Hey! I have a degree in economics! Oh. What was the question again??? = ) Well, happy to pointificate!
Hmmm.. Boycot Exxon? OK, well, they would just advertize like BP. Sunflowers, responsibility, alternative energy. Bla bla. People would believe it too. All the while they pump that oil...
Prices of gas are increasing faster than crude because they are different markets. Now there are limited amounts of refineries in the US and few companies can invest that much capital to build one... I understand they take a few years to build and get onstream..
Not that Bush's idea (subsidize the building of oil refineries) is a great one. The oil companies are making big bucks: they should do it right? I heard that one made more profit last quarter than any other company in history. Could have been Exxon, I don't remember.
To me, the question is: why are there so few refineries now? Did the oil excecs get to gether some golf game and say: Let's not build any more for a couple years? Was it *really* environmental regulation that quashed them? Collusion in that market would have the benefit of huge profits for them. I remember Cheney had secret meetings with the oil 'boyz' a few years ago, and they collectively decided US energy policy, without ever releasing the minutes of those meetings.. I think that was pre-Iraq so they might make some fun reading in 40 years.. It could have been similar to:
Cheney: Thanks for the donation, boyz. Like the cigars? They're Cuban! Batista! Well, to business then. We agree that you don't make any refineries in the next few years (and collect excess profits), support us in Iraq, and we'll get you those Iraqi drilling contracts, leash the anti-trust hounds. Of course we'll expect future consideration...
Oil barons: No refineries? None of us? We're "Gung Ho" for Oil Contracts! (puff.. puff...) OK, deal.
Well it *could* have been like that! = )
In general, you are better to vote in politicians that support consumers, not oil companies, than attempt to get a boycot organized. Companies (Oil or RIAA members) do not have to adapt to change if they are protected by fiat. And one can buy policy so cheaply these days:
$200M building an oil refinery could get you say a %50 return if you bet correctly on oil prices. $50,000.00 donation/investment to Cheney's PAC could help get you $8,000,000,000 in return.
Where would you invest? The law requires you to act in the best interest of your share holders, not your country.
being a Redhat->Fedora person, I'd tried ubuntu on a dell d610 laptop with mostly success. Modern enough to support the i915. (as long as the crappy Dell cmos can init the video to the video of the laptop you're golden.)
The biggest problem I've had is with environment vars.... I just want to put a system wide set-when-you-boot-env-var and call a command reliably at boot time./etc/bashrc.rcsomething is great if you want your bash shell updated./etc/profile is ignored./etc/profile.d/ is non-existant./etc/init.d/mySpecial_file.sh doesn't export anything (can you tell I'm getting desperate here?)/etc/environment play with your PATH and it will have nice things like:/usr/local/bin:$PATH:/usr/local/bla/bin...... And you're gnome will be screwed. "Can't find ls!" what? oh ok.
But on the plus side it does also do that intel centrino crap (very smooth) and probably do mp3s.
Another big plus is that it is slick, has an emergency boot to root shell where you can change your root password. (Hey. Good for desktops.)
love it. (coming from a big bad old CRT) The aspect ratio allows one to code on one side, results on another. Without having to mess with dual cards or Xinerama, etc. You can connect various sources to it, example: DVI and tratitional din. And a button cycles through. Quite bright too. I used to want a glow-in-the-dark keyboard...
No dead pels.
Also, sometimes Dell bundles it with a low end p4 box for cheap.
It has hdcma or whatever that copy protection crud is too.
As a non-citizen in the US, I'm sure they watch my surfing habits. Not that the UN running domain servers will change that, but it would have a chilling effect on those who, say, run puerto rico independence movements or something.
If you are in the US and are swarthy, that means a lot to you. If you are Iraqi, that means a lot to you. In a couple years, if you are Iranian, that means a lot to you.
This war is about geopolitics and oil. Because geopolitics == oil. Like the last Gulf war, Hussein attempted take over a country with large oil reservers. The West fought them back (Remember the New World Order?) in order to prevent Hussein from getting that oil. (No, not to preserve the freedom loving democratic nation of Kuwait.)
This time they wanted to place a whole bunch of bases up the butts of a bunch of countries they don't like, and Saudi, which they might not like in a few years. Also they want secured access to a whole lot of 20 feed under cheap oil. If Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq all fall to the Islamists, then oil will become even more of a political weapon, much like Venesuala wields it now. Chavez heads to OPEC to raise prices when he is pissed off; lowers prices for poor consumers during hurricanes, etc.
