that Socialism is Communism and Capitalism is Fascism (though either CAN become their compliment) the sooner we can get to actual (sane) policy debate instead of just figuring out how to undercut the 'evil other guy'.

    22. Re:we need a scientist by DougWebb · · Score: 2, Informative

      How big a garden do you need to grow 50% of your own food?

      Not much, if you have to quit your job in order to tend to it, in which case you're going to starve to death sooner or later because you can't afford to buy the other 50% of your food.

      Fresh veggies to supplement your diet during the growing season doesn't take up much time or space at all, though. A good product (which is not difficult to build on your own if you're so inclined) is EarthBox, a container with built-in watering and fertilizer. A couple of those and a sunny spot (or an indoor growlight) can give you quite a bit of fresh produce.

    23. Re:we need a scientist by maxume · · Score: 1

      City life turns out to be less intensive than rural life. People are moving to cities all over the world.

      How do you propose that people in New York, London, Paris, Tokyo, etc., grow even 10% of their own food?

      There is nothing smug about acknowledging reality.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    24. Re:we need a scientist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More fuel-efficient cars, even just to European standards, should be an initial goal. Very little needed - in fact they could start by just selling European GM and Ford models, instant plus without all the time, money, effort and energy requirements of starting from scratch with manufacture of new technology.

      Except you can't. There's a reason no one sells their European models in the US, and it's not market demand.

      They don't pass emissions. Most diesels sold in Europe are illegal in the US because they can't pass emissions. It's not even worth trying to convert them. The only one that comes to mind is the WRX, which had to have its fuel system converted and the addition of three inline catalytic converters to just scrape by the emissions standard.

      So, oddly enough, you can blame California for why those great cars aren't in the US.

    25. Re:we need a scientist by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

      City life turns out to be less intensive than rural life

      Not sure where you got that information from. Urban sprawl is very intensive.

      How do you propose that people in New York, London, Paris, Tokyo, etc., grow even 10% of their own food?

      Large parts of cities include backyards, like in New York, London, and perhaps even Tokyo. I live in a big city and quite a large percentage of my food was grown in the backyard. We didn't have a very big back yard either. Many cities have community plots to grow food. Food can be grown on the tops of buildings, and buildings can be assigned to grow food.

      There is nothing smug about acknowledging reality.

      True, but as I said most people don't have the attitude to acknowledge reality. When it comes down to it most people just become defensive when they hear that their lifestyle may need to change.

    26. Re:we need a scientist by maxume · · Score: 1

      Lifestyles are not going to change dramatically. The U.S. has decades of coal. It will be 'keep the electricity flowing and damn the environment' right up until the last pound of it is dug up and burned (and it will be much the same in China). There is also decades worth of natural gas.

      Neither of those include any thinking about the dozens of really stupid ideas that become perfectly economically viable when oil costs $200 a barrel, or a more liberal politics towards nuclear power.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    27. Re:we need a scientist by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 1

      The grandparent didn't bite, so I guess I'll have to reply to you :)

      My dad keeps a big garden, and I'm sure he doesn't grow anywhere near 50% of the family's vegetable/grain intake, never mind fruit/dairy/eggs/meat.

      I'd love to know how every citizen can have enough acreage to grow 50% of their food while living close enough to bike to work.

      As you say, The EarthBox looks like a great way to supplement your diet. If every household had a couple of those we'd be healthier, and make a dent in the energy required by professional farmers.

      I think the only realistic hope is for each of us to make several little steps like EarthBoxes, making little nibbles in our energy requirements that collectively add up to big savings.

    28. Re:we need a scientist by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      1. more nuclear power plants

      As long as Greenpeace is the largest environmental lobby, this is pretty much a fantasy.

      When those Greenpeace jerks accost me on the sidewalks after work wanting me to sign some shit or another, the conversation always goes like this:

      Them: "Excuse me, do you have a few minutes for Greenpeace?"
      Me: "Does Greenpeace still oppose nuclear power?"
      Them: "Yes, but--"
      Me: "Then no."

      I hate those bastards.

    29. Re:we need a scientist by speroni · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ironically many of the European cars which are more fuel efficient, don't meet the American Emissions Standards, so we can't just switch it over. (Need to review the regulation at least)

      Nuclear waste isn't as large of a problem as people imagine. If you were to take all the nuclear waste from the entire history of all nuclear plants in the US and stacked them on a football field, you wouldn't even have a stack 10m high. Moving forward with reprocessing plants and such, the amount of waste is very low.

      As for the price of a nuclear plant. It is a bit pricy to build a plant, but once its up and running it practially prints money. A fuel cycle lasts almost 2 years. You put in your uranium and fire it up and all you do for the next two years is make electricity and keep a couple guys around to regulate the plant. No need for tons of coal or oil.

      A new plant has a "fixed" life of 60 years, but often after an inspection the NRC will issue a an extension for 20 or more years. Whats the life time of a coal or oil plant?

      --
      Eschew Obfuscation
    30. Re:we need a scientist by speroni · · Score: 1

      Biking is impractical. I have a 30 mile ride to work. I'd like to move closer but my fiancee has a 30 mile ride in the opposite direction.

      People growing 50% of their food? It takes roughly an acre of good fertile ground to grow enough food for one person... so you're suggesting a half acre per person. With a 4 person family unit, 2 acres per family. How many people do you know with 2 acres of farmable ground? What about the fact that we still have to have regular jobs, tilling, weeding, fertilizing 2 acres of land doesn't happen on a weekend or two, that's practically a full time job unto itself.

      How much do _you_ farm?

      --
      Eschew Obfuscation
    31. Re:we need a scientist by DreadPiratePizz · · Score: 1

      "More fuel-efficient cars, even just to European standards, should be an initial goal. Very little needed - in fact they could start by just selling European GM and Ford models, instant plus without all the time, money, effort and energy requirements of starting from scratch with manufacture of new technology."

      No, they can't. These cars do not meet US safety standards. That's why ford is redesigning the KA for a US release.

    32. Re:we need a scientist by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      3. How about we just don't buy their shitty cars until they make cars we actually want to buy? We shouldn't FORCE them to build anything. If enough Americans want electric cars (hint: they don't) then GM will build hoards of them. God knows GM will build anything to make a buck (see: Suburban and its umpteen other GM counterparts).

      Why should we reward "design by committee" companies by spending $20k + on a vehicle that excels at nothing other than checking a bunch of feature blocks that have nothing to do with the way a vehicle performs? OnStar? Seriously? How about a car that can make an emergency lane change without the risk of rollover and you might not need OnStar in the first place..oh wait, that would require an investment in, R&D and ENGINEERING, which would cost money.

      And for you boring slashdotters, most of you are probably just looking for a people mover (you soulless gits) so why not make an economical, boring-yet-functional car that, a) doesn't break down at much higher rates than industry average, b) isn't made of the cheapest plastics on the planet, c) has more than 5-minutes of thought put into the ergonomics, and c) gets more than 25 mpg out of a 2.4l 4-banger.

      The Big 3 build 92 (shitty) models of giant suvs, some of the most boring sedans on the planet and the crappiest "economy" cars known to man. Again, you slashdotters probably have no problem with "boring" cars, but for my $20k+ money, I want at least a little zing out of my investment...

      At least Ford ALMOST gets it, in their effort to bring some of their quality European models to the US (Mondeo...please).

      But before we blame the auto industry, you probably need to take a look at yourself first...are YOU buying said shitty SUVs and shunning the internationally successful Mondeos and Focus hatchbacks (neither available in the US)? Hell I almost can't blame the Big 3 because the few good cars they do make, stupid Americans don't buy them. Instead, we spring for the next POS Suburban, or we buy a Pontiac Sunfire because it's "sporty" and they think it is important to "buy American".

    33. Re:we need a scientist by caluml · · Score: 1

      russian neoimperialism

      Aaah, OK - so it's bad when they do it. Got it now.

    34. Re:we need a scientist by caluml · · Score: 1

      simply by being able to go to the doctor tomorrow for an ill

      I (in the UK) can be seen by my GP at 9am tomorrow (it's 4.30 pm now), or I can go to a city "drop-in" centre if it's more urgent, or I can go straight to a hospital if it's more urgent. None of this "are you insured" nonsense. Americans, please watch Sicko, and don't listen to your "friends" who say that you have to wait 6 months for x, or 2 years for y.

    35. Re:we need a scientist by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      ...disposing of even any reduced amounts new plants create

      An existing coal fired plant produces more nuclear waste than a nuclear power plant. (Trace amounts of uranium in coal gets burned.) On top of that, the waste is belched out into the atmosphere instead of being contained.

    36. Re:we need a scientist by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      As laughable as the Crappy SUV is in your link, it's a pick-up truck--not an SUV. Still, excellent post. I particularly like the McMansion. I too have lived many years in England and Germany and can support your otherwise anecdotal evidence. My only gripe is that, while health care is easier to get for poor people, it is definitely NOT better than the US. Unless, of course, you consider "superior" to mean "more available" when I'm considering it to mean "better quality".

    37. Re:we need a scientist by mcvos · · Score: 1

      How to fix Detriot? Force them to make cars no one wants to buy!

      Weren't they already doing that?

    38. Re:we need a scientist by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      How old are you? I've heard some not-so-great stories about elderly not being able to get care, as well as issues with those with prostate problems (for which every male over 40 needs a yearly checkup, and if something develops it's about a quarterly exam). You still may have rationed-care issues, particularly if you're elderly or have a serious condition.

    39. Re:we need a scientist by CarbonShell · · Score: 1

      What additional safety standards could be required that are not already covered in the European regulations?

      Please elaborate.

    40. Re:we need a scientist by CarbonShell · · Score: 1

      Please provide at least some details about 'don't meet the American Emissions Standards'.

      Back up your claims pls.

    41. Re:we need a scientist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuclear technology is somewhat expensive to build, but that investment should be looked at over the expected lifetime of operation. Actual pollution of all options should be considered as well. (I don't believe it is currently factored in to cost estimates of 'traditional' power sources.)

      It is possible to actually reduce the quantity of ore-grade waste to store through a properly run 'Breeder Reactor' (I prefer the term nuclear waste reduction plant) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor I'm thinking specifically of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor (Note the comparison of waste component half lives) which was axed in the early 90s; my guess is for budget and/or nuclear proliferation agreement reasons. I believe we've reached a point where if under re-evaluation it looks economical that various agreements that might block it could be re-negotiated.

      Waste from new power plants should not be flat rate as it currently is. (wikipedia) "Currently in the United States, utilities pay a flat rate of 1/10 of a cent per kilowatt hour for disposal of high level radioactive waste. If this charge were based on the longevity of the waste, then the IFR might become more financially competitive."

      As for coal issues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_coal#Burning There's the bullet point summary, work comparing to crating stuff for a few hundred years.

  5. Secretary Chu'thul'hu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    About 3 years after the administration begins will Barack-Husein morph into the dragon that the Bible prophecy predicted in the book of Revelation. And wouldn't you know it, he has already disguised his minions. I suppose Hillary Clinton is Senator Low-Key and the former governor of die State of Illinois is the blagging Jehovah in disguise being blackmailed by Kenyan/Indonesian (non-elect) Obama. Where is Jesus when we need him, or is he just a little-known hippy in southern California trolling SLASHDOT about these events? Find out next, on the Constitutional p-p-p-power-Rangers!

  6. Chu's goal: solve the energy crisis by jamie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Salon has a story today on Obama's pick to solve the energy crisis:

    "You should interview Steven Chu," the scientist at the Joint Genome Institute in Walnut Creek, Calif., told me. "He already has one Nobel Prize. He wants to get a second one for solving the energy crisis."

