So what's the price climb all about? Could end up being $200 a barrel.
Could be that the market knows that the previous price was based on the level of production being easily scalable. Seems that it's getting harder to scale them because the reserves are only so big and the owners don't want to run out too quickly.
There is a shitload of oil left, but most of it is not of the nature of the Ghawar field, where all you have to do is hit the grouond with a shovel and oil comes out. It's not the amount of oil in reserve that will cause problems, it's the price going up with growing demand and rate of supply.
You can't really have a war between a country of 300 millions and a group of maybe a few hundred, maybe a few thousand people. If it even exists.
You can have an operation, or a battle. But calling a war is just hyperbole and an abuse of language.
In any case the war against Al Qaeda has turned into a war against anyone the yanks don't fancy. The war you're talking about is just a marketing device that lets them politicians conflate all those separate issues into something Fox viewers can understand.
Wise up. When the newsreader says "US marines staged an operation against Al-qaeda forces...", what they really mean is "US marines staged an operation against a loose alliance of tribal leaders of a broad based ethnic/regional power structure comprising mostly wahabbist-pashtun sheep-herders, who may or may not have had anything or nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11".
They just think you're too dumb for the latter.
Surely if you manage to infect a PC with a nasty process of your choosing, it can sit there sending out data to the internet without needing to know the password? OK it's trivial to stop, but in theory.
Yeah stop it with the Yasukuni shrine. Anybody would think it was a shrine specifically towards military aggression, but it isn't. I think you know this, therefore the analogy you draw isn't just wrong, it's malicious. Also I don't think there's as much anger in China about it as you think. Half my family is Chinese and none of them seem to have heard of the shrine itself. That's in Jiangsu too, so there are still memories of the atrocities.
That's stating the blindingly obvious. If whole-disk encryption worked any other way, you wouldn't be able to get any info on or off the computer even while it was running..?
The Labour party hasn't got a single NeoCon in any sense. Neither has the Tory party. There are no NeoCons in Britain, it is a uniquely American perversion, thank you very much. Please stop commenting on things you know nothing about!
You're missing something here kids - it's not that hard to defeat the "Great Firewall". Any sort of proxy hopper would do it. Surveillance is easily defeated by crypto and using public internet facilities. Any competent, determined computer user in China can therefore get whatever info they want.
The disturbing truth is that many Chinese actually SUPPORT their government and AGREE with it's policies! That's not just because of propaganda but also because the Chinese government has delivered results in the past 10-20 years and that there has been some gradual reform since the 1989 massacre.
Having Chinese people in the family and having been there a few times, I'm not convinced the Chinese government is as oppressive as you say, at least in daily life.
You can pretty much say what you like in public these days, so taken together with the recent and spectacular economic successes, the Chinese government is actually very popular, at least with the Han majority.
The problem with web censorship, as well as with the Tibet crisis, is that they're incredibly secretive. I get the feeling that even if Wen Jiabao found an injured bird while out working one day and decided to nurse it back to health, feeding it liitle tidbits of sesame biscuits and fruit-flavoured soya drink, he would keep it a secret until the day he died.
Similarly, they might be telling the truth about the riots, but because they're so shady, who'd believe them?
In any case, the best way forward is not confrontation but friendship. The response to the Tibetan riots so far has been, maybe, a slight improvement over 1989. Let's not throw that away! (Bear in mind that the Tienanmen Square massacre was against ethnic Hans, so you might expect the crackdown against non-Hans to be much worse, whereas it seems to be perhaps less brutal, at least given what we know so far.)
Oh so now it was the Chinese that forced all the credit wholesalers go balls-deep in junk mortgages?
Come on, it's not rocket science - the US government is spending money it hasn't got. It can only do this because it can keep printing more dollars. It can only do this because they're being soaked up by China in exchange for cheap goods. If it weren't this way, you'd have to raise taxes or cut spending (given what you've been spending on though, that might not be such a bad thing).
I take it the Great Firewall is rather easily penetrated?
Truth will out, sooner or later. I've been reading some Chinese political history recently and I'm quite impressed how much detailed information there is on the controversial stuff. The June 4th massacre is described very transparently in a number of sources, including all the bitter political power struggles and grim retributions.
Is that sort of stuff available in China? Not so much, judging from what I'm told.
