>your theory that Gore would have resulted in lower gas / oil prices is unsupported by readily available facts. I posited no such thing, I simply said that the current situation was not inevitable. Whether or not the consumer prices of resources were the same or not, the end results could be different.
>you claim policy is a fix, but I challenge you to articulate exactly how that mechanism would work and what kind >of time frame we're talking about. It takes about a decade (can be shorter, see oil crisis and SUV glut) to significantly alter the automotive fleet, if Gore'd been president these past two terms and CAFE standards raised to levels comparable to the rest of the fucking planet, there'd be no stupid marketing ploys by Detroit claiming to "have your back" and pay for your gas.
If a serious carbon tax had been phased in to replace income taxes when it was first discussed, serious shifts in investment priorities would have long since occurred. Tax bads, not goods. There's nothing wrong with employing people in a full world, but there is with wasting resources.
Does a a quality infrastructure take time and money? Certainly, but it's cheaper and wiser to maintain and build-out existing services than to neglect it for something new, and to focus efforts on more efficient modes rather than another two lanes of asphalt. Rail is superior to 18-wheelers, yet we've let that system rot away. Not signing onto stupid plans that promote the hauling of food from a hemisphere away; if you must have strawberries in February, freeze or can them in the summer.
You claim that American energy use is falling, and that the populous countries of Asia are consuming more... Of course China's energy use is increasing as they gentrify, but no small part of their energy use is displaced western demand, as China manufactures and ships products to every corner of the globe.
>Basically, what I'm saying is, Gore or Bush or Kerry, we'd still be looking at $140 barrel of oil today and $4 gas. You're saying it, but you're not really backing it up. Are high prices of one fuel/energy source a means of directing poorly conceived and regulated markets to alternatives? Sure. But there are many ways of achieving this. You could have $4 a gallon of gasoline (still a pittance compared to its real value and cost/impact) without having $140 per barrel oil, and without such a rapid run-up. How? Through well-designed *policy*.
>Interesting. Why do you think this? All I'm hearing is "peak oil" and "futures speculators" in regards to oil prices. Perhaps because we might have started investing in rational energy and transportation policies? (Congress willing)
>Moreover, Gore the Green Weenie would most likely welcome high oil prices considering his views on the internal combustion engine. That's neither here nor there.
No. Superconductor loops can be used for energy storage, but currents generate magnetic fields and magnetic fields dampen superconductivity in known materials.
Bull shit, that some payments might be made to indigenous peoples with different conceptions is immaterial. When you own land you own rights to build on the surface. This usually excludes mineral rights, and does not preclude air rights. By your "logic" the whole universe has already been spoken for.
So you suggest renaming government agencies according to the vagaries of popular culture and political correctness? It's always been called the BIA (or OIA), and there's no reason to change the letterhead now. Other than be geographically inaccurate, there's nothing particularly wrong or offensive about the term Indian.
As for the existence of the Bureau, they're their because technically/in theory, each tribe is a sovereign nation existing within the border of the United States, and so obviously having some administrative capacity to work with them. In reality, the BIA tends to slightly different things of course.
A science fiction book store? Sure, there's more to pick from than at Barnes & Noble, but these small shops are run by voracious readers who are more than happy to share...
Umm yeah, my post clearly indicated that they were equivalent. The question is why the summary did not include the common phrase amicus brief. Even for the uninformed it should not be hard to figure out given the similarity to amicable.
assuming some things that are majorly impacted are pointless, or at least not "made up for" later e.g; devices on standby, or a few hours of televsion; then playing with the availability of juice could reduce actual consumption
while the idea seems to be to make it rather transparent, if it's only translucent then it may help to finally drive home the significance of energy and prompt people to finally alter their behaviors.
Based on your limited description it sounds plausible. However, I remember seeing some documentary about MacGyver at the time, and they said they made a point of always getting something wrong in the widgetry e.g; it'd take a couple of tons of sugar, and not just a few candy bars, to seal a vat of sulfuric acid.
321-Contact Square One (still shown in repackaged form on some channels today) Beyond 2000 Newton's Apple Mr. Wizard's World (never really liked Beakman's world, Nye was only okay) Voyage of the Mimi
The format isn't obsolete, the dude you gave the key to your record vault to has gone and chucked it in the trash. Not being able to get to the media is different from not being able to use the media if it's accessible.
He's trying to explain that the in market of fungible goods, newcomers are price-takers, and that this gasoline is unlikely to be sold for a price different from that of dead dinos. Even if it comes up cheaper after taxes and shipping, being cheaper, demand will shift to this substitute and the marginal cost of supply will increase as additional capacity is needed to meet demand.
Slashdot Mirror
at least I can get WINE today.
Simple: scale. Sure Fermi's paradox makes an interesting point, but it's not an utter refutation of Drake's equation.
>your theory that Gore would have resulted in lower gas / oil prices is unsupported by readily available facts.
I posited no such thing, I simply said that the current situation was not inevitable. Whether or not the consumer
prices of resources were the same or not, the end results could be different.
>you claim policy is a fix, but I challenge you to articulate exactly how that mechanism would work and what kind
>of time frame we're talking about.