    That was two years ago, and I sorely regret not following through and landing an interview with Chu, a physicist who has dedicated his post-Nobel Prize career to the development of alternative sources of energy. Because as Barack Obama's nominee for secretary of energy, Steven Chu is going to get a chance to make his dreams come true, with the full backing of the U.S. government.

    Since 2004, Chu has served as the director of the University of California-managed Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, spearheading, among other things, a massive research effort in solar power. To get a sense of the man's interests, here's the second sentence of his bio...:

    Chu, an early advocate for finding scientific solutions to climate change, has guided Berkeley Lab on a new mission to become the world leader in alternative and renewable energy research, particularly the development of carbon-neutral sources of energy.

    Environmentalists and climate change activists are understandably delighted. Consider this: For eight years the United States has boasted an Energy Department that for all intents and purposes was a subsidiary of the U.S. oil industry. Now, should he be confirmed, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist who specializes in climate change and renewable energy and already knows how to run a decent-size bureaucracy is going to be in charge of realizing Obama's bold promises to lead the United States toward an energy-sustainable future. Symbolically speaking, one would be hard put to draw a sharper contrast between the Bush and Obama eras than what is achieved by this single appointment.

    1. Re:Chu's goal: solve the energy crisis by jamie · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And hey, here's more. I'm just 8 minutes into this talk and I'm already on his side.

      Steve Chu: A New Energy Program

    2. Re:Chu's goal: solve the energy crisis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Environmentalists and climate change activists are understandably delighted. Consider this: For eight years the United States has boasted an Energy Department that for all intents and purposes was a subsidiary of the U.S. oil industry. Now, should he be confirmed, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist who specializes in climate change and renewable energy and already knows how to run a decent-size bureaucracy is going to be in charge of realizing Obama's bold promises to lead the United States toward an energy-sustainable future. Symbolically speaking, one would be hard put to draw a sharper contrast between the Bush and Obama eras than what is achieved by this single appointment.

      Try to put aside your prejudices and look at the actual facts on the ground.

      If one were to draw a break between Secretaries of Energy, it ought to be drawn in 2004.

      The Secretaries under Clinton and Bush's first term -- namely, Hazel O'Leary, Federico Pena, Bill Richardson, and Spencer Abraham -- were essentially a bunch of politicians and lawyers. They had little or no scientific or engineering background, and showed little interest in any matters far beyond politics or big business.

      But the current Secretary of Energy, Sam Bodman, was a professor of Chemical Engineering at MIT. As a chemical engineer, his work had much to do with the practical side of energy technology. He's done a good job during the last four years.

      Steven Chu is a Nobel prize winning physicist whose best known work is a technique for the supercooling of gases. As Director of LBNL, he must also have picked up quite a lot of administrative experience and political savvy.

      They are both much more qualified and capable than their pre-2004 predecessors.

    3. Re:Chu's goal: solve the energy crisis by fprintf · · Score: 1

      I have moderator points and it would have been nice to give you points if you had posted non-AC.

      Regardless, you make a good point. And for all the back-slapping, scientists are great, Bush is terrible, your post stands out as the only one in 50 posts that has mentioned that there is a currently highly qualified scientist running the DoE. Thank you!

      --
      This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
    4. Re:Chu's goal: solve the energy crisis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I realize that many people are loath to criticize a member of the Bush administration (during a time of war, etc.) but Bodman is a businessman with an engineering background, not a scientist. His tenure as Energy Secretary has been unremarkable. Many people will be disappointed in Chu if he turns out to be like Bodman (or any of those who came before him).

    5. Re:Chu's goal: solve the energy crisis by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 4, Informative

      Note that national labs didn't have anything like the focus on renewable energy that Chu created at LBL until he did that a few years ago. This man is a very effective politician, a great scientist, and a real visionary.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    6. Re:Chu's goal: solve the energy crisis by Shag · · Score: 3, Informative

      the current Secretary of Energy, Sam Bodman, was a professor of Chemical Engineering at MIT. As a chemical engineer, his work had much to do with the practical side of energy technology. He's done a good job during the last four years.

      I agree; Bodman is no dummy. But practically speaking, he's spent very little time working in science, and almost all of that before 1970. From 1971-2004, he was working in finance - heck, he did a stint as Deputy Secretary of the Treasury! It's good to be well-rounded and all that, of course...

      --
      Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
    7. Re:Chu's goal: solve the energy crisis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although the idea of carbon-neutral sources of energy is noble, there are two issues that need to be addressed. There are basically two problems with hydrocarbon energy. The first is carbon, the second is...the U.S. doesn't have it. Before we start to address the environmental issues, we should address the economic ones. This is why I consider any sort of carbon capture, or even solar and wind development a moot point.

      That is not to say that research and development in these areas is unwarranted, just that they are immature. It is deceiving if not dangerous to create a political atmosphere that perpetuates the idea that America could use wind, solar, batteries, etc to replace or even supplement hydrocarbons in the near future. The energy density is simply not there.

      As with any problem, this is best approached by understanding the fundamentals. In this case, it suffices to say that we do understand these fundamentals in the form of thermodynamics. We can predict efficiencies, energy sinks, and activation energies of most thermodynamic processes. Of the developing technologies, only fission and fusion combine high efficiency with economy.

      This is where the thermodynamic chain breaks down. Most of the energy produced is lost to transmission. There must be a medium with higher efficiency than electricity. We could use heat. Use the fission heat to heat water, pump it to houses, heat your house, and run your house and car on a Sterling engine. But that sounds pretty inefficient. We could use the electricity to hydrolyze water and make methane or synthetic hydrocarbons, which solves the dependence issue. Or we could use the hydrogen directly in fuel cells or combustion. We could produce hydrogen even more efficiently than hydrolysis with a chemical process called the Sulfur-Iodine cycle. This is well documented. The requirements of the S-I cycle are around 1000 degrees C, the higher end of what a fission reactor will achieve.

      In fact, IV generation reactors are designed to accomplish exactly that purpose. Companies like Westinghouse realize the potential in these generation and transmission technologies and have convinced the NRC to basically license the design as opposed to each plant individually. The new reactors are really amazing. They are basically modular and look like they could be flown in in a couple of days.

      So what happens, we build these safe, reliable reactors, incidentally creating jobs. We use this sulfur-iodine cycle to produce hydrogen at a higher efficiency than electrolysis. We pipe the hydrogen everywhere over a massive infrastructure. We build PUREX nuclear refining process plants and reprocess any waste.

      No waste, high energy density, and clean combustion. And keep in mind, it will only be 50 years until commercial fusion technology. Our children could heat their homes, drive their cars, and have electricity..for free. This is real. This is proven. This will work.

    8. Re:Chu's goal: solve the energy crisis by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      But practically speaking, he's spent very little time working in science, and almost all of that before 1970.

      I don't know much about the guy, but at least he knows enough about the scientific process to be able to teach it. Even if he hadn't worked in industry in decades, he still understands the methodologies and why you would want to use them. That's a huge improvement over what we usually get.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    9. Re:Chu's goal: solve the energy crisis by Shag · · Score: 1

      I've actually seen Bodman speak at an energy conference, and I don't remember him saying "nuke-u-lar" at least. On the down side, he then introduced the President, who of course did. ;)

      But I'm just a bottom-of-the-totem-pole data-taking grunt, almost never seen in person on Chu Road (yeah - win a Nobel while working at the Lab and they name a stretch of pavement after you!) so several layers of bureaucracy shield me from folks like Director Chu or Secretary Bodman. They presumably don't even know I exist, and I have no problems with that.

      --
      Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
    10. Re:Chu's goal: solve the energy crisis by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      On the down side, he then introduced the President, who of course did.

      Just like Jimmy "Nukular Sub" Carter before him. ;-)

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  7. Meme warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our energy secretary overlords. Ia! Ia! Chu ftghan!

  8. Chu probably has political skills... by Mutatis+Mutandis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Chu must have reasonable political skills, as he the director of the Berkeley Lab, an organization with 4000 people and a budget of half a billion. The management of a scientific organization of this nature is usually quite challenging, if only because many of the people employed by it are (necessarily) independent-minded and headstrong. There is more back-stabbing in academic labs than in Washington DC.

    Putting a scientist in charge of energy policy is a good idea. A factually justified, realistic energy policy is urgently needed.

    Besides, during the last few years people in the public research departments have been demoralized by a political leadership that made it clearly felt that it couldn't care less about scientific data and factual reality. The DoE needs a leader who has the confidence of its staff. Chu could be that leader.

    1. Re:Chu probably has political skills... by Stephen+Ma · · Score: 1

      Running Lawrence Berkeley is a lot different from surviving while Exxon is gunning after you. If he succeeds at finding a good alternative source of energy, the oil companies will take a heavy hit, and they know it. And they play rough. I wish Chu well, but I hope he has a good bodyguard and a large life insurance policy.

  9. Indeed, a policy of evidence, not trendy hype. by elkto · · Score: 0, Troll

    "but I'm hopeful that a scientist will base policy on evidence" Me too! The planet has cooled almost 3 tenths of a degree since Mr. Algore's assertion that the plant is getting hot. I am all about being a good steward of the planet. I question the logic of allot of the radical answers to almost insignificant issues, all the while making the problem worse. As an example: Lets switch vehicles from burning "hydro"carbons with a maximum efficiency of 30 to 40 percent to electricity. Electricity, here where we generate most of it with carbons at a max efficiency of 40 percent and can lose almost half of that in transmission. Add another 10 percent loss in battery storage and another 10 percent in conversion back to kinetic energy. Silly. How about make the vehicle more efficient... period. Where is my Turbo Diesel Hybrid!

    1. Re:Indeed, a policy of evidence, not trendy hype. by Threni · · Score: 0, Redundant

      > The planet has cooled almost 3 tenths of a degree since Mr. Algore's assertion that the plant is getting hot.

      Yeah! Haw haw! I heard the planet is supposed to be getting hotter! Haw haw! But it's actually getting colder where I live! Haw haw haw! And anyway, what's wrong with a bit more sunshine? Haw haw haw!

    2. Re:Indeed, a policy of evidence, not trendy hype. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *wonders whether his troll or sarcasm detector will explode first*

    3. Re:Indeed, a policy of evidence, not trendy hype. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see... the GP did the math and raised legitimate questions, the parent spewed mockery with no substance whatever.

      Yeeeeah. Um, Threni, speaking as a committed environmentalist, could you not do us any favors here?

  10. Entitlement by unlametheweak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Some are worried that Chu is not politically savvy enough

    Politically savvy people don't make good politicians or bureaucrats, but unfortunately that's what they usually become.

    Let's hope this is an appointment and not a popularity contest. If he's smart and he has the entitlement to succeed then things may go well.

  11. Sounds good to me by friedpo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's about time a real scientist with real ideas is put into the position where his opinion is respected. It seems most people are too worried about the politics of everything and not about results. In history we have elected generals as our presidents who have made far better choices for this country in my opinion although we've created a secretary of defense position to avoid having a military leader with the ability to make war moving decisions. We think that just because a man has been out of the service for 10 years he won't make bias decisions based on his past military history. The fact of the matter is we need people in those Government positions that actually do the work, so the outcome isn't twisted. Politics are so overrated.

  12. Great news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is great news coming from an administration that chooses people based on competence rather then connections and theocratic similarities.

    The current buddy-buddy system got the US in the biggest hole in over 3 decades ( we may even have to go back a century ).

    I admit I don't know too much about the apointee but winning a Nobel in Physics is not a small feat and indicates a factual based personality, which is exactly what we MUST have right now, and something that we always should have in any higher position.