So what's the alternative? Sanctions or trade blocks just amount to punishing the ordinary people but not the leaders. Chinese demand for dollars has financed a hell of a lot in America.
You've missed the point - Fox is a government mouthpiece (has been for 10 years or more). It has competition, yes, which you don't get in China or Russia, but that doesn't stop the propaganda. During the shameful build up to the Iraq war, they were pumping great big lies into the heads of the masses. See the connection?
I don't think this is specific to China, in fact I'm sure the same thing is true in the west. Remember Hilary Clinton sitting on the board of Wal Mart? Not to mention Condi...
In any case Hong Kong still operates under an essentially British system, I believe.
My missus is Chinese (born there) and I've been there a couple of times, I've found the same thing. I think some of it is down the fact that you can get by pretty good in China these days, if you keep your head down. If you get involved in politics, you may end up facing retribution, sometimes exposing your family. Chinese politics is often frighteningly bloody, perhaps because the stakes are so high; governing 5x as many people as live in the USA must weigh heavily.
The missus, well she displays total apathy about Chinese politics. She says that since she is British now, it's no longer her business! Oh yeah and FREE TIBET!
OK so both sides have a motive, but the quacks have billions (maybe) vs. corporate trillions - I think you'd like to sweep this under the carpet.
I know there are a lot of conspiracy nuts who bang on about Big Pharma all day every day, but this does seem to be evidence supporting their point of view, to some extent at least.
It looks to me like vast, countless amounts of money have been poured straight into Ely Lilly's pocket so that every GP can do a 5 minute diagnosis, get that prescription written and get the patient out of the door - all they had to do was make it look like a wonder cure, which it is not.
That's completely unacceptable and would be fraud of the very most serious kind, if true. Keep a scientific mindset regardless? I'd love to - but what's the point of science when it's being distorted by cash?
Perhaps Universities aren't as trustwhorty as I'd like to think, but I just can't see who would have selfish enough motives, as you suggest, to fund this.
Surely, someone flogging quackery wouldn't have the means.
My main concern, which you've not addressed, is the potential for corporations to warp scientific opinion by paying for, perhaps, 10 studies but then only publishing the 5 that are best for their product.
Wasn't the unexpected result produced by including unpublished clinical data, released under FOI? If so, who was holding onto that data and why?
It seems very fishy to me that anybody would be conducting studies, then deciding whether to publish them or not based on their conclusions.
Clearly, by selecting which studies to publish, an interested party could, in theory, present any result they wanted to. I find this extremely worrying.
Wasn't the unexpected result produced by including unpublished clinical data, released under FOI? If so, who was holding onto that data and why?
It seems very fishy to me that anybody would be conducting studies, then deciding whether to publish them or not based on their conclusions.
Clearly, by selecting which studies to publish, an interested party could present any result they wanted to - through medical journals.
Whether it's a placebo or not, you should care because whatever the effect is, it will eventually wear off.
This is the sad truth about all anti-depressants - eventually you will star to feel as sad as you did before, only then - you're hooked.
No anti-depressant in the world is going to address the root cause, most likely there was never anythiong wrong with your brain in the first place. It may give you the temporary lift you need to make the changes your life needs, but taking them for longer than a year is just crazy.
Despite the claims of the manufacturers, there's no such thing as a non-addictive anti-depressant, because it makes you happier. You don't want that to stop.
Sorry, do you work for Ely Lilly?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7263494.stm
Prozac was included, according to BBC. Also, the study was done by the University of Hull, so presumably it was not funded by someone selling quack cures. Lastly, the sample was rather large, given that it was an analysis of previous studies.
The obvious (or so I had thought) implication is that the unpublished studies, obtained under the FOI act, were withheld because they were the less favourable ones and when that bias is removed, the resutls look a lot like a placebo effect.
No, we shouldn't shut down all serotonin reuptake inhibitors, but we'd be crazy to just keep buying them in the light of this, very worrying, report. If it does indeed turn out that corporations have been hiding knowledge of this for profit, at the expense of the health of the general public, they should be fined back into the stone age.
Slashdot Mirror
So what's the price climb all about? Could end up being $200 a barrel.
Could be that the market knows that the previous price was based on the level of production being easily scalable. Seems that it's getting harder to scale them because the reserves are only so big and the owners don't want to run out too quickly.