One reason oil is expensive right now because the Americans pooched the invasion so bad. Now the thriving Iraqi resistance is targeting oil installations. They do not want to pay for the invasion/occupation of their own country, and one can hardly blame them for that. (There is plenty of other blame, of course, but we don't want to play the blame game, right?)
If there was no oil there, the West wouldn't have it's knickers in a knot over who runs those countries. As it is, the US is deterring China and Russia by placing bases in all the '-stan' countries just to block their land access to the middle east. For the super powers today, oil policy *is* foreign poilicy. They cannot be seperated even outside the middle east. Back in the day, even Carter declared those reserves as strategic, so it is no big change.
The Irony is that in GB I's new world order, GWB's attack on Iraq was just the sort of action that many nations were supposed to band together to stop ala "New World Order". In that sense, both president's policies are failures, but it took his own son to make it crystal clear.
Cheers, -b
PS: I believe history will agree with me in claiming that GWB is the George Costanza of US presidents. = )
All that you have proven is the equivalent that you can shoot me and I can shoot you. You cannot defend against my premeditated attack, nor can I against yours. All that this proposes is that I tell you that I'll shoot you first, if you piss me off. (Or vice versa.)
This policy is adding another variable into the calculus of when people attack. It is at best a guess, and will increase the likelyhood of attack by either/both parties. Because I now do not know when you'll attack me, I have to keep guessing whether I must shoot you first simply because you may shoot me.
Plus, if, for instance, I'm Pakistan's hypothetical Taliban lovin' rogue security service, I can attack the US and frame India. Good Old George would be the last to figure that one out (start with the compound sentences George!), and mean time it's bombs away....
9/11 should have dispelled that idea. Say the US nukes Iranian territory or even all of Iranian cities. (For this is to whom this policy is geared in about 10 years or so when they can attack). Do you not think that Iranians living around the world would not try to retaliate? Do you not think that most middle easterners would not try to retaliate?
Few countries would come to the US's aid if they nuked Iran. War or no war. The act is simply too repulsive. Sure, there will be official policies, but the regular people on the ground: customs official, the policeman. They will not inforce official policy.
Any country that lobs nukes will inevitably get theirs too. Not that the regular folks deserve it but they will certainly be the ones to pay the price.
Nukes are 40s technology. The time to learn to get along is now.
Holding out for a Sony HD TV b/c it had those crappy propritetary plug that the content moguls would agree on. Then they went to HDCI (or what ever the crappy thing is) for the playstation 3. Now this new one????
A new standard every couple years will fragment the consumer market... Piss off consumers too....
This is a case of an individual holding public office abusing his position.
Microsoft and their often laughable studies (comparing one dualy PIII 600s with Linux on an IBM mainframe for TCO purposes is my fave) are private companies publishing and being questioned by reporters and private individuals. Not by the chairman of the House Sciences Committee. Also it was an academic work, not a puff piece for PHBs.
Politicians are elected to serve constituents, not to squelch unpopular scientific work. If he doesn't like it, he can publish his critique or his own study. I'm sure he's well versed in these things.
There is nothing wrong in asking for raw data. Let him enter the debate. But if academics run the risk of having their personal records requested for publishing unpopular work, then you have to admit it stifles debate.
If it was the "Committee for the Advancement of Industrialists" it would be bad form, but as the House Sciences Committe Chairman, he should resign.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4 253580,00.html
..only 150 years to do it next year.
Hey! I have a degree in economics!
s tories/04biz.htmh eney1988.htm
Oh. What was the question again??? = )
Well, happy to pointificate!
Hmmm.. Boycot Exxon? OK, well, they would just advertize like BP. Sunflowers, responsibility, alternative energy. Bla bla. People would believe it too. All the while they pump that oil...
Prices of gas are increasing faster than crude because they are different markets. Now there are limited amounts of refineries in the US and few companies can invest that much capital to build one... I understand they take a few years to build and get onstream..
Not that Bush's idea (subsidize the building of oil refineries) is a great one. The oil companies are making big bucks: they should do it right? I heard that one made more profit last quarter than any other company in history. Could have been Exxon, I don't remember.