    There is hope ...

    1. Re:Great news by Notquitecajun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wait, what? Most of Obama's appointments are Clinton retreads or Chicagoland pols. Chu is one of the first appointments that more or less goes with the whole "change" mantra.

    2. Re:Great news by ratnerstar · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Speaking purely for myself, the "change" I was looking for when I voted for Barack Obama was a shift towards competence and practicality in government. I want Obama to choose the best -- the smartest, the most savvy, the most accomplished, the hardest working -- people to help him lead the country, and I don't give a damn whether they used to be in the Clinton administration.

      When I look at his appointments so far, I see three extremely respected economists, an absolutely superb and forward thinking Defense Secretary, a Nobel laureate for Energy, a woman with international recognition and appeal for State, a HHS secretary with a record of working for universal health care, and a tough bastard as CoS to push the agenda through. That's what I want.

      I don't know what change you were looking for, but I'm happy.

      --
      Just because you sold your soul to the devil that needn't make you a teetotaler. --The Devil and Daniel Webster
    3. Re:Great news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can only appoint people you've heard about. It's still a big change from the previous cabinet.

    4. Re:Great news by Notquitecajun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Change" I thought wasn't going to be the old-style politics of the left during the Clinton era. Real, complete change would have been bringing in people with little to no experience in Washington politics. All I see are the same old Democrats.

    5. Re:Great news by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Before this (and then my) post get modded to -1, I'd like to say that there's truth to it.

      While I heartily and even somewhat violently applaud Obama for appointing Porf. Chu to the position of Secretary of Energy, his other picks have been mostly meh.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    6. Re:Great news by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      Not from Clinton's. As I said in another response to this post, real change would have been bringing in people with little to no experience in Washington politics. All that he's been doing is bringing in the same old dems, outside of the defense secretary which was even LESS change than before.

    7. Re:Great news by ratnerstar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So what you really want is the illusion of change. You want to see new faces, but don't care what actually gets accomplished. As for me, I want competent people who know how to get things done. I want action to meet the serious challenges this country faces.

      You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But given the record high approval ratings we've seen for the Obama transition, I'd say most Americans see things my way.

      --
      Just because you sold your soul to the devil that needn't make you a teetotaler. --The Devil and Daniel Webster
    8. Re:Great news by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      No, I want real change. I don't want the same old politicians from the Clinton era pulling their same old garbage. I want new, fresh faces in Washington that have a vested interest in really changing how government works. I don't see people who are going to change the tax system, social security, beauracracy, entitlements, and other issues as radically as they need changing. I don't think that the people that Obama is bringing in are going to accomplish. Competent people for government can be found outside of Washington insiders, who we DON'T need more of.

      You are also too quick to judge the high approval ratings for Obama's transition. The country is so dissatisfied with the Bush administration that ANYTHING slightly different would look better. Come back in two years and see if there really has been any "change" in Washington.

    9. Re:Great news by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Wait, what? Most of Obama's appointments are Clinton retreads or Chicagoland pols.

      Yeah, but if they're clear thinking individuals who believe in fact-based reasoning and practicality over partisanship, who the hell cares where they came from?

      'course, whether these people fit that definition is a separate topic. But the general consensus seems to be that Obama is selecting excellent people who very much fit this mold.

    10. Re:Great news by minister+of+funk · · Score: 1

      So... you're wondering why he didn't appoint Palin?

    11. Re:Great news by ratnerstar · · Score: 1

      Okay, but if you were looking for radical changes to the tax system, social security, entitlements, etc., then Barack Obama was never your candidate. He never campaigned on making significant changes there. If you wanted Bob Barr to be President, that's fine, but it's silly to criticize Obama for not doing what he never promised to do.

      Moreover, I think you underestimate what's required to effect change in Washington. People with no experience in government are unlikely to accomplish anything, because they don't know how to work the system. You don't show up in DC, snap your fingers, pronounce "let's have some entitlements reform" and have it happen.

      Now look at the appointments we've seen so far. I'll give you Clinton and even Eric Holder. Given Larry Summers' wide experience, I think it's unfair to call him a Clintonite, but I'll give you him too. But I don't know how you can describe Gates, Jones, Chu, Geithner, Romer, Napolitano, and Daschle as Clinton retreads, or practitioners of "old style politics of the left."

      --
      Just because you sold your soul to the devil that needn't make you a teetotaler. --The Devil and Daniel Webster
    12. Re:Great news by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but is placing old Washington insiders inside your administration really "change?" I agree with you on the first principle, but I don't think that Obama has gone far enough to fulfill his promise of "change." It started with Joe Biden, and Chu is really the first outsider that he seems to have brought in. There are plenty of competent people outside of DC, and we really need those whose experiences are outside of the Washington context to do some good.

    13. Re:Great news by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      Daschle? Not old-style? He was one of the more ineffective pols in recent memory.

      I'm more being outside critical of Obama right now and trying to hold him of his promises of "change," whatever THAT meant. I voted McCain, but never really had a horse in the race (a non-Mormon, non-yankee version of Mitt Romney would have been nice).

      You also apparently missed much of the Reagan era, which had some RADICAL governmental changes away from the remnants of the New Deal that occurred fairly quickly from a President who had little Washington experience in "getting things done." What DC NEEDS is a group of people who have no beaureaucratic experience and are willing to "break" the system rather than go along to get something accomplished (Teddy Roosevelt rings a bell here). Forceful, enigmatic personalities not willing to put up with Washington garbage CAN enact change there. It really has happened before, but hardly anyone is really willing to try it.

    14. Re:Great news by ratnerstar · · Score: 1

      Ronald Reagan was a mixed bag, but if you want to use him as an example, fine. Let's look at his choices:

      VP: George Bush, former CIA director & various other government positions

      Sec State: Alexander Haig, former Chief of Staff to Nixon and Ford

      Sec Def: Caspar Weinberger, former Nixon OMB director and Secretary of HEW

      CoS: James Baker, former undersecretary under Ford and head of Ford reelection committee
       

      I'll give you Reagan's first Treasury secretary, Donald Regan, who was merely an investment banker before joining the cabinet. But other than that, Reagan's picks were hardly Washington outsiders.

      --
      Just because you sold your soul to the devil that needn't make you a teetotaler. --The Devil and Daniel Webster
    15. Re:Great news by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      I admit to that much, but my example of Reagan was more toward the attitude he directly took towards DC and he actually did "break" a few rules to get some things done. I don't see Obama taking that angle. Reagan was also an "outsider" to Washington.

    16. Re:Great news by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Wait, what? Appointing people with actual skills other than being in the good-ol'-boy network is an illusion of change, but appointing people from the good-ol'-boy network is actual change?

      I'm confused.

    17. Re:Great news by Viewsonic · · Score: 1
      "I'm more being outside critical of Obama right now and trying to hold him of his promises of "change," whatever THAT meant. "

      At its very core, it meant doing a 180 of what we had for the past 8 years under Bush. If you were given the choice to make that happen, these are EXACTLY who you would be putting in charge. Obama could not have made more change of what we had these past 8 years if he had tried harder. Clinton wasn't in office for the past 8 years, Bush was. We're trying to get as far from Bush as possible. Thats exactly what he has done.

      I see your Limbaugh/Hannity "WHERE IS THIS CHANGE?! ITS CLINTON ALL OVER AGAIN! THATS NOT CHANGE!" - It certainly is if you compare it to the past 8 years. Durrrrrr.

    18. Re:Great news by ratnerstar · · Score: 1

      Appointing people because they are untainted by exposure to government rather than because they are the best people for the job is an illusion of change. You can keep your outside-the-beltway affirmative action; I'll take the most qualified candidates, please. Who gives a crap if they used to work for Clinton?

      --
      Just because you sold your soul to the devil that needn't make you a teetotaler. --The Devil and Daniel Webster
    19. Re:Great news by seriesrover · · Score: 1

      And this nebulous "change" meaning one thing to one person and something else to another is a great big elephant trap Obama has laid for himself. Sure it'll get you popular and into office, but at some point a lot of people are going to be disappointed. This is precisely what happened to Blair in 1997 - he focused on polls and was very popular a few months in until it slowly ebbed away when he didn't deliver. Polls this month or the next 6 are meaningless until we actually see what he does and the outcomes.

    20. Re:Great news by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Most of Obama's appointments are Clinton retreads or Chicagoland pols. Chu is one of the first appointments that more or less goes with the whole "change" mantra.

      Uh, maybe you missed something, but the President of the last 8 years was Bush, not Clinton; Clinton "retreads" are a pretty big change, considering that the last 8 years weren't much like the preceding 8.

    21. Re:Great news by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      No, not really. It's changing one set of Washington insiders for another. Real change would be throwing all the bums out.

    22. Re:Great news by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      Exchanging one set of Washington insiders for another isn't "change." As I said in another response, the only change that would really affect DC would be throwing all the bums out.

    23. Re:Great news by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      Can we wait until the guy actually takes office to see if his administration will do anything before calling him a liar?

      The Democratic party has been largely incompetent for the last ten years, and George Bush evicted nearly everybody with a liberal bent from his administration. If he wants anybody with experience running things, he doesn't have many options. He basically has to choose from Clinton era holdovers, Congressmen, and high-level state politicians. Most of his appointments have come from those positions, but he's also made many picks like Dr. Chu.

    24. Re:Great news by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      Ummm...I'm not directly calling him a liar, but I AM pointing out that he is not picking people who represent his basic message of "change." I kept hearing how experience wasn't what people were looking for, and I honestly think that for him to hold to his message, he needs people to come into Washington with little or no experience in the Washington machine to do government differently. He hasn't done that.

      Keep in mind, I didn't vote for him and didn't really have a candidate through the whole process that I liked. I REALLY wanted a conservative version of Obama - outsider, young, energetic, smart - instead of another old white guy who had been around a little too long.

  13. Just great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    From Wikipedia:

    As global warming warnings grow more dire, Chu is currently pushing his scientists at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and industry to develop technologies to reduce the impact of climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

    Just what we need, someone else that will perpetuate the hoax of man made global warming.

    1. Re:Just great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dammit all, I'm being serious here.

    2. Re:Just great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poe's law is a bitch, ain't it?

  14. Jesus 2.0? by denzacar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Probably somewhere in China or India.

    Half of the world is there - statistically that is where the second coming should take place.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Jesus 2.0? by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      How dare you imply that Jesus isn't a proud American! Do you think it was just a coincidence that King James wrote the Bible in english back in biblical times? You're obviously one of those Marxists, like Obama.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:Jesus 2.0? by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Worse.

      I'm one of them foreign people.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    3. Re:Jesus 2.0? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Oh, so you're coming here to take our jobs too, eh? BEGONE SATAN!

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  15. It's Frinktastic by DustyCase · · Score: 5, Funny

    An anonymous source says that Chu has solved the pickle matrix, and has made significant progress on the rebigulator. DOE should be a piece of cake.

  16. I'm worried... by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Obama has impressed me and I hope he keeps going. I am worried, I just know Rod Sterling is waiting to spring the gotcha on everybody and that Twilight Zone music will crank up.

    --
    ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
    1. Re:I'm worried... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sterling did that in 2000. We've rolled the credits and are now on to a new season with a new show. Reality based government.

  17. Al Gore would have been a better pick by Phoenix666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He also has a Nobel prize and has become a moral authority on climate change and energy ever since his film, "Inconvenient Truth." He has deep experience in government and has done extensive thinking about energy and environmental policy. In short, he both knows what he's talking about and can get things done.