There is a shitload of oil left, but most of it is not of the nature of the Ghawar field, where all you have to do is hit the grouond with a shovel and oil comes out. It's not the amount of oil in reserve that will cause problems, it's the price going up with growing demand and rate of supply.
You can't really have a war between a country of 300 millions and a group of maybe a few hundred, maybe a few thousand people. If it even exists.
You can have an operation, or a battle. But calling a war is just hyperbole and an abuse of language.
In any case the war against Al Qaeda has turned into a war against anyone the yanks don't fancy. The war you're talking about is just a marketing device that lets them politicians conflate all those separate issues into something Fox viewers can understand.
Wise up. When the newsreader says "US marines staged an operation against Al-qaeda forces...", what they really mean is "US marines staged an operation against a loose alliance of tribal leaders of a broad based ethnic/regional power structure comprising mostly wahabbist-pashtun sheep-herders, who may or may not have had anything or nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11".
They just think you're too dumb for the latter.
Surely if you manage to infect a PC with a nasty process of your choosing, it can sit there sending out data to the internet without needing to know the password? OK it's trivial to stop, but in theory.
Yeah stop it with the Yasukuni shrine. Anybody would think it was a shrine specifically towards military aggression, but it isn't.
I think you know this, therefore the analogy you draw isn't just wrong, it's malicious.
Also I don't think there's as much anger in China about it as you think. Half my family is Chinese and none of them seem to have heard of the shrine itself. That's in Jiangsu too, so there are still memories of the atrocities.
That's stating the blindingly obvious. If whole-disk encryption worked any other way, you wouldn't be able to get any info on or off the computer even while it was running..?
The Labour party hasn't got a single NeoCon in any sense. Neither has the Tory party. There are no NeoCons in Britain, it is a uniquely American perversion, thank you very much. Please stop commenting on things you know nothing about!
Sorry, which war? The war you say is happening but everyone else says isn't, or the war that is happening, but you started?
Yeah I was going to say Holland, but with all the global carbon warmings, they'll be pretty when the sea level starts rising.
You're missing something here kids - it's not that hard to defeat the "Great Firewall". Any sort of proxy hopper would do it. Surveillance is easily defeated by crypto and using public internet facilities. Any competent, determined computer user in China can therefore get whatever info they want.
The disturbing truth is that many Chinese actually SUPPORT their government and AGREE with it's policies! That's not just because of propaganda but also because the Chinese government has delivered results in the past 10-20 years and that there has been some gradual reform since the 1989 massacre.
Having Chinese people in the family and having been there a few times, I'm not convinced the Chinese government is as oppressive as you say, at least in daily life.
You can pretty much say what you like in public these days, so taken together with the recent and spectacular economic successes, the Chinese government is actually very popular, at least with the Han majority.
The problem with web censorship, as well as with the Tibet crisis, is that they're incredibly secretive. I get the feeling that even if Wen Jiabao found an injured bird while out working one day and decided to nurse it back to health, feeding it liitle tidbits of sesame biscuits and fruit-flavoured soya drink, he would keep it a secret until the day he died.
Similarly, they might be telling the truth about the riots, but because they're so shady, who'd believe them?
In any case, the best way forward is not confrontation but friendship. The response to the Tibetan riots so far has been, maybe, a slight improvement over 1989. Let's not throw that away! (Bear in mind that the Tienanmen Square massacre was against ethnic Hans, so you might expect the crackdown against non-Hans to be much worse, whereas it seems to be perhaps less brutal, at least given what we know so far.)
The social structure of Europe is on the verge of collapse? Really? Damn. You'd think we'd have noticed that!
Muppet.
Or - in the hope that it will encourage to open up a bit more? Quite laudable, really.
Oh so now it was the Chinese that forced all the credit wholesalers go balls-deep in junk mortgages?
Come on, it's not rocket science - the US government is spending money it hasn't got. It can only do this because it can keep printing more dollars. It can only do this because they're being soaked up by China in exchange for cheap goods. If it weren't this way, you'd have to raise taxes or cut spending (given what you've been spending on though, that might not be such a bad thing).
I take it the Great Firewall is rather easily penetrated?
