I just don't see how the claims of demonstrated cause and effect can be made here. Does the analysis conclusively prove what would have happened to US domestic gasoline prices if US production had been at higher or lower levels?
Given that US domestic oil production is not state controlled, but is rather the outcome of financial decisions (risk taking?) by corporations, perhaps you would expect more US domestic production when prices (in this case, the wholesale price for crude) is highest, and you would expect the lowest free market production when crude prices are lowest. (I believe that the price of materials (useable crude oil) and the costs of refining and distribution are what should drive prices at the pump in a perfect market.)
Also, since (as everyone knows due to the popularity of the term) crude is a fungible resource (within its various grades) US production levels have an effect on the entire world supply. Perhaps people should feel happy that many third world people will benefit from US domestic production increasing the total market supply?
Or, perhaps the analysis should not be about "price at the pump" but the size of the US domestic monthly trade deficit, especially with regard to energy imports/exports? Perhaps the net result of US domestic oil production increases is that US citizens have more disposable income to spend or invest? Perhaps the net result of US domestic production increases is that the Saudi royal family has less of my money to pile up on the sand?
You can also expect that as US domestic production increases, other production levels will decrease. Since there is not a free and open market in world crude oil production (thanks to OPEC, and perhaps other price / production fixing states) it simply might not be reasonable to expect US domestic production levels to control market pricing.
Perhaps the analysis is just to support the political "anti-drilling" point of view and the real impact of market forces isn't supportive of the writer's point?
What a ridiculously socialist comparison. Without a doubt stealing a $500 device is worse than a $3 sandwich. Attempting to value items based on the evaluator's arbitrary judgement (or your arbitrary judgement in your sandwich example) will lead to completely useless and endlessly appealed criminal charges.
Does the value of the sandwich change if the guy had two of them? Of if he had a sandwich, an apple, and a bottle of beer?
Is his sandwich worthier than yours? Or does its value depend on the proximity of one's next meal?
Iran's navy is not the main threat to Gulf shipping. I would be surprised if their navy (other than the suicide idiots in the speed boats) even leaves their docks during such a conflict. It is their missile system that would need to be destroyed to prevent their setting a tanker or two ablaze and to the bottom of the straight, blocking it to all other tankers. Keeping a country with a long and proximate shore from scoring any hits on slow moving ship traffic would be next to impossible without a serious land invasion and the destruction of all military equipment for more than 20 miles from the shipping lanes. They won't have to hit with every missile they launch to be effective. They only have to hit with one.
Maybe the Iranian navy sent their largest ships to the Mediterranean to keep them out of harm's way? Kind of like burying your air force in the dessert...
Get your head out Bush's rear end. Iran is developing nukes so that they can destroy Israel and force their religious doctrine on other states. It's that easy.
Iran IS a state sponsor of terrorism. So was Iraq. So is the DPRK.
It is not the place of the US or the UN to do the four things that you list. Iran is in control of its own destiny, and they will reap the rewards of their own actions. One way or the other. And most importantly, you have no evidence that doing those four things will have any desired affect on the behavior of the government of Iran.
In my opinion, the only action that will have a predictable affect on the government of Iran would be its ionization.
Thanks. This is the thing I'd like to know. What does the archeological record show was the first use of the wheel (in some kind of transportation, not for pulleys or millstones), and what was that use? Is the record only found in artworks (cave paintings, carvings, castings, etc.) or are there surviving "first wheel samples" that have been found?
The question "why did it takes so long to invent the wheel" implies that it DID take a long time. What was that time? You say circa 3500 BC. Is there evidence of that?
I doubt that the chariot was the first war-based use of the wheel. Do you have any evidence of this other than Ben Hur? If a wheeled vehicle exists, I'd think that supporting the logistics of war would be a first use; carts carrying food, weapons, ammunition. A rapid mobile fighting force, in multi-person carts, versus a relatively stationary infantry or a projectile-based force (like archers) seems like quite an advance. And if you have all those domesticated horses a regular mounted cavalry would probably show up before chariots. And how about wheels on or wagon-carried catapults as a contender for first use?
The economics simply make it clear that direct solar to electric conversion is not a technology that can be used today. Not unlike the increased (and unrecoverable) cost (economic and environmental) of electric cars, the cost of solar electric systems simple do not pay for themselves. Some people in my neighborhood have home systems with installed costs approaching $100K. If they are paying $500 per month for electricity and reduce their bill year-round by 100% (that is, they are on net "off the grid") they face a 20 year recovery period.
Systems simply need to cost MUCH LESS to buy, install, and operate than they do today. Please give me a call when technology is far enough along that solar panels can be used economically on things other than $100M satellites.