    Perhaps Chu has that, too, but his lack of name recognition will constrain his effectiveness.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
    1. Re:Al Gore would have been a better pick by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      Thankfully, not. Especially given the number of scientists who had to clarify what they said post-film. Gore would make a better pick if you want political savvy, however. I'm not sure a climate "specialist" from Berkeley is much better but it's refreshing NOT to have a politician.

    2. Re:Al Gore would have been a better pick by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Perhaps Chu has that, too, but his lack of name recognition will constrain his effectiveness.

      How much have you heard about Sam Bodman (the current Secretary of Energy)? Me neither, and I usually know things like that. For me at least competence beats out name recognition any day of the week.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:Al Gore would have been a better pick by Shag · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He also has a Nobel prize and has become a moral authority on climate change and energy

      I saw Al Gore speak less than 2 hours ago (at Polska Akademii Nauk, introducing a presentation by Wieslaw Maslowski, an expert on the arctic ice cap) and during his remarks, he repeatedly pointed out that although he's worked to improve his understanding of things, he is a layman. Yes, he has a Nobel prize - but it's the Peace prize, not one in the sciences. That makes him a moral authority, but not a scientific authority, as he isn't a scientist.

      There is no doubt in my mind that he's a brilliant politician and policy guy, and great at raising public awareness, but I'm sure all the scientists at the numerous Department of Energy labs will be happier with Chu in charge.

      --
      Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
    4. Re:Al Gore would have been a better pick by maxume · · Score: 1

      If Al Gore were appointed Secretary of Energy, I would become something like one of the villains from "Captain Planet", just to foil his potential success.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:Al Gore would have been a better pick by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      How much have you heard about Sam Bodman (the current Secretary of Energy)? Me neither, and I usually know things like that. For me at least competence beats out name recognition any day of the week.

      I agree that he may not be famous, but Sam Bodman definitely is competent, as he holds a doctors degree in chemical energy from MIT, where he worked as an associate prof.

      I don't claim that he did anything particularly noteworthy during his appointment because I didn't follow and don't know, but I think Bodman has the necessary competence. You don't become an MIT professor in chemical engineering without that.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    6. Re:Al Gore would have been a better pick by wafflze · · Score: 0

      What does Al Gore bring to the table? MANBEARPIG!

    7. Re:Al Gore would have been a better pick by pipatron · · Score: 2, Informative

      He would possibly have been a better pick, but he didn't want the position.

      --
      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
    8. Re:Al Gore would have been a better pick by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      Him being less known in general might give him a chance to get a fair chance by the CNN/FOX/NBC/*** news bastards.

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    9. Re:Al Gore would have been a better pick by radl33t · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No. Al Gore is a preacher. Don't forget 50% of the people in the country hate him, which may constrain his effectiveness. Too much baggage.

    10. Re:Al Gore would have been a better pick by drew · · Score: 1

      "An Inconvenient Truth" was a good movie, but fortunately for him, he is a politician and not a scientist, so he didn't have to worry about inconvenient facts getting in the way of his story. I give him credit for raising awareness (for which he won his Nobel Peace prize), but I think we're better off leaving him to his evangelizing. Let somebody with a firmer grasp of the actual facts behind the matter propose policy.

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    11. Re:Al Gore would have been a better pick by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      No. Al Gore is a preacher. Don't forget 50% of the people in the country hate him, which may constrain his effectiveness. Too much baggage.

      Beyond that, he's just not a scientist. I have much more faith in the scientific advice of a Nobel physics prize winner than I do Gore. It's largely a matter of trust. Even if Chu and Gore were to make the same recommendation, a huge chunk of America would believe that Gore made it for political reasons while Chu made it because it was good science.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    12. Re:Al Gore would have been a better pick by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Al Gore is unfortuntely the Michael Moore of climate change. The message might be right but some of the tricks to get it out stretch facts.

    13. Re:Al Gore would have been a better pick by Shag · · Score: 1

      Gore spoke at the UN climate change conference today. I missed it, but colleagues who were there said that he didn't talk about being a layman. Of course, he was speaking to politicians and policymakers, not a room full of scientists. I guess he's smart enough to change his tone depending on whether he's in a room of people he knows know more than he does. ;)

      --
      Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
  18. *Very good, I'd say... by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you mean what common parlance means by "politics" -- i.e. "getting elected"

    If you mean "running a social unit, such as a state" then most of them suck.

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    1. Re:*Very good, I'd say... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      "getting elected" is only a small part of "Politics." Politics is the process of convincing others that your way is the right way. As the saying attributed to Einstein goes, "Everything is politics."

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  19. i understand the downside of nuclear and electric by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but all of the downside, including what you listed above, is not as big a downside as that of oil and coal

    environment: we pollute our air
    geopolitics: we fund our enemies

    those two take the cake when compared to nuclear and electric being "messy" and all the other minor issues you list. especially regarding nuclear: lookup pebble bed reactors. we can get 10x the amount of energy out of uranium, and thorium, and produce 1/10th the waste that lasts 2 centuries rather than 10,000 years. nuclear is a no-brainer. the french and japanese have been doing it for decades, deriving most of their energy from nuclear

    the french and japanese need to show the way to americans who, like you, seem to suffer from tunnel vision. it doesn't have to be oil and coal. we are using a suboptimal source for our energy needs. all of the downside to nuclear and electric do not stack up as much as the downside of oil and coal

    and then we really need to master fusion, in a century, at least. because oil and coal sources are just going to get deeper and more expensive, and uranium and thorium sources aren't going to last forever either

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  20. in all honesty by circletimessquare · · Score: 0, Redundant

    i am all for getting off oil and coal, but biking? composting? really?

    not going to happen dude. perhaps if you had mentioned more trains, more mass transport, ok. but you are asking people to exert a lot of effort. you realize that, right? you want some office worker to bike 10 miles a day? really? are you serious?

    what you are asking for is never going to happen. meanwhile, something like an electric car really doesn't change their lifestyle at all. you can't ask people to drastically change their lifestyles, you just can't. if you don't understand why, you're way out of your league on these issues

    don't ask people to bike more and compost more. you really are the environut this guy was talking about if you honestly believe those are valid solutions to our problems. boking more: just not going to happen

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:in all honesty by unlametheweak · · Score: 0

      i am all for getting off oil and coal, but biking? composting? really?

      not going to happen dude.

      Oh it will happen, it's just a matter of timing. People will not want it to happen, just like people didn't want to give up their SUVs, but it will happen.

      you really are the environut this guy was talking about if you honestly believe those are valid solutions to our problems.

      As I stated, mindset (attitude) is the major stumbling block.

    2. Re:in all honesty by unlametheweak · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      BTW, I note that YOU didn't bother moderating me Troll or Flaimbait in the parent post, but I've still noticed the Overrated mod and am pointing it out for the Metamoderators. You may continue to down mod me as long as you have mod points.

    3. Re:in all honesty by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      not going to happen dude. perhaps if you had mentioned more trains, more mass transport, ok. but you are asking people to exert a lot of effort. you realize that, right? you want some office worker to bike 10 miles a day? really? are you serious?

      While it's certainly not going to happen, it is difficult to conceive of any genuinely negative results should the average office worker start riding 10 miles to work.

    4. Re:in all honesty by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Mindset is the stumbling block for not wanting to get killed on my way to work by riding a bike in a major metropolitan area? I think "fatassedness" is the primary stumbling block for most people not riding a bike to work 20 miles a day. And snow. And rain. And dark. And getting hit by a car. And being sweaty at work. And messing up my work attire. And dropping my kids of at school on my way. Can I stop yet?

    5. Re:in all honesty by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

      Congradulations. You still find the time to mod me down, even though I am pointing out your abuses.

  21. fascist? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    i thought obama was a communist muslim

    i guess the contradictions in the terms communist and muslim escapes the average wackjob... but when you are just stringing together negative terms to connote an Enemy of the United States (trademark), you can't be picky

    i guess we can go with fascist communist terrorist muslim then?

    too much? sorry, its so hard to keep track of nowadays, the shocking crimes of barack obama. i mean, he wasn't even born in the usa. and when are they finally going to reveal obama's sordid past as a pedophile priest? its all a conspiracy of the liberal media that the truth is kept from us. THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE! KEEP UP THE GOOD FIGHT!

    zzz

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:fascist? by dragonjujotu · · Score: 1

      +5 funny please

      --
      Yes, I am obsessed with ellipses.
  22. in an alternative universe by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    where suburbs never developed, where cities remained small and compact, where we retained strong investment in our national rail and trolley infrastructure, you would have something valid to say about biking

    but the automobile came and completely transformed our communities and how we live our lives. for the better? for the worse? doesn't matter. it's what happened. irreversibly

    so now we are tasked with getting off oil and coal in the least painful way possible

    oh sure, people will start biking more if gas goes to say, $100 gallon. but this is not an option for many people: the old, the out of shape, those who live in places that are very hot or cold, places that are very hilly, those who live 30 miles from their job, etc. that which works for the 25 year old marathon runner is not an option for most of us

    of course the next step then is to see development patterns abandon the far flung suburbs model if energy sources remain difficult. but changing our lifestyles will take decades. it took decades to put us all in the suburbs, dependent on the car

    but we just aren't going to abaondon the suburbs. people like their big houses, they don't like small cramped apartments. what will happen instead is people will simply use electric cars, and continue living in the suburbs. because when faced with the choice between:

    1. abandoning the big house in the suburbs for a small city apartment and a bike on cold rainy days/ hot stifling days
    2. using an electric car instead

    people are going to pick #2, 99.9999% of the time

    your doomsday scenario of everyone on bikes is just not going to happen. its not beijing, 1970. sorry to burst your fantasy bubble

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:in an alternative universe by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      As I've stated, it's all about attitude. My solutions are easier and more realistic than yours. But then again if people (well, let's be realistic here, when we're talking about lazy and stubborn we're really talking Americans). Electric cars is certainly an intellectually lazy argument that is unsustainable.

      If your solution doesn't take into effect human nature and psychology, it's flawed. CircleTimesSquare is right on this one, you're living in a fantasy land.

      (The weird thing is you hint that you might understand this in the above-quoted text. In one line you say your plan is "more realistic", then in the second line you say "people are too lazy and stubborn to do it." Which is it, man?)

      Sure, it would be *great* if everybody decided to move closer to where they work so they could bike to work. Assuming this hypothetical situation happens, how many decades do you think it would take to move companies/people until this was possible? How many decades did it take to create the suburbs and densely-populated business districts in the first place? Do you seriously think that the American people can stick to this hypothetical plan for so long instead of just saying "fuck it, we can just drive."?

      And you're also talking about a mass relocation of people. Let's ignore that every American has the right to live and move wherever the hell they want, and go back to your history books and look up how that's worked out in the past. Hm, interesting, every mass relocation in history seems to also have created famine and death.

      And even in your utopia, what happens to the people who can't ride a bike? Even if a man only lives 20 blocks from work, he'll reach an age where biking is simply impractical. What does he do then, just starve to death cold and alone in his crappy little apartment he left the suburbs for? (Oh, and we can ignore the fact that biking is already simply impractical in large swathes of the northern half of the country during half the year.)

      Anyway, the point here is: think it THOUGH man.

    2. Re:in an alternative universe by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

      It's environmentally realistic. But attitude-wise it isn't. Take for example your argument:

      Even if a man only lives 20 blocks from work, he'll reach an age where biking is simply impractical. What does he do then, just starve to death cold and alone in his crappy little apartment he left the suburbs for?

      It's easy enough to counter:
      1) Most people retire when they are too old to work
      2) Most people have alternate means of transportation when their ideal source is unavailable.