To me, the question is: why are there so few refineries now? Did the oil excecs get to gether some golf game and say: Let's not build any more for a couple years? Was it *really* environmental regulation that quashed them? Collusion in that market would have the benefit of huge profits for them. I remember Cheney had secret meetings with the oil 'boyz' a few years ago, and they collectively decided US energy policy, without ever releasing the minutes of those meetings.. I think that was pre-Iraq so they might make some fun reading in 40 years.. It could have been similar to:
Cheney: Thanks for the donation, boyz. Like the cigars? They're Cuban! Batista! Well, to business then. We agree that you don't make any refineries in the next few years (and collect excess profits), support us in Iraq, and we'll get you those Iraqi drilling contracts, leash the anti-trust hounds. Of course we'll expect future consideration...
Oil barons: No refineries? None of us? We're "Gung Ho" for Oil Contracts! (puff.. puff...) OK, deal.
Well it *could* have been like that! = )
In general, you are better to vote in politicians that support consumers, not oil companies, than attempt to get a boycot organized. Companies (Oil or RIAA members) do not have to adapt to change if they are protected by fiat. And one can buy policy so cheaply these days:
$200M building an oil refinery could get you say a %50 return if you bet correctly on oil prices.
$50,000.00 donation/investment to Cheney's PAC could help get you $8,000,000,000 in return.
Where would you invest? The law requires you to act in the best interest of your share holders, not your country.
http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2005/0429/biz/
http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/cheney/c
Katrina and Rita wipes out a few refineries and it all goes to hell for the consumer...
Of course nobody will know what the truth is until these folks are long gone.
Cheers,
-b
You will see more of this in other areas.
The US has snubbed the UN and the EU where ever it can.
Don't expect them to cowtail just to be nice.
If the US drops the UN enntirely, I'm sure Toronto would be a nice place for it. = )
Cheers,
-b
thanks for the clarification. I'll check it out.
-b
being a Redhat->Fedora person, I'd tried ubuntu on a dell d610 laptop with mostly success. Modern enough to support the i915. (as long as the crappy Dell cmos can init the video to the video of the laptop you're golden.)
/etc/bashrc.rcsomething is great if you want your bash shell updated. /etc/profile is ignored. /etc/profile.d/ is non-existant. /etc/init.d/mySpecial_file.sh doesn't export anything (can you tell I'm getting desperate here?) /etc/environment play with your PATH and it will have nice things like: /usr/local/bin:$PATH:/usr/local/bla/bin...... And you're gnome will be screwed. "Can't find ls!" what? oh ok.
The biggest problem I've had is with environment vars.... I just want to put a system wide set-when-you-boot-env-var and call a command reliably at boot time.
But on the plus side it does also do that intel centrino crap (very smooth) and probably do mp3s.
Another big plus is that it is slick, has an emergency boot to root shell where you can change your root password. (Hey. Good for desktops.)
It does have great potential......
Later!
-b
love it. (coming from a big bad old CRT)
The aspect ratio allows one to code on one side, results on another. Without having to mess with dual cards or Xinerama, etc. You can connect various sources to it, example: DVI and tratitional din. And a button cycles through.
Quite bright too. I used to want a glow-in-the-dark keyboard...
No dead pels.
Also, sometimes Dell bundles it with a low end p4 box for cheap.
It has hdcma or whatever that copy protection crud is too.
Cheers,
-b
Because it encourages duplicitous behavour on the companies side towards others.
As a non-citizen in the US, I'm sure they watch my surfing habits. Not that the UN running domain servers will change that, but it would have a chilling effect on those who, say, run puerto rico independence movements or something.
If you are in the US and are swarthy, that means a lot to you.
If you are Iraqi, that means a lot to you.
In a couple years, if you are Iranian, that means a lot to you.
Cheers,
-b
This war is about geopolitics and oil. Because geopolitics == oil.
Like the last Gulf war, Hussein attempted take over a country with large oil reservers. The West fought them back (Remember the New World Order?) in order to prevent Hussein from getting that oil. (No, not to preserve the freedom loving democratic nation of Kuwait.)
This time they wanted to place a whole bunch of bases up the butts of a bunch of countries they don't like, and Saudi, which they might not like in a few years. Also they want secured access to a whole lot of 20 feed under cheap oil. If Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq all fall to the Islamists, then oil will become even more of a political weapon, much like Venesuala wields it now. Chavez heads to OPEC to raise prices when he is pissed off; lowers prices for poor consumers during hurricanes, etc.