We should focus on yanking gas out of the ground and making coal more environmentally friendly in the mean time.
The original poster's statements are kind of shocking. Among others he said "as my job description and employment terms are not based upon this skill set..."
I'm not sure that since I obtained professional employment ever took that course. I've drawn a salary for a work focus area. If I need to move out of my work focus area (job title) to do something the company needs I do it.
If you want to expand your scope and title, and you think you deserve more money for it, then you should have a discussion with your boss and see if he agrees. It's possible that your work is of no value to them, and they have no need (real or perceived) for the skills you are trying to provide them. Perhaps, sorry to suggest, your view of the worth of your creation will not be matched by theirs.
If you attempt to present it to them, and request compensation, then you're going to be in a very awkward job situation if they believe that as their employee you should be creative in your work and that your initiative should go to them.
As one commenter above said, if you have created a general purpose product of value to other companies, then you can attempt to sell it on the open market. But if what you developed revolves around the processes and structure of the firm for which you work, then what you've created could be considered their proprietary information which you obtained through your employment and you could find yourself out of work and defending a claim at court.
It occurs to me that GoDaddy has an obvious financial interest in supporting SOPA (until the uproar threatened to paint them as an undesirable vendor). If I have a domain and that domain is seized by the government as the RIAA's or MPAA's request, then I need a new domain. Where do I go to procure that new domain name? (In the interest of full disclosure I have at least one domain name purchased from GoDaddy, but no other interest in the company. (Though Danica Patrick is pretty hot.))
Looks like a ponzi scheme to me. Here we have an asset with no intrinsic value backed by no one. It's only worth stems from the self-perpuated market of speculation.
I hope the Taliban contacted the cell phone providers and used their power as a lawful government cancel the plans of those 300 phone. Otherwise, those people are going to face some stiff cancellation penalties. Merry Christmas to them from the Taliban.
Regarding "make lobbying a capital offence (treason)"....
Government of, for, and by the people requires that the people have access to and be heard by their representatives. I don't want them only to listen, or pretend to listen, during an election cycle. As a society, we would need to be extremely careful about how your proposed restriction on our freedoms to petition to our representatives, what I hope you and everyone would consider a First Amendment right, is implemented.
It would be grossly unfair (and hopefully unconstitutional) to restrict the speech of people that you don't like or who want something not in your interest.
It would be grossly unfair for them to restrict your right to address issues to members of Congress.
The problem isn't that people or assemblies of people (another Constitutional right) are addressing matters to the attention of Congress. The problem, I think, lies more in the lack of ethics of those members of Congress that are accepting "gifts" with implied promises of legislative action (or inaction) in return. In other words, it's OK to lobby your point of view, but (and I think we agree here) it should be illegal to accompany those opinions with money or gifts.
People should leave Congress with LESS money than they entered with. Congress should not serve as an opportunity for people to line their pockets. God knows that the minions in the government are prohibited from taking gifts from contract bidders and winners (for obvious reasons). It is only those making the rules that hold themselves above those rules that are the cause of the problem.
And the problem is not limited to the US Congress. It is worldwide and it is at every level. Even people running for local school boards have their hands in the till trying to scrape a little bit off the top for themselves. Even people sitting on little Home Owner's Associations boards try to take care of themselves and their friends.
This is the problem that rots our self-governed society to the core. It's not a new problem. Not only does "absolute power corrupt absolutely" but "a little power corrupts" too. Perhaps, this is a reflection of the moral decay in our society. Or perhaps it's just a matter of everyone following the example of crooked people in higher positions. I don't know. It just needs to stop.
Term limits at all levels would be helpful.
Reduced campaign spending limits at all levels would be helpful.
But that's enough lecturing from me, certainly.
Merry Christmas
OWS didn't skip Silicon Valley. They had a wonderful time congregating in Oakland and in San Francisco. I remember seeing something on the news about people being upset about the use of force...?
As for those here that say that Silicon Valley is immune to the meddling of Wall Street and financial types, I suggest you look at the source of your income and the source of the money your company uses to pay your salary. There are lots of Wall Street types in your little valley. There's lots of money coming into and controlling your lives in the form of IPOs and venture funding.
No business is isolated from the capital markets and the affect of the market place. Tech is just one of several industries on the fun part of the curve right now.
Extract your head from the brown orifice and look around at the world and (as the Joker said before putting a bullet in Eckhart), "think about the future".
Merry Christmas
Slashdot Mirror
I just don't see how the claims of demonstrated cause and effect can be made here. Does the analysis conclusively prove what would have happened to US domestic gasoline prices if US production had been at higher or lower levels?