      It seems like people are going out of their way to create reasons why they can't do anything environmentally sustainable. People's attitudes are so negative on this issue that they are labeling my posts Troll and Flamebait. That's what I mean when I say it's an attitude problem. People won't even consider other arguments much less the reality there may very well be a run-away greenhouse effect within the next 50 years.

    3. Re:in an alternative universe by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why people feel the need to argue against common sense.

      There's some insight to you crazy ideas. Egocentrism is a bitch and it has flawed your logic. Just because YOU think something is "common sense" doesn't mean it works for everyone else. This is especially true when comparing differences between Europe and the United States. Our big spacious suburbs can't work in the UK, and the nice U-bahn/S-bahn system in Germany won't work in the US. There is no "common sense" to apply, because nothing is common. But hey, you are welcome to come to Austin, TX and bring your bike. Austin is considered to be one of the friendlier bike cities, yet on Tuesday it was 83F (28C), and then on Wednesday it was 30F (-1C). Good luck riding your bike in that. Oh yeah, and most of my coworkers live at least 20-30 miles from work.

    4. Re:in an alternative universe by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

      There's some insight to you crazy ideas.

      They're not as crazy as is apparent.

      Egocentrism is a bitch and it has flawed your logic.

      Half true; ego centrism is what most people possess, unfortunately they are only able to see it in other people and their ideas. Though I'm probably wasting my time here, as is usual. Maybe, just maybe somebody may be inspired to think beyond their Weltanschauung.

      Just because YOU think something is "common sense" doesn't mean it works for everyone else.

      True. But generally when I second guess myself I end up losing. People may think it's stupid to give up their cars, but in all hypocrisy I can see people blaming "socialists" in another 50 or so years when the run-away greenhouse effect is causing air conditioners to overheat, farms to turn into dust bowls, massive inflation and financial crises, etc. By that time my Karma will be so low that it would matter even less of what I thought.

      This is especially true when comparing differences between Europe and the United States. Our big spacious suburbs can't work in the UK, and the nice U-bahn/S-bahn system in Germany won't work in the US. There is no "common sense" to apply, because nothing is common.

      Funny, because when the German President visited Canada he was amazed at all the spacious land they have for wind farms and yet Canada only has a small fraction of wind farms compared to Germany. But yes, I understand, it's not everybody else who is wrong, it must be me. Because everybody else thinks differently from me then everybody else is apparently correct and I am apparently wrong and deserve to get modded Troll and Flamebait.

      There is no "common sense" to apply, because nothing is common.

      Aside from science, there are cultural issues to contend with, but I alluded to that originally when I talked about mindset and attitude.

      Austin is considered to be one of the friendlier bike cities, yet on Tuesday it was 83F (28C), and then on Wednesday it was 30F (-1C). Good luck riding your bike in that. Oh yeah, and most of my coworkers live at least 20-30 miles from work.

      -1 seems quite ideal for riding. 30 is a bit warm, but as long as you are dressed appropriately and have a suitable change of clothing for work everything should be good to go. The temp differences that you allude to aren't too unusual for where I live, but the ranges are usually spread out more over time. 20 to 30 miles is a perfect range for a bike ride. For hilly terrain one could supplement a motor on the back wheel. Of course in the long run it would be appropriate to make sure your politicians support mass transit, bike lanes, and make sure that the urban planners build businesses near residences (where feasible of course).

      I know my ideas may sound radical to Americans, but it wouldn't help to at least have a few beers and try to open up your thinking a bit.

    5. Re:in an alternative universe by DrFalkyn · · Score: 1

      where suburbs never developed, where cities remained small and compact, where we retained strong investment in our national rail and trolley infrastructure, you would have something valid to say about biking

      I live in the burbs. I would have biked to my job which was about 8 miles from me by road if I felt I could have done it without a significant risk to my life every time I went out there.

      It may not be the "solution" but I think its worth investing through a pilot program.

  23. The short list by glaswegian · · Score: 3, Funny

    Looks like they did a lot of research to narrow down that Energy secretary short list. Arnie the actor, Colin the military guy (or the football player?) or a Nobel prize winning energy scientist. I dunno, my my gut feeling is to go with the Nobel prize scientist, but then I don't have much political savvy...

  24. socialism is superior by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    i suppose social darwinism is superior?

    if a guy breaks his arm and is out of a job, what do you do? let him starve?

    no, as a society you give him the healthcare he needs until he is back on his feet. are there those who abuse the system? welfare cheats? yes. so you find them and punish them

    but because soomeone tries to cheat the system you'd prefer a world where society just lets people starve for the sake of setbacks in their life? setbacks we all suffer, including you?

    where do you derive your support? are you very rich? do you have a lot of strong family ties? good for you! so someone who iw poor or has no family ties deserves to starve in the street? this is a superior moral or just plain logistical approach to the world in your eyes? really?

    socialism is superior. wake up america

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:socialism is superior by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      Are you high?

    2. Re:socialism is superior by anaesthetica · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow, you just copy-pasted your ludicrous rant from kuro5hin directly into this thread. Truly amazing trolling.

  25. Terrible idea but for completely different reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is, he's a scientist and Nobel laureate, meaning he thinks he knows what he's talking about.

    There's great danger in having the policy of the United States "lead"(read-differ with) the public's understanding by too much.

    That is Administrative Despotism. (i'm not saying the guy shouldn't be up to date on the info, but being a "scientist" usually draws them too far out of the mainstream to be at all representative)

  26. In what way is this especially good? by ericlj · · Score: 1

    What advantage does having a physicist help set energy policy have over having an over-the-road trucker? I doubt the secretary of energy gets a lot of research papers that require him to determine whether something is actually feasible. Credentials are really nice and I'm sure the wall behind his desk will be quite impressive while he's sitting there doing whatever anyone else would do in the same position, since the budget for the department is set by congress.

  27. Sending a signal? by detzold2 · · Score: 1

    Perhaps, the appointment is a simple Obama as sending a message that, unlike Bush, he believes in the sciences. It is impossible to tell if Chu will be a good administrator at the federal level at this point, but that could be said about any appointee. And don't forget, the day to day workings of a department is run by the bureaucrats, so Chu will initially only have influence on what goes on. Yes, he sets the directions, but the bureaucrats can carry it out or *not*, at least at the beginning. I for one am very happy about this type of appointment. To me, it shows Obama's desire to let science back into the administration.

  28. reminds me of a joke by circletimessquare · · Score: 0

    a civil engineer, an electrical engineer, and a mechanical engineer were debating what kind of engineer god was

    the mechanical engineer spoke first: "god is obviously a mechanical engineer. just look at the marvelous ballet of muscles and bones"

    the electrical engineer chimed in: "no, no, no. how can you not marvel at the nerves and the brain? those miraculous electrical engineering feats?"

    finally the civil engineer chimed in: "sorry to break it to you guys, but god was obviously a civil engineer. who else would run liquid and solid waste facilities right through a recreational area?"

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  29. Innovation isn't everything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because someone understands that some innovation will improve yield by 40% it doesn't necessarily mean that they will also understand the effect that the increase will have on those who are made redundant by the innovation.

    There was a time when work and social life were part and parcel of the same thing. We are well into the process of separating the two, and for many innovation has meant a reduction in living standards if not in material possessions.

    The politicians are often blinded by money and power. Let's hope the scientist isn't blinded by science.

  30. why do you think common sense is on your side? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1, Insightful

    you think some sort of agrarian utopia of everyone on bikes is superior? this is proof common sense has absolutely nothing to do with your thought processes. no, common sense says we simply modify our energy sources. we go nuclear, and we master fusion eventually (if we don't do that we ARE going to all be on bikes in a century or two)

    the only future is more and more energy use. you seem to have this idea in your head that living large is wrong. no, the story of progress is more and more riches and energy use for everyone. we get temporary setbacks, certainly, but the only way to say your approach is superior is to abandon the notion of progress

    everyone on bikes is akin to agrarian communist fantasies of everyone becoming farmers again. should we stop using lightbulbs too? candles? you're insane. its just not going to happen, it isn't superior, and to think everyone bikes is superior in any scenario is proof that common sense has nothing to do with you

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:why do you think common sense is on your side? by unlametheweak · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I've always found logic to be more practical than flamebait, but Trolls generally disagree.

    2. Re:why do you think common sense is on your side? by unlametheweak · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The GP post gets modded Insightful for ad hominen attacks, flamebait and other fallacies and my parent post gets modded Flamebait for making an observation. If you mod this post Troll I'll re-post this message again until you lose all your Mod points.

      I'm not here for Karma.

    3. Re:why do you think common sense is on your side? by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

      The above post is NOT Flamebaite.

  31. i think you are confusing by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    a number of negativities with being american that are, in fact, just negativities with being human. for example, obsession with celebrities. this is a worldwide phenomenon, not an american one. furthermore, try talking about nazism or scientology or certain islamic practices in france or great britain or germany. i think that you find your rights to free speech and being spied upon are just as bad, if not worse, than any curtailments on your free speech in the usa

    certainly, much is wrong with the usa. but much is also wrong with europe. on a number of issues, there are pluses and minuses to living her or there. however, one feature does pop up in my mind: socialized medicine. the usa needs universal healthcare. it is a national shame that we do not, and that we are held hostage to some really frigne fools and their idiotic philosophies about why universal healthcare is wrong

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  32. Re:Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I don't even know why Slashdot has a special Politics section.

    But... seeing as how it does have a Politics section, you'd think they would have some report on the huge scandal where Democrats were caught red-handed trying to sell Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder. Instead we get these day-to-day minutiae about minor Cabinet apointments.

  33. you get lithium from sea water by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    not that lithium is abundant, nor cheap to get, but nor is coal or oil getting cheaper

    nor is uranium and thorium, while we're at it

    and yet we need to upgrade to nuclear, like france japan, in order to save our environment and stop funding our enemies. and then we need to figure out fusion, or we really are doomed

    looking at the larger picture, how expensive is that lithium battery, really?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  34. The real question? by cashman73 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What's his Slashdot handle? How many digits are in his UID?

  35. Skeptic about global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I personally am a bit skeptic about global warming.
    Check this link out to see what I mean:
    http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_climate_of_belief.html

  36. The Cult of Competency continues.... by cavalierlwt · · Score: 1

    Need surgery? get a surgeon. Need your car fixed? get a mechanic. I'm glad to see Chu get the nod, I don't see a downside to truth and knowledge. If we fail to act on his advice, then that's our shortcoming, not his.

    1. Re:The Cult of Competency continues.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Need your car fixed? get a mechanic.

      Yeah but that's a bad analogy. The mechanic is fine in the role of fixing what is broken in a known product but I wouldn't trust the majority of them, maybe not even the best of them, to engineer me a new part with new needs in mind. What would you rather have; a mechanic with an engineering text or an engineer with a Chiltons manual for your car?

      Chu, and I'm not questioning either his skills or his good will, doesn't need to run a power plant. He needs to know how to administrate them as a working entity that serves the public and hopefully step us in the right direction. Part of our problem here is that we realize what it's like to have a non-technical manager and we have seen the downfall of that. I don't know if the new position is really the same and I don't know if Obama understands the dynamics of this conundrum.

    2. Re:The Cult of Competency continues.... by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps he'll devise an alternative form of transportation and save all our dumb asses.

  37. Hallelujah! by ScienceMan · · Score: 1

    By all accounts, he is an able administrator and a brilliant scientist. He also has experience doing excellent science in a university-based setting with direct applicability, and in the complications of running a very large multi-disciplinary lab.