One reason oil is expensive right now because the Americans pooched the invasion so bad. Now the thriving Iraqi resistance is targeting oil installations. They do not want to pay for the invasion/occupation of their own country, and one can hardly blame them for that. (There is plenty of other blame, of course, but we don't want to play the blame game, right?)
If there was no oil there, the West wouldn't have it's knickers in a knot over who runs those countries. As it is, the US is deterring China and Russia by placing bases in all the '-stan' countries just to block their land access to the middle east. For the super powers today, oil policy *is* foreign poilicy. They cannot be seperated even outside the middle east. Back in the day, even Carter declared those reserves as strategic, so it is no big change.
The Irony is that in GB I's new world order, GWB's attack on Iraq was just the sort of action that many nations were supposed to band together to stop ala "New World Order". In that sense, both president's policies are failures, but it took his own son to make it crystal clear.
Cheers,
-b
PS: I believe history will agree with me in claiming that GWB is the George Costanza of US presidents. = )
Yes, Rumsfield was over there selling him more weaponry after the fact.
r umsfeld+hussein+shake+hands&spell=1
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&q=
I've also read that they used Bell helicopters fitted for the job--the Commerce department won over the State department.
So when the administration used the gassings as a reason for war, they were just "crocodile tears".
-b
Cheers, -b
All that you have proven is the equivalent that you can shoot me and I can shoot you. You cannot defend against my premeditated attack, nor can I against yours.
All that this proposes is that I tell you that I'll shoot you first, if you piss me off. (Or vice versa.)
This policy is adding another variable into the calculus of when people attack. It is at best a guess, and will increase the likelyhood of attack by either/both parties. Because I now do not know when you'll attack me, I have to keep guessing whether I must shoot you first simply because you may shoot me.
Plus, if, for instance, I'm Pakistan's hypothetical Taliban lovin' rogue security service, I can attack the US and frame India. Good Old George would be the last to figure that one out (start with the compound sentences George!), and mean time it's bombs away....
9/11 should have dispelled that idea. Say the US nukes Iranian territory or even all of Iranian cities. (For this is to whom this policy is geared in about 10 years or so when they can attack). Do you not think that Iranians living around the world would not try to retaliate? Do you not think that most middle easterners would not try to retaliate?
Few countries would come to the US's aid if they nuked Iran. War or no war. The act is simply too repulsive. Sure, there will be official policies, but the regular people on the ground: customs official, the policeman. They will not inforce official policy.
Any country that lobs nukes will inevitably get theirs too. Not that the regular folks deserve it but they will certainly be the ones to pay the price.
Nukes are 40s technology. The time to learn to get along is now.
no ogg, no buy.
Looks nice though.
-b
Could this indeed be true?
Holding out for a Sony HD TV b/c it had those crappy propritetary plug that the content moguls would agree on. Then they went to HDCI (or what ever the crappy thing is) for the playstation 3. Now this new one????
A new standard every couple years will fragment the consumer market... Piss off consumers too....
Yeah, we all need another standard.
Yes. Two eyes.
Of course where I work [company shalt not be named] exchange has been down all morning....
Even in a, say, a Chrysler Lebaron?
(Would a boat help?)
Cheers,
-b
http://www.e-traction.com/TheWheel.htm
Put the motor in the hub. No drive train! AWD!
All I need is some big bucks to get a welding torch and put 4 in some old jalopy. (And some batteries..)
Anyone know what these things go for? They can use a lot of juice and put out a lot of power.
Cheers!
-b
Anyone use this?
Opinions?
Cheers,
-b
Doh! = )
Well it gave me warm fuzzies for about 15 seconds.
8 )
Take no prisoners.
Do not negotiate.
Sue their asses.
Come on FSF!!!!!
-b
It is black and white.
This is a case of an individual holding public office abusing his position.
Microsoft and their often laughable studies (comparing one dualy PIII 600s with Linux on an IBM mainframe for TCO purposes is my fave) are private companies publishing and being questioned by reporters and private individuals. Not by the chairman of the House Sciences Committee. Also it was an academic work, not a puff piece for PHBs.
Politicians are elected to serve constituents, not to squelch unpopular scientific work. If he doesn't like it, he can publish his critique or his own study. I'm sure he's well versed in these things.
There is nothing wrong in asking for raw data. Let him enter the debate. But if academics run the risk of having their personal records requested for publishing unpopular work, then you have to admit it stifles debate.
If it was the "Committee for the Advancement of Industrialists" it would be bad form, but as the House Sciences Committe Chairman, he should resign.