Given that US domestic oil production is not state controlled, but is rather the outcome of financial decisions (risk taking?) by corporations, perhaps you would expect more US domestic production when prices (in this case, the wholesale price for crude) is highest, and you would expect the lowest free market production when crude prices are lowest. (I believe that the price of materials (useable crude oil) and the costs of refining and distribution are what should drive prices at the pump in a perfect market.)
Also, since (as everyone knows due to the popularity of the term) crude is a fungible resource (within its various grades) US production levels have an effect on the entire world supply. Perhaps people should feel happy that many third world people will benefit from US domestic production increasing the total market supply?
Or, perhaps the analysis should not be about "price at the pump" but the size of the US domestic monthly trade deficit, especially with regard to energy imports/exports? Perhaps the net result of US domestic oil production increases is that US citizens have more disposable income to spend or invest? Perhaps the net result of US domestic production increases is that the Saudi royal family has less of my money to pile up on the sand?
You can also expect that as US domestic production increases, other production levels will decrease. Since there is not a free and open market in world crude oil production (thanks to OPEC, and perhaps other price / production fixing states) it simply might not be reasonable to expect US domestic production levels to control market pricing.
Perhaps the analysis is just to support the political "anti-drilling" point of view and the real impact of market forces isn't supportive of the writer's point?
What a ridiculously socialist comparison. Without a doubt stealing a $500 device is worse than a $3 sandwich. Attempting to value items based on the evaluator's arbitrary judgement (or your arbitrary judgement in your sandwich example) will lead to completely useless and endlessly appealed criminal charges.
Does the value of the sandwich change if the guy had two of them? Of if he had a sandwich, an apple, and a bottle of beer?
Is his sandwich worthier than yours? Or does its value depend on the proximity of one's next meal?
Iran's navy is not the main threat to Gulf shipping. I would be surprised if their navy (other than the suicide idiots in the speed boats) even leaves their docks during such a conflict. It is their missile system that would need to be destroyed to prevent their setting a tanker or two ablaze and to the bottom of the straight, blocking it to all other tankers. Keeping a country with a long and proximate shore from scoring any hits on slow moving ship traffic would be next to impossible without a serious land invasion and the destruction of all military equipment for more than 20 miles from the shipping lanes. They won't have to hit with every missile they launch to be effective. They only have to hit with one.
Maybe the Iranian navy sent their largest ships to the Mediterranean to keep them out of harm's way? Kind of like burying your air force in the dessert...
It's a ship. It is not a base.
Is a Trident submarine a base?
I a terrorist walking into a cafe with a bomb vest a base?
No to both.
Get your head out Bush's rear end. Iran is developing nukes so that they can destroy Israel and force their religious doctrine on other states. It's that easy.
Iran IS a state sponsor of terrorism. So was Iraq. So is the DPRK.
It is not the place of the US or the UN to do the four things that you list. Iran is in control of its own destiny, and they will reap the rewards of their own actions. One way or the other. And most importantly, you have no evidence that doing those four things will have any desired affect on the behavior of the government of Iran.
In my opinion, the only action that will have a predictable affect on the government of Iran would be its ionization.
Thanks. This is the thing I'd like to know. What does the archeological record show was the first use of the wheel (in some kind of transportation, not for pulleys or millstones), and what was that use? Is the record only found in artworks (cave paintings, carvings, castings, etc.) or are there surviving "first wheel samples" that have been found?
The question "why did it takes so long to invent the wheel" implies that it DID take a long time. What was that time? You say circa 3500 BC. Is there evidence of that?
I doubt that the chariot was the first war-based use of the wheel. Do you have any evidence of this other than Ben Hur? If a wheeled vehicle exists, I'd think that supporting the logistics of war would be a first use; carts carrying food, weapons, ammunition. A rapid mobile fighting force, in multi-person carts, versus a relatively stationary infantry or a projectile-based force (like archers) seems like quite an advance. And if you have all those domesticated horses a regular mounted cavalry would probably show up before chariots. And how about wheels on or wagon-carried catapults as a contender for first use?
Let's just agree that we draw the line at Planet of the Apes apps. OK?
Just ask all those Samsung Fascinate owners that were promised a Froyo update and are still waiting.
The economics simply make it clear that direct solar to electric conversion is not a technology that can be used today. Not unlike the increased (and unrecoverable) cost (economic and environmental) of electric cars, the cost of solar electric systems simple do not pay for themselves. Some people in my neighborhood have home systems with installed costs approaching $100K. If they are paying $500 per month for electricity and reduce their bill year-round by 100% (that is, they are on net "off the grid") they face a 20 year recovery period.