    I hope this signals, as it would seem to, a clear shift towards science-based solutions for climate change, energy production and other important problems of our time. I also hope the solutions being pursued will bring an end to the layoffs, non-paid furloughs and other severe cutbacks in our science community that have been going on steadily over the last eight years, arguably contributing to the decline in innovation that led to the current economic weakness.

    During the Bush administration, there were stories of people running through the halls in the White House because they were late to their Bible study meetings; meanwhile scientists were persecuted, cut off from the press, and hounded for simply expressing accurately the results of their work on global warming and climate studies. Almost every area of science was affected, almost uniformly in a negative way. I am not opposed to religion (I am a person of quiet faith myself), but the interference with and poor funding of science, engineering and innovation over the past several years were unconscionable. High time for a change, and this looks to be a change in a good direction.

  38. Let's break Peter Principle by roger_pasky · · Score: 1

    We all nerd should be proud of it.

    Let's hope he'll be the living proof that not always "In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence". He's the energy boss, and US needs a brand new energy aproach.

    That's one small step for mankind, one giant leap for nerds.

    Nerds of the world, unite!

  39. no, i'm pissed off by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Interesting

    the american model is broken. you compare our lifestyles and what we worry about with say, the danish. now the danish are taxed at ridiculous rates. but they also gets weeks off every year from work. they never have to worry about their healthcare. you ever fought with an hmo over what is covered or not?

    to pay for healthcare on your own, you are putting yourself in effectively the same tax bracket as the danish anyways. so the only difference then is the danish get worry free peace of mind, and we get to fight with hmos. its fucking stupid

    and surveys show the danish are happier than americans. universal healthcare is such a no brainer. i can't fathom the stupidity of those in the usa that oppose it

    socialism is superior to the american model. it really, really is. ok, we get lower taxes. but that just means we have to go buy on our own what is covered anyways in socialist societies. america has better healthcare? partially: better CRISIS healthcare. but the socialist model has better PREVENTATIVE healthcare. in other words, if i have a heart attack, i'd rather be in an american hosptial than a european one. but in the european hospital, i wouldn't get the heart attack in the first place!

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:no, i'm pissed off by jav1231 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      There's a simple solution. Move there. Nuff said. This country was founded as a representative democracy. Turning it into a socialist system is in effect treason. Those who advocate it are traitors. That's not my opinion, that's simple logic.

    2. Re:no, i'm pissed off by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      now the danish are taxed at ridiculous rates. but they also gets weeks off every year from work.

      And this is why I can't think of a single Danish company or product...

    3. Re:no, i'm pissed off by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Upon further review, I was getting drunk on Tuborg and Carlsberg beer, listening to music on my Bang & Olefsun stereo, playing with my LEGOs when I suddenly realized my life evolves around quality Danish products!

    4. Re:no, i'm pissed off by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      First of all, the US already spends more money per person then any other industrialized nation in the world. It comes as no surprise our system is the most regulated in the world. There are so many broken regulations it is hard to know where to begin. Health insurance is legally tied to your employer, which is so stupid it needs no explanation.
      Part of the reason is the simple concept of health insurance, it covers everything, when insurance was never meant to. Imagine oil insurance for your car, it makes no sense. Also, hospitals often do not publicize prices, since patients are rarely the ones paying for the treatment, which is why something like a test or pain medication only costs $10 at a local walk in office (that usually do not accept insurance), can end up costing you out of pocket $200 at a standard hospital.
      Yes, the system is broken. We broke it for ourselves by piling on more and more laws to fix problems caused by the previous broken ones.
      Never mind that all this is unconstitutional. (But of course, no one cares anymore, go ahead, name one thing the states are allowed to do that the federal government is not these days.) Why don't the states provide healthcare? Surely one of the fifty states could have created a working system by now (and many have tried). It surely isn't the size, we have bigger states (and politically liberal ones at that) bigger then most European countries.

  40. Compare Dr. Chu to the current EPA chief by OutSourcingIsTreason · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, as President-elect Obama contemplates hiring 1997 Nobel Physics laureate Dr. Chu for Secretary of Energy, the current EPA Administrator, Stephen Johnson, just proclaimed that there is "no clean-cut division between science and religion".

    I'm really looking forward to January 20th when the grownups take charge for the first time in eight years.

    --
    "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
  41. Ummmmm by crhylove · · Score: 0, Troll

    Is this supposed to make up for all the nazis he already appointed? It's like a game of duck, duck, goose, where every duck is a corporate bush appointee and the goose is the occasional nobel winning scientist.

    I still have VERY little faith in the Obama presidency, though it's probably still to early to assume:

    He will STILL not thoroughly investigate 9/11.
    He will STILL be more beholden to corporations than the American people.
    He will STILL be allies with maniacal genocidal fabrication states like Israel.

    I'm not holding my breath. And please don't respond about the 9/11 thing unless you want to discuss the found thermate residue and THIS PICTURE:
    http://a986.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/72/l_a567c508f431db9f78e20057b5b59fb9.jpg

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    1. Re:Ummmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that blurry picture of random trash posted on myspace has changed my whole view of the 9/11 incident. Thank you!

    2. Re:Ummmmm by Preacher+X · · Score: 1

      I think he was refering to the fact that the beam looks cut. However, it is just as likely to have broken and had metallic flow from melting steel above cover it.

      --
      "And the heathens with their ways of trickery and deceit shall not prevail over the will of the righteous"
  42. Excellent choice by actionbastard · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Let's review: - Nobel Laureate who thinks about things no-one understands -except other Nobel Laureates - no fashion sense -same clothes for a week, different colored socks/no socks, different shoes on each foot, short pants - weird personality and/or behavioral traits/tendencies -no socks - bad personal hygiene -never met a physicist who bathed regularly, "Can't wash. Thinking." - always 'lost in thought' -about some 'problem' - supremely messy office -policies written on cocktail napkins

    --
    Sig this!
  43. Not just an egghead - director of the LBNL by olddotter · · Score: 1

    Chu is the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. So he has at least some management and understanding of politics, even if he has a Noble.

  44. Once again by dweinst · · Score: 1

    Congra Chu Lations!

  45. Science positions based on science? by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    Don't tell me the federal government is going to start basing science decisions on science instead of emotion or pandering to certain political groups? That just wouldn't feel right.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  46. Re:i understand the downside of nuclear and electr by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

    the french and japanese have been doing it for decades, deriving most of their energy from nuclear

    So has the US... practically our entire Navy runs on nuclear power, and has (safely) for over 50 years now.

    Of course, the Navy doesn't have to go through 60,000 "environmental reviews" before digging a ditch, nor do they has as much a concern about "Not In My Backyard" weenies, since they already own tons of land.

    BTW, that key to the left of Z on your keyboard is called a shift key. That's how people are making the big letters. FYI.

  47. yeah it is nutty by circletimessquare · · Score: 0, Troll

    even the founder of greenpeace is for nuclear power now

    a REAL environmentalist understands that coal is far more damaging to the environment than nuclear is, even with 10 more chernobyls

    actually, i remember seeing a special on tv about chernobyl as it is today, and how it is a wildlife paradise

    so perhaps a real environmentalist militant worthy of their greenpeace stripes would go around sabotaging nuclear power plants to create human free wildlife zones?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:yeah it is nutty by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but he had to leave the Greenpeace organization before, or because, he expressed his beliefs about nuclear power. That's not a promising sign.

  48. Re:i understand the downside of nuclear and electr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fusion is limited as well. We'll eventually run out of Hydrogen (I wonder how long that would take...).

    I'm still a fan of solar. The sun is going to be around at least another 5 billion years, and honestly, if we're still on Earth at that time, we'll have bigger issues than how to fuel our cars. I'll be thinking about how to turn up the AC!

  49. Nobel in science STRONGLY implies polit. savvy by liegeofmelkor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wait, has anyone on this forum ever talked to Nobel Laureates in any sciences? Or read about them?

    The vast majority (I'd ballpark it at 80% from completely non-scientific, anecdotal experience) of Nobel Prize winners IN SCIENCE are ego-driven megalomaniacs that are addicted to prestige and influence (since salary rarely goes into 7 digits for professors, its rarely the largest motivator). As such, they've dedicated their lives to feeding their addiction, working their way up from assistant professor to Director of [Weighty Gov. Funding Cash Cow], and navigating the political landscape comes as easily as breathing.

    This is no surprise. In nearly any field, there are many more workers whose merit-based achievement qualifies them for advancement than open positions for advancement, so its the self-promoters who actually land the boss's job. Sometimes the value of the work is so strong it outweighs political maneuvering, but its the exception more than the rule. The fact is, every year there are a very limited number of Nobels to hand out, and MANY researchers who have done science of a caliber to deserve them.

    The fact that Chu has a Nobel AND is a Director of a Gov. Cash Cow should indicate strongly enough his political experience. The only question remaining is whether he can transplant himself into a wholly new network of players in the politic game.

    P.S. I've met Chu. He's a nice guy, and from my inexperienced scientist viewpoint, he's got what it takes to play with the big boys in Washington.

    1. Re:Nobel in science STRONGLY implies polit. savvy by Bootsy+Collins · · Score: 1

      Wait, has anyone on this forum ever talked to Nobel Laureates in any sciences? Or read about them?

      The vast majority (I'd ballpark it at 80% from completely non-scientific, anecdotal experience) of Nobel Prize winners IN SCIENCE are ego-driven megalomaniacs that are addicted to prestige and influence

      I've at least met, and in some cases taken multiple semesters of courses from or worked with, Martinus Veltman, T.D. Lee, Norman Ramsey, Leon Lederman, Riccardo Giaconi, John Mather and George Smoot. I wouldn't agree with your assessment at all.

    2. Re:Nobel in science STRONGLY implies polit. savvy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, has anyone on this forum ever talked to Nobel Laureates in any sciences? Or read about them?

      The vast majority (I'd ballpark it at 80% from completely non-scientific, anecdotal experience) of Nobel Prize winners IN SCIENCE

      FWIW

      I've met a Nobel Prize winner and several Fields Medalists and Turing Award winners and none of them fit your description.

    3. Re:Nobel in science STRONGLY implies polit. savvy by mako1138 · · Score: 1

      I've only ever interacted with George Smoot; he seems like a really nice guy to me.

      As for Stephen Chu, I saw him going to his car once, underneath building 50. Can't draw much of a conclusion from that experience.

  50. We have got pleanty of those. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Plenty of good administrators and politicians, where did that get us? To global climate change and a car industry without any incentives to become socially responsible.

    If only politicians and good administrators are the solutions to our problems we can as well stop the fairy tale democracy would be and let professional politicians and administrators do as they wish since they *obviously" know better.

    The only problem is that they actually don't ....

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  51. You don't become a Nobel Prize winner by melted · · Score: 1

    You don't become a Nobel Prize winner by being stupid and not knowing how to play "the game". You should see the level of politics in academia - Washington DC will be a piece of cake for this guy.

  52. Many of you miss the point. by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Many of you miss the point. Yes at one point Chu did science. But now he is an administraitor at one of the biggest labs in the contry. He has spend his later years working for energy related issues

    1. Re:Many of you miss the point. by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes at one point Chu did science. But now he is an administraitor at one of the biggest labs in the contry.

      He's also an active researcher; a Professor of Physics and of Molecular and Cell Biology. So, its more accurate to say that yes, Chu does do science, he is also the chief of one of the biggest labs in the country.

  53. Re:i understand the downside of nuclear and electr by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    we can get 10x the amount of energy out of uranium, and thorium, and produce 1/10th the waste that lasts 2 centuries rather than 10,000 years.

    By the way, that's another way of phrasing "waste that is 50 times as radioactive".