It takes about a decade (can be shorter, see oil crisis and SUV glut) to significantly alter the automotive fleet,
if Gore'd been president these past two terms and CAFE standards raised to levels comparable to the rest of the
fucking planet, there'd be no stupid marketing ploys by Detroit claiming to "have your back" and pay for your gas.
If a serious carbon tax had been phased in to replace income taxes when it was first discussed, serious shifts in
investment priorities would have long since occurred. Tax bads, not goods. There's nothing wrong with employing
people in a full world, but there is with wasting resources.
Does a a quality infrastructure take time and money? Certainly, but it's cheaper and wiser to maintain and build-out
existing services than to neglect it for something new, and to focus efforts on more efficient modes rather than
another two lanes of asphalt. Rail is superior to 18-wheelers, yet we've let that system rot away. Not signing onto
stupid plans that promote the hauling of food from a hemisphere away; if you must have strawberries in February,
freeze or can them in the summer.
You claim that American energy use is falling, and that the populous countries of Asia are consuming more...
Of course China's energy use is increasing as they gentrify, but no small part of their energy use is displaced
western demand, as China manufactures and ships products to every corner of the globe.
>Basically, what I'm saying is, Gore or Bush or Kerry, we'd still be looking at $140 barrel of oil today and $4 gas.
You're saying it, but you're not really backing it up. Are high prices of one fuel/energy source a means
of directing poorly conceived and regulated markets to alternatives? Sure. But there are many ways of
achieving this. You could have $4 a gallon of gasoline (still a pittance compared to its real value and
cost/impact) without having $140 per barrel oil, and without such a rapid run-up. How? Through well-designed
*policy*.
>Interesting. Why do you think this? All I'm hearing is "peak oil" and "futures speculators" in regards to oil prices.
Perhaps because we might have started investing in rational energy and transportation policies? (Congress willing)
>Moreover, Gore the Green Weenie would most likely welcome high oil prices considering his views on the internal combustion engine.
That's neither here nor there.
No. Superconductor loops can be used for energy storage, but currents generate magnetic fields and magnetic fields dampen superconductivity in known materials.
inauthentic DNA? Would that be RNA?
Bull shit, that some payments might be made to indigenous peoples with different conceptions is immaterial.
When you own land you own rights to build on the surface. This usually excludes mineral rights, and does not
preclude air rights. By your "logic" the whole universe has already been spoken for.
Umm 10,000? The BIA is pretty big given that it includes schools, health programs. etc.
So you suggest renaming government agencies according to the vagaries of popular culture and political correctness? It's always been
called the BIA (or OIA), and there's no reason to change the letterhead now. Other than be geographically inaccurate, there's nothing
particularly wrong or offensive about the term Indian.
As for the existence of the Bureau, they're their because technically/in theory, each tribe is a sovereign nation existing within the
border of the United States, and so obviously having some administrative capacity to work with them. In reality, the BIA tends to
slightly different things of course.
Care to provide some details on how? Diskless cn be done with knoppix, but that's hardly instant-on...
A science fiction book store? Sure, there's more to pick from than at Barnes & Noble,
but these small shops are run by voracious readers who are more than happy to share...
Umm yeah, my post clearly indicated that they were equivalent. The question is why the summary did not include the
common phrase amicus brief. Even for the uninformed it should not be hard to figure out given the similarity to amicable.
How is that any better/clearer than the much more common "amicus brief" or "amicus curiea"?
Now I can't record their crappiest shows for posterity.
Nobody forced you to click through.
There are other, less obvious reasons:
assuming some things that are majorly impacted are pointless, or at least not "made up for" later e.g;
devices on standby, or a few hours of televsion; then playing with the availability of juice could reduce
actual consumption
while the idea seems to be to make it rather transparent, if it's only translucent then it may help to
finally drive home the significance of energy and prompt people to finally alter their behaviors.
Would you set a kettle on to boil all day, in the off chance you might want a cup of tea too?
Frugality is a virtue, gluttony is not.
Based on your limited description it sounds plausible. However, I remember seeing some documentary about
MacGyver at the time, and they said they made a point of always getting something wrong in the widgetry
e.g; it'd take a couple of tons of sugar, and not just a few candy bars, to seal a vat of sulfuric acid.
Indeed, Connections is great.
Shows I enjoyed as a youth besides Connections:
321-Contact
Square One (still shown in repackaged form on some channels today)
Beyond 2000
Newton's Apple
Mr. Wizard's World (never really liked Beakman's world, Nye was only okay)
Voyage of the Mimi
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0136298/
Are you sure he wasn't making methanol, a.k.a wood alcohol?
Sorry, no. Macbeth is still Macbeth, even with a different cast.
The format isn't obsolete, the dude you gave the key to your record vault to has gone and chucked it in the trash.
Not being able to get to the media is different from not being able to use the media if it's accessible.
He's trying to explain that the in market of fungible goods, newcomers are price-takers,
and that this gasoline is unlikely to be sold for a price different from that of dead dinos.
Even if it comes up cheaper after taxes and shipping, being cheaper, demand will shift to
this substitute and the marginal cost of supply will increase as additional capacity is
needed to meet demand.