Systems simply need to cost MUCH LESS to buy, install, and operate than they do today. Please give me a call when technology is far enough along that solar panels can be used economically on things other than $100M satellites.
We should focus on yanking gas out of the ground and making coal more environmentally friendly in the mean time.
The original poster's statements are kind of shocking. Among others he said "as my job description and employment terms are not based upon this skill set..."
I'm not sure that since I obtained professional employment ever took that course. I've drawn a salary for a work focus area. If I need to move out of my work focus area (job title) to do something the company needs I do it.
If you want to expand your scope and title, and you think you deserve more money for it, then you should have a discussion with your boss and see if he agrees. It's possible that your work is of no value to them, and they have no need (real or perceived) for the skills you are trying to provide them. Perhaps, sorry to suggest, your view of the worth of your creation will not be matched by theirs.
If you attempt to present it to them, and request compensation, then you're going to be in a very awkward job situation if they believe that as their employee you should be creative in your work and that your initiative should go to them.
As one commenter above said, if you have created a general purpose product of value to other companies, then you can attempt to sell it on the open market. But if what you developed revolves around the processes and structure of the firm for which you work, then what you've created could be considered their proprietary information which you obtained through your employment and you could find yourself out of work and defending a claim at court.
It occurs to me that GoDaddy has an obvious financial interest in supporting SOPA (until the uproar threatened to paint them as an undesirable vendor). If I have a domain and that domain is seized by the government as the RIAA's or MPAA's request, then I need a new domain. Where do I go to procure that new domain name? (In the interest of full disclosure I have at least one domain name purchased from GoDaddy, but no other interest in the company. (Though Danica Patrick is pretty hot.))
Looks like a ponzi scheme to me. Here we have an asset with no intrinsic value backed by no one. It's only worth stems from the self-perpuated market of speculation.
I hope the Taliban contacted the cell phone providers and used their power as a lawful government cancel the plans of those 300 phone. Otherwise, those people are going to face some stiff cancellation penalties. Merry Christmas to them from the Taliban.
Regarding "make lobbying a capital offence (treason)".... Government of, for, and by the people requires that the people have access to and be heard by their representatives. I don't want them only to listen, or pretend to listen, during an election cycle. As a society, we would need to be extremely careful about how your proposed restriction on our freedoms to petition to our representatives, what I hope you and everyone would consider a First Amendment right, is implemented. It would be grossly unfair (and hopefully unconstitutional) to restrict the speech of people that you don't like or who want something not in your interest. It would be grossly unfair for them to restrict your right to address issues to members of Congress. The problem isn't that people or assemblies of people (another Constitutional right) are addressing matters to the attention of Congress. The problem, I think, lies more in the lack of ethics of those members of Congress that are accepting "gifts" with implied promises of legislative action (or inaction) in return. In other words, it's OK to lobby your point of view, but (and I think we agree here) it should be illegal to accompany those opinions with money or gifts. People should leave Congress with LESS money than they entered with. Congress should not serve as an opportunity for people to line their pockets. God knows that the minions in the government are prohibited from taking gifts from contract bidders and winners (for obvious reasons). It is only those making the rules that hold themselves above those rules that are the cause of the problem. And the problem is not limited to the US Congress. It is worldwide and it is at every level. Even people running for local school boards have their hands in the till trying to scrape a little bit off the top for themselves. Even people sitting on little Home Owner's Associations boards try to take care of themselves and their friends. This is the problem that rots our self-governed society to the core. It's not a new problem. Not only does "absolute power corrupt absolutely" but "a little power corrupts" too. Perhaps, this is a reflection of the moral decay in our society. Or perhaps it's just a matter of everyone following the example of crooked people in higher positions. I don't know. It just needs to stop. Term limits at all levels would be helpful. Reduced campaign spending limits at all levels would be helpful. But that's enough lecturing from me, certainly. Merry Christmas
OWS didn't skip Silicon Valley. They had a wonderful time congregating in Oakland and in San Francisco. I remember seeing something on the news about people being upset about the use of force...? As for those here that say that Silicon Valley is immune to the meddling of Wall Street and financial types, I suggest you look at the source of your income and the source of the money your company uses to pay your salary. There are lots of Wall Street types in your little valley. There's lots of money coming into and controlling your lives in the form of IPOs and venture funding. No business is isolated from the capital markets and the affect of the market place. Tech is just one of several industries on the fun part of the curve right now. Extract your head from the brown orifice and look around at the world and (as the Joker said before putting a bullet in Eckhart), "think about the future". Merry Christmas
If the tea party doesn't terminate it? C'mon man.... This ain't Yahoo.
How do you service it if the mirror isn't perfect or the computers need to be changed out?
I forgot to sign in before posting that comment, sorry.