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  54. Not so terrible Idea by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

    Just because someone is a great scientist does not mean the person is a good administrator or a good politician. The sad truth is that politicians will not care if he has a Nobel Prize and will think nothing of tearing him down for no reason other than they can. Everybody has limitations, and it would be better to get someone who can listen to scientists and engineers and also be a great administrator.

    I'm not sure why this was modded "Insightful" -- do you have a clue who Steven Chu is? Because, if so, I'd like to know why you think that he isn't a good administrator that can deal with politicians (the President, Congress, etc.), business leaders, etc., and a person "who can listen to scientists and engineers and also be a great administrator". It is hardly as if winning the Nobel Prize in Physics is inconsistent with also being a competent administrator, and to me his history (most recently, as director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) seems to have plenty of evidence of success as an administrator in roles which require working with scientists, engineers, politicians, etc.

  55. medicare? social security? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    what are you babbling about logic about? the european countries ARE democracies

    it's impossible to be socialist and a democracy at the same time? the usa ALREADY IS SOCIALIST: medicare, social security

    what the hell about socialism gives you conniption fits?

    can you ligcally explain to me why something like universla healthcare counteracts representational democracy?

    no, you can't

    stop babbling about logic, you have none

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:medicare? social security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      the usa ALREADY IS SOCIALIST: medicare, social security

      Not to mention the $7.4 TRILLION DOLLARS we have just given to certain welfare bums, otherwise known as the richest people in the country. Yes, trillions. The $700 billion figure for TARP was a smokescreen. And get this: the bailouts are probably just starting.

    2. Re:medicare? social security? by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      Fits? Me? Dude, you're about to blow a gasket. Beer...joint...Dude, whatever it takes just calm the fuck down!
      OTOH, you get the cutest wrinkle riiiight there when you're mad! ;)

  56. Nuclear powered navies by TFloore · · Score: 1

    So has the US... practically our entire Navy runs on nuclear power, and has (safely) for over 50 years now.

    Not really.

    The US Navy's submarine fleet is, I believe, completely nuclear powered. The US Navy just retired, or is in the process of retiring, its last non-nuclear powered aircraft carrier.

    Every other ship in the US Navy is powered by oil or gas. Oil for diesel engines or gas for gas turbines.

    The US Navy has decided that nuclear power is for special purpose or very large platforms. Not for general purpose. A 600-foot long guided missile destroyer (DDG51 class, current production being built now) is too small for a nuclear power plant.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
  57. wait? he has Executive Experience?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sorry for picking the low hanging fruit...

  58. the problem with smart people in government by msouth · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The think they are smart enough to make decisions for the rest of us. In reality, no one is that smart, and that's one reason you want a very limited government. You get intellectuals in there, they think they know better than the dumb masses, and make "intelligent" policy. The vast complexity of human behavior and market forces then show how poorly they actually understood things. For example, look at the intellectually planned economy of the Soviet Union. For an example closer to home, look at environmental regulations like the ones that seize control of private property when, say, a particular woodpecker nests in it. The result? People clear cut the rest of their land to make sure they don't lose any more of it. It seemed smart, but it was really dumb.

    That's what scares me the most about the coming administration. You've got scads of people thinking they are smart enough to fix things. The only smart thing to do is to undo the stupid things and go back to a constitutional gov't.

    --
    Liberty uber alles.
    1. Re:the problem with smart people in government by westoncb · · Score: 1

      I think imposing artificial limits on the capabilities of 'smart people' is a common mistake. If your comments are supposed to be intelligent, why would an intelligent person be less likely to arrive at something similar? You find your suggestions to embody a correct solution, but for some reason it is out of reach to those exceeding a particular IQ or level of education? Maybe this comes from fearing people having education without intelligence; but as long as we are actually speaking about someone who is intelligent -- not just educated -- I think we should give 'em a chance.

      It sounds to me like the claim is: people who are smart think they know more than they do. If anything, I think the smarter you are, the more likely you are to realize exactly what you don't know.

      --
      "...such is the excellence of your judgment that it was ever contrary to that of the people's..."
    2. Re:the problem with smart people in government by msouth · · Score: 1

      You are correct, the phrase "smart people" is really way too vague. I didn't want to go through and put quotes (but not "smart" quotes!) around the use of "smart" either, because I didn't really mean smart in a sarcastic way. I really do mean people with a significant amount of education and/or intelligence.

      The people I am expressing my concern about are people with legitimate reason to believe that they have a significantly greater ability to think/reason than most of the general population. A Nobel prize winner in Physics might reasonably believe this about himself, for example. It is very easy for such "smart people" to jump to the conclusion that their intelligence is equal to the problem of government. In general, when someone believes this, they are incorrect.

      Certain things like allowing people to suffer the consequences of their poor decisions are emotionally difficult to accept. It is hard (for most of us) to see people suffer. It is very tempting to think you can come up with a law to fix their problems. In the case of religious people they will generally consider the law to be a good law because it reflects the laws of whatever God they believe in. In the case of academics, they think it's a good law because they believe it is based on sound reasoning.

      It is very difficult to {be that highly educated and highly regarded by your peers as being intelligent}, and yet still {have the humility to realize that the problems you solved in science are dwarfed by the complexity of things like markets and human behavior}.

      Many educated people fear, with good reason, those who would govern by imposing their religious beliefs. They fail to fear those who would govern by imposing their "logical conclusions" or imposing the "thinking of the best minds on the subject". Forcing your ideas on others never ends up being a good thing. The only thing that works is to find the smallest set of rules that have to be imposed by force, and relentlessly eliminate anything else that well-meaning meddlers try to introduce.

      --
      Liberty uber alles.
    3. Re:the problem with smart people in government by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      So, how do you feel about reserve requirements placed upon commercial and investment banks?

    4. Re:the problem with smart people in government by westoncb · · Score: 1

      I dunno. I just don't buy it. The staggering complexity of human behavior, market forces, etc. seems such an obvious, and concrete even, issue that you'd have to be suffering from pathological delusions to be a successful physicist and ignore it. Although, if my understanding is correct, these delusions may be exactly what you're imputing to Nobel prize winners.

      I recognize what you're saying as a possibility. However, I also have a suspicion that those who succeed in intellectual endeavors have a great awareness of what they do not know. It's expedient in learning and in problem solving; without having skill in it, it seems unlikely that you'd make much progress in the first place. If there's any truth to this, it's inconceivable to me that someone skilled in locating what they do not know, would make the unforgivable blunder of thinking they know enough about an overly complex system to control it.

      --
      "...such is the excellence of your judgment that it was ever contrary to that of the people's..."
    5. Re:the problem with smart people in government by msouth · · Score: 1

      So, how do you feel about reserve requirements placed upon commercial and investment banks?

      I'm not sure whether I'm reading you correctly, but are you demonstrating the exact problem that I'm trying to illustrate? You aren't, by any chance, thinking that because you know something about reserve requirements (while 90% of the public does not), you would be able to set a better policy (e.g. 100% reserve! Then there will be no crashes!)? Forgive me if you meant something else.

      If it's just a straight question, well, what I think about reserve requirements is that if you're going to play with trust-based or market-based currency, it ought to be up to you what reserve requirements you personally set as a minimum before doing business in that currency. If you're wondering whether I think the federal government should attempt, by force, to control banks, to prevent private individuals from doing business in whatever currency they choose, to declare by fiat that certain private companies shall control an artificial money supply that everyone is forced by the government to accept the currency of, well, no, I don't think the government has any right to do that.

      Really, though, this is the point. You shouldn't have to be an expert on economics to figure out who you pick to vote for for president. But you have to be, because he is going to be able (and expected) to use the massive power of the federal government to (attempt to) control it. That's idiotic. You're swinging this giant thing around, destroying all kinds of small economic ecosystems. No one should have that kind of power. The constitution did not want the government to take that kind of power. And what is happening right now financially is a great example of why.

      --
      Liberty uber alles.
    6. Re:the problem with smart people in government by msouth · · Score: 1

      If there's any truth to this, it's inconceivable to me that someone skilled in locating what they do not know, would make the unforgivable blunder of thinking they know enough about an overly complex system to control it.

      I agree that it's inconceivable, but it's the inconceivable situation we have right now. Academics are overwhelmingly left leaning, and the left is very much into setting the "right policies" to control that overly complex system.

      --
      Liberty uber alles.
    7. Re:the problem with smart people in government by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      what I think about reserve requirements is that if you're going to play with trust-based or market-based currency, it ought to be up to you what reserve requirements you personally set as a minimum before doing business in that currency

      I don't think we're talking about the same thing. Reserve requirements placed upon banks are something different than a margin account.

      The point is that we need regulations sometimes. Without reserve requirements placed upon banks we'd be setting ourselves up for another great depression.

    8. Re:the problem with smart people in government by msouth · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was indeed talking about reserve requirements placed on banks. Currently it's like 1/9th or something iirc. What I was saying was that there should not be a central power dictating what that is and forcing you to use that currency. If some people want to put their stuff in a 1/9th fractional reserve bank, let them. If someone else thinks that's bunk and the fraction should be 1/2, let them start their own thing, and let the market set the rate of exchange between the two currencies. Don't force everyone to use the same one, because then, no matter what the policy, it will be wrong for somebody. A heterogeneous system is more likely to be resistant to problems. Instead of "the" economy you would have more local control, and if people did something really stupid it would serve as a cautionary tale for the next state or next town over, rather than taking down everyone.

      As for the great depression, that's a great example of the failure of central economic authority. Even when local innovation in currency started helping one town in Austria get out of the Great Depression, their central government was concerned about losing control so they stopped it.

      http://mig76en.wordpress.com/2006/05/09/a-local-currency-to-revive-the-local-economy-in-austria/

      The federal monetary dictatorship is not constitutional, which is reason enough to reject it in my opinion. But the bigger problem is that it stifles local innovation. One single neighborhood could innovate themselves out of economic crisis if they were allowed to do so. Currently, most people don't even know that innovation in currency is possible. That is what life is like in a dictatorship--you start losing even the ability to think about the world in a different way.

      Just to be clear on the initial point--I have no problem with fractional reserve banking. I have a big problem with the federal gov't unconstitutionally shoving their particular blessed instance of it down our throats. What you are seeing now is the result of a devastated financial ecosystem that suffers from, among other things, a lack of diversity.

      --
      Liberty uber alles.
    9. Re:the problem with smart people in government by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      I actually think some of what you are saying here is pretty smart. However there is one thing I would point out: earlier you were complaining that people shouldn't have to be experts on economics in order to pick their president. Your solution is that they should be experts on economics in order to pick their bank? Not that I really have a personal problem with that.

    10. Re:the problem with smart people in government by msouth · · Score: 1

      Your solution is that they should be experts on economics in order to pick their bank?

      Yes. But in practice you would have stuff like consumer reports, local conventional wisdom, etc, which aren't there now because there isn't really that much to decide. You have stuff decided for you. If you knew that it was in the hands of private companies, you would not just lazily assume the government was making sure that nothing really bad could happen to your money.

      And that's actually another problem--when the government steps in and controls stuff, people start thinking things like "if [mortgage-backed securities] were a horrifically dumb idea, there would be a regulation against them". People get dependent on the government to protect them from their own stupidity, and when that doesn't work out, they introduce something that is supposed to fix it (Sarbanes-Oxley) which further cripples innovation.

      In any system, you are going to have bubbles, because you are always going to have people who want to gamble and get rich quick. But when the regulations force/push/influence people into doing things a certain way, the bubbles get artificially huge and so do the ripple effects when the burst.