Truth will out, sooner or later. I've been reading some Chinese political history recently and I'm quite impressed how much detailed information there is on the controversial stuff. The June 4th massacre is described very transparently in a number of sources, including all the bitter political power struggles and grim retributions.
Is that sort of stuff available in China? Not so much, judging from what I'm told.
So what's the alternative? Sanctions or trade blocks just amount to punishing the ordinary people but not the leaders.
Chinese demand for dollars has financed a hell of a lot in America.
You've missed the point - Fox is a government mouthpiece (has been for 10 years or more). It has competition, yes, which you don't get in China or Russia, but that doesn't stop the propaganda. During the shameful build up to the Iraq war, they were pumping great big lies into the heads of the masses. See the connection?
I don't think this is specific to China, in fact I'm sure the same thing is true in the west. Remember Hilary Clinton sitting on the board of Wal Mart? Not to mention Condi...
In any case Hong Kong still operates under an essentially British system, I believe.
My missus is Chinese (born there) and I've been there a couple of times, I've found the same thing.
I think some of it is down the fact that you can get by pretty good in China these days, if you keep your head down. If you get involved in politics, you may end up facing retribution, sometimes exposing your family. Chinese politics is often frighteningly bloody, perhaps because the stakes are so high; governing 5x as many people as live in the USA must weigh heavily.
The missus, well she displays total apathy about Chinese politics. She says that since she is British now, it's no longer her business!
Oh yeah and FREE TIBET!
No, I'm not. At least I denied it!
OK so both sides have a motive, but the quacks have billions (maybe) vs. corporate trillions - I think you'd like to sweep this under the carpet. I know there are a lot of conspiracy nuts who bang on about Big Pharma all day every day, but this does seem to be evidence supporting their point of view, to some extent at least. It looks to me like vast, countless amounts of money have been poured straight into Ely Lilly's pocket so that every GP can do a 5 minute diagnosis, get that prescription written and get the patient out of the door - all they had to do was make it look like a wonder cure, which it is not. That's completely unacceptable and would be fraud of the very most serious kind, if true. Keep a scientific mindset regardless? I'd love to - but what's the point of science when it's being distorted by cash?
Perhaps Universities aren't as trustwhorty as I'd like to think, but I just can't see who would have selfish enough motives, as you suggest, to fund this. Surely, someone flogging quackery wouldn't have the means. My main concern, which you've not addressed, is the potential for corporations to warp scientific opinion by paying for, perhaps, 10 studies but then only publishing the 5 that are best for their product.
Wasn't the unexpected result produced by including unpublished clinical data, released under FOI? If so, who was holding onto that data and why? It seems very fishy to me that anybody would be conducting studies, then deciding whether to publish them or not based on their conclusions. Clearly, by selecting which studies to publish, an interested party could, in theory, present any result they wanted to. I find this extremely worrying.
Wasn't the unexpected result produced by including unpublished clinical data, released under FOI? If so, who was holding onto that data and why? It seems very fishy to me that anybody would be conducting studies, then deciding whether to publish them or not based on their conclusions. Clearly, by selecting which studies to publish, an interested party could present any result they wanted to - through medical journals.
Whether it's a placebo or not, you should care because whatever the effect is, it will eventually wear off. This is the sad truth about all anti-depressants - eventually you will star to feel as sad as you did before, only then - you're hooked. No anti-depressant in the world is going to address the root cause, most likely there was never anythiong wrong with your brain in the first place. It may give you the temporary lift you need to make the changes your life needs, but taking them for longer than a year is just crazy. Despite the claims of the manufacturers, there's no such thing as a non-addictive anti-depressant, because it makes you happier. You don't want that to stop.
Sorry, do you work for Ely Lilly? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7263494.stm Prozac was included, according to BBC. Also, the study was done by the University of Hull, so presumably it was not funded by someone selling quack cures. Lastly, the sample was rather large, given that it was an analysis of previous studies. The obvious (or so I had thought) implication is that the unpublished studies, obtained under the FOI act, were withheld because they were the less favourable ones and when that bias is removed, the resutls look a lot like a placebo effect. No, we shouldn't shut down all serotonin reuptake inhibitors, but we'd be crazy to just keep buying them in the light of this, very worrying, report. If it does indeed turn out that corporations have been hiding knowledge of this for profit, at the expense of the health of the general public, they should be fined back into the stone age.