      --
      Liberty uber alles.
  59. foolish by unity100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    world has seen LITTLE benefit from political savvy people up till today, since the DAWN of civilization.

    sorry, your concern is bullshit, because apparently you dont know much about world history, leave aside political history.

    to be able to be political savvy, you have to be a politician in profession. which, leaves little room for anything else. you end up basically being a tricky bastard that can get his way by compromising whatever they can, and in the end this profits noone but the politician and the interested party.

    noone here can name 5 cases in which politically savy people did great good for the betterment of mankind. i dare you too.

  60. Re:yeah, i'm a troll by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

    Well it looks like you win. Your ad hominems get modded up, and my observations get modded Troll and Flamebait. Congratulations. (Actually the only reason I'm posting this is so that more of the Troll modders here will waste their mod points). How low can my Karma go?

  61. you have heart by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    but you don't have brains

    if we all rode bikes, yes, that would be a better world

    it would also be a better world if we all sang campfire songs instead of wage war

    except for the small fact that both scenarios are impossible

    i'm not here to destroy your sense that the world cannot be improved, i'm here to tell you that the way you think it should be improved is logistically impossible, that certain truths about this world, while very ugly and regrettable, are also insurmountable, and all you can do is accept

    anyone who looks at a world of people on bikes has their heart in the right place, but not much of a head on their shoulders. so don't lose heart, just grow a brain and keep the heart

    keep working for a better future. just know what avenues of work are going to bring fruit, and which are wastes of time

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  62. LDL not by Koreantoast · · Score: 1

    If that's the case, then what was the purpose of the National Renewable Energy Labs (NREL) that we built in Colorado back in the 1970s? Sure, its budget was gutted back during the Reagan years, but to say that we haven't had any national lab assets focused on renewable energy is misleading. Don't get me wrong, I applaud Chu's dedication to the cause of renewable energy at LBL, but saying that DoE hasn't been focused on this issue is an insult to the good work that NREL scientists have been doing for the last three decades.

  63. Re:and what's wrong with that? by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

    It's like putting A.L.I.C.E. and SmarterChild into the same chat window and seeing them go back and forth with one another in an infinite loop of retarded pre-written scripts.

  64. Re:i understand the downside of nuclear and electr by IronChef · · Score: 1

    lookup pebble bed reactors. we can get 10x the amount of energy out of uranium, and thorium, and produce 1/10th the waste that lasts 2 centuries rather than 10,000 years. nuclear is a no-brainer.

    There are some great new designs out there... If we applied ourselves, we could certainly better the current reactors, which seem to have been designed around the time of the Crimean War.

    But there are tremendous barriers to doing this in the US. The fact that the barriers are political more than technical doesn't make them any less real.

    I think that we first need to concentrate on a massive social engineering project, educating people about nuclear power. Social engineering is the key to enabling the next generation of nuclear power.

    It may be an insurmountable task for this country, though. Nuclear power has as much good buzz as, say, slavery, and we only seem to respect technologies that play music.

  65. Political skills, physics skills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Chu has all the intellectual, analytical, and quantitative skills one might hope to see. Duh.

    Most successful national lab directors also happen to have what I have heard called "five-sigma" social and political skills. It is clear that Dr. Chu is also successful in this regard. Probably he is reasonably well prepared, and this is not a source for unusual concern.

    Of course, five-sigma is reckoned against other physicists, where the shape of that distribution is, how should I put it.... Not at all Gaussian, and with a most probable value not at all very high? Maybe more of a Landau distribution in social skills (with maybe the same underlying mechanism in play)?

  66. This is only speculation by Sinesurfer · · Score: 1

    It is sad that /. bothers with speculation and rumour. This is the sort of baseless drivel I expect from main stream media now, listen up you primitive screw heads! Stick to the facts, weâ(TM)re supposed to be geeks not jocks. 8-)

    --
    Regards Sinesurfer A Nerd is someone who lives for technology, A Geek is someone who lives for technology and loves it
  67. at what point in your mind by circletimessquare · · Score: 0, Troll

    did you believe it was possible to participate in the tomfoolery and yet still stand in remove of it and criticize it?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:at what point in your mind by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

      Because you were never actually arguing against me. I was talking about civil society while you were busy destroying your Randian-free-market-fundamentalist-strawman. I can stand at a remove from things, because I wasn't really involved in your pre-written script argument against the strawman you created. You obviously weren't reading any of my posts nor responding to any of the points I made--I didn't even really need to be there.

  68. And yet by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    the man already administers LL.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  69. Wrong Guy by Ignatius+D'Lusional · · Score: 1

    I'm sure this is just a typo of some sort. Surely they meant Alex Chiu, right?

  70. No puns on his name...? by ChocoBean · · Score: 1

    [Mother Earth used Energy Crisis attack]

    Obama : "Steven! I Chu-chu-choose you!"

    [The United States sends out Steven Chu]
    [Steven Chu used Voodoo Magic Science Attack]
    [It's super effective! Mother Earth has fainted, rolled over and resumed her regular role of abused neglected pregnant kitchen slave]

    Obama : Make me a sandwich, betch!

  71. My opinion...I woudl by peter1williamson · · Score: 1

    I would rather have someone who knows what they are talking about than someone who knows more on how to talk. This man knows what he is talking about and would be an excellent choice for the rest of the politicians to learn from. Political people are usually not saying what they mean. We need more people who just say what is in Washington. This man would be perfect in my mind to deal with Washington. He would state his case with facts on why things need to be a certain way and he is uncorrupted by politics.

  72. Easy by Tungbo · · Score: 1

    Jesus
    Gandhi
    Genghis Khan ( in spite of european propaganda, he had lasting influces in Asia )
    Abraham Lincoln
    Martin Luther King Jr. ...

    I think you have too narrow a view of politics.

    Almost by definition, great leaders must be politically savvy. Afterall, politics is no more than convincing people to go where you want them to go.

  73. Re:yeah, i'm a troll by tqft · · Score: 1

    From this mornings metamod:

        Comment: Re:eww (Score 1) 2008-11-24 22:46

    by unlametheweak on 10:46 PM November 24th, 2008 (#25881285)
    Attached to: PETA Using Games To Spread Its Message

        Comment: Re:Who broke the law? (Score 1) 2008-12-10 08:08

    by unlametheweak on 08:08 AM December 10th, 2008 (#26058713)
    Attached to: When Teachers Are Obstacles To Linux In Education

        Comment: Re:RINO (Score 1) 2008-11-21 09:09

    by unlametheweak on 09:09 AM November 21st, 2008 (#25844849)
    Attached to: In a nutshell

        Comment: Re:But think of the children (Score 1) 2008-12-10 03:08

    by unlametheweak on 03:08 AM December 10th, 2008 (#26056781)
    Attached to: IWF Backs Down On Wiki Censorship

        Comment: Re:Seriously? (Oh, wait..."srsly omfg!!!") (Score 1) 2008-11-21 00:38

    by unlametheweak on 12:38 AM November 21st, 2008 (#25842249)
    Attached to: Study Recommends Online Gaming, Social Networking For Kids

        Comment: Re:10,000 URLs? (Score 1) 2008-12-06 18:49

    by unlametheweak on 06:49 PM December 6th, 2008 (#26015967)
    Attached to: Clarifying the Next Step in Australia's Net-Censorship Scheme

    Might be a while before that/those mod(s) get points again assuming I am typical of metamods.

    Crazy. Thought something looked odd 6 of the 10 mm's were for one persons comments. Then I remembered you saying something about being subjected to drive by modding. No reason not to + them anyway. Maybe the "system" will catch up with them eventually.

    --
    The Singularity is closer than you think
    Quant
  74. Modern day nuclear physics ... by quax · · Score: 1

    ... requires the coordination of huge departments and highly specialized staff. Chen happens to be the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. With a budget of half a billion $ it doesn't get much bigger than that in the US.

    You obviously don't know much about what it takes to be successful in modern day experimental physics nor did you perform any research on Chen. Implying that this man doesn't have an impressive administrative resume is ludicrous.

    That this comment is moderated 5 goes to show that your ignorance is pretty widely shared.

  75. Brilliant Choice with Risks by eyendall · · Score: 1

    A brilliant choice. The problems will arise when his science and Obama's politics prove incompatible, which will inevitably happen at some point since politics is about compromise and sub-optimisation. Will he then cave or resign?

  76. Re:i understand the downside of nuclear and electr by dbIII · · Score: 1

    especially regarding nuclear: lookup pebble bed reactors

    Yes, the first full scale prototype will be coming online soon so we'll be able to find out from the Chinese if they are any good or not.

    Nuclear power still has some way to go before it can be considered viable. The very sad thing is lobbyists are not pushing for more research to make something decent, they are pushing to build 1960s dinosaurs painted green as a raid on the public purse. A decent energy policy may be able to reverse that, but in the meantime the only viable options for US nuclear power is to wait until China or India (accelerated thorium looks good) has something that can be shown to work well and then buy that.

    Some people talk about fast breeders but they are ignoring the French efforts of the 1970s and basing their hopes on the now broken fast breeder dreams of the 1960s. Sure, the French got something to sort of work but the reality of having a lot of highly radioactive stuff about is that you have to use a lot of very expensive automation since. You can't just send in a guy with an angle grinder, especially if there is no radiation suit thick enough.

  77. Re:i understand the downside of nuclear and electr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By the way, that's another way of phrasing "waste that is 50 times easier to get energy out of and do useful work with".

  78. you're still right by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    He just added that sentence to Wikipedia before posting his comment.

    1. Re:you're still right by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Looking at the web it seems to be hotly (or coldly?) contested, with Carvel, Dairy Queen and Lyons (the British company Maggie worked for) all claiming the invention.

  79. Chu from Stanford by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I came to know Chu rather well in my days as a grad student at Stanford, when he was the head of the physics department. Just to make it clear, he is definitely politically savvy - to the extent that he is not much liked by many other Stanford professors and students. For a decent number of scientists, too much political maneuvering is not considered "nice", a bit of modesty and empathy are considered rather important. Chu is very smart and is certainly a visionary. But he can be rather ruthless as well. I don't like him much, but I am rather sure he has the qualifications to be in politics...

  80. Wow, I'm a troll. by elkto · · Score: 1

    Wow, I'm a troll. I really do not understand how that happened.
    I genuinely am hoping that real scientific facts enter into this country where popular trends now lead the day.
    It seems obvious to me now that Mr. Chu is going to have his hands full (Now that was a sarcastic troll).
    After actually trying to address high energy prices, the only real answers I found turned out to be a hybrid turbo diesel powered vehicle and geothermal heating/cooling. The rest was a bunch of huwe and hopeful thinking.

  81. Re:i understand the downside of nuclear and electr by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

    By the way, that's another way of saying "fuel".

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  82. Gaming the gamers by Slur · · Score: 1

    And there's the other important point about politics, which is it's a necessary part of systems where there are struggles for power, and a necessary part of human discourse where everyone wants something. However, it doesn't have to be the game that gets played in the public court. I think at this point there's a level of faÃade that we can all see through.

    The problem with the ugly game -- in which the pretendocracy makes as though they misconstrue some point, or become righteously indignant about some minor thing, or endlessly repeat some talking-point as though it were always conventional wisdom -- it only works against an opponent who plays the same game. Whenever you try to launch smears against decent people the shit always flies back in your face. The last thing politicians of industry want is grownups coming in and spoiling their play-time.

    I look forward to the future day when the Earth (and Mars) are ruled by a wise council of enlightened people whose aim is first to help humanity thrive. But until that day, I'll take any honest soul we can find!

    --
    -- thinkyhead software and media