Sacramento is a bedroom community for bay area techs already. Not to mention the HP and Intel sites up in Folsom/Roseville.
Been here for 18 years, after growing up in Milpitas and living there until 1996.
Won't go back. Mom sold the 1200sf Daisy Patch house I grew up in for $650K, I bought my much better built and nicer neighborhood 1800sf house for $105K.
The weather is nicer in the Bay Area, much like San Diego, but that is it.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
No, I have not stated it leveled off, and I posted evidence it has not.
And I just because I did not address that issue it meant I agreed. You are really stretching now, trying to attribute meaning to something I did not say as meaning I supported the concept.
I took issue with the larger statement, peak oil, and took issue with it when it was your main point of a post.
And DEMAND has nothing to do with peak oil, it is about reserves and production, which is still going up, and will go up if there is rising demand. It may not go up, like in some years, because of falling demand, but the CAPACITY to produce has not changed.
I can still make 1000 donuts a day with my donut machine, but if people are only buying 750 per day, I don't need to use my full production capacity.
Hopefully, you see the difference between donuts and dollars.
But I doubt you will admit it if you do. You will just find a new tangent that you are also wrong about to try and obfuscate.
Or maybe you are just making shit up so you can keep posting, it would make more sense than your current brand of "logic"
No, DEMAND is the way you determine demand, if you have first order data.
Using price as a proxy is not the way to do it. You have speculation, war, and weather effecting price, but not supply, too many outside influences.
And I never discussed price, you might have, with someone else. Price is never mentioned until I pointed out the chart you claimed was demand was actually price, and it is poor science to use a proxy when you have actual data.
It hasn't peaked. That is just plain wrong and you are being willfully ignorant in face of facts.
And if there is no demand, they reduce product to keep prices reasonably up.
2013, oil production was up 1%, so that should not be possible under peak oil in 2005, it has to go down. It is higher now then ever before, so QED, no peak oil by the definition of peak oil.
Oh for... Now you are willfully ignorant. Look at the damn graphs. It is flat and down in the 2005-2008 years. That does not jive with *your* claim of exponential demand. Average growth has slowed down, not gone up. exponential growth is exponential, doubling over each time unit. You know, like gravity or acceleration? Not a few percent each year, with down years sprinkled in.
Your chart does show a dip, not a stop. It matches demand dropping off in the 2005 world recession, but it picks right back up.
Dip in demand, thus a dip in production. No "All the while demand is increasing exponentially.". you do know what an exponential curve looks like right? A hockey stick.
Slashdot Mirror
Sacramento is a bedroom community for bay area techs already. Not to mention the HP and Intel sites up in Folsom/Roseville.
Been here for 18 years, after growing up in Milpitas and living there until 1996.
Won't go back. Mom sold the 1200sf Daisy Patch house I grew up in for $650K, I bought my much better built and nicer neighborhood 1800sf house for $105K.
The weather is nicer in the Bay Area, much like San Diego, but that is it.
Like androids in Bladerunner...
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
More DRM killswitches.
Just like getting a HAM license, and use call letters as unique identifiers too.
with the coffee shop I still get the espresso drinks, so it is a win win.
someone had told my Dad that.
Conjugation and declination, which is nearly lost in the English language
Do the needful.
Yeah and H1B workers calling me "Sonny Boy"
Well, I guess it's better than "Sup, Dog?" from the public school kids.
We have absolutely no interest in hitting you. While you may get knocked down, we have a metal bar pointed at our balls if we hit something.
I really, really do not want to rack my balls on the bike stem/top tube, and will do anything not to hit you.
Welcome to Slashdot, you are new here?
You will rue the day!
RUE!
Set fires, put them out.
Take credit.
yes, it is flat and down in the 2005-2008 years, and goes back up in 2009, 2010, flat/down in 2011.
None if which is mutually exclusive, nor about peak oil, which is about production, not demand.
Unless I was claiming EXPONENTIAL growth like you did, which would require yearly doubling of demand,
Then I would be full of shit.
The Bene Gesserit found out what can go wrong when you breed fear out.
Lives I tell you!
No, I have not stated it leveled off, and I posted evidence it has not.
And I just because I did not address that issue it meant I agreed. You are really stretching now, trying to attribute meaning to something I did not say as meaning I supported the concept.
I took issue with the larger statement, peak oil, and took issue with it when it was your main point of a post.
And DEMAND has nothing to do with peak oil, it is about reserves and production, which is still going up, and will go up if there is rising demand. It may not go up, like in some years, because of falling demand, but the CAPACITY to produce has not changed.
I can still make 1000 donuts a day with my donut machine, but if people are only buying 750 per day, I don't need to use my full production capacity.
Hopefully, you see the difference between donuts and dollars.
But I doubt you will admit it if you do. You will just find a new tangent that you are also wrong about to try and obfuscate.
Or maybe you are just making shit up so you can keep posting, it would make more sense than your current brand of "logic"
Love this gem:
"Programmers have all the time in the world to get it right. It's the difference between premeditated murder and involuntary manslaughter.' "
they simply are unaware you do not have all the time in the world when the crash is happening in real time.
The answer seems easy enough: hit the object where the combined speed is the lowest, and hit square on if possible.
Now... all you have to do is get all the cars in the accident to do the same exact thing in that split second.
No, DEMAND is the way you determine demand, if you have first order data.
Using price as a proxy is not the way to do it. You have speculation, war, and weather effecting price, but not supply, too many outside influences.
And I never discussed price, you might have, with someone else. Price is never mentioned until I pointed out the chart you claimed was demand was actually price, and it is poor science to use a proxy when you have actual data.
That chart is PRICES not demand, and it only goes up to 2010. Get the right data, over the right time.
It hasn't peaked. That is just plain wrong and you are being willfully ignorant in face of facts.
And if there is no demand, they reduce product to keep prices reasonably up.
2013, oil production was up 1%, so that should not be possible under peak oil in 2005, it has to go down. It is higher now then ever before, so QED, no peak oil by the definition of peak oil.
Prima facie, your argument is wrong.
I would suggest writing a DB app to organize your CDs.
Oh well.
Oh for... Now you are willfully ignorant. Look at the damn graphs. It is flat and down in the 2005-2008 years. That does not jive with *your* claim of exponential demand.
Average growth has slowed down, not gone up. exponential growth is exponential, doubling over each time unit. You know, like gravity or acceleration?
Not a few percent each year, with down years sprinkled in.
1981 58,013.31 -3.20 %
1982 56,722.96 -2.22 %
1983 56,002.25 -1.27 %
1984 57,064.08 1.90 %
1985 57,382.49 0.56 %
1986 58,996.11 2.81 %
1987 60,385.75 2.36 %
1988 62,269.80 3.12 %
1989 63,497.39 1.97 %
1990 63,875.13 0.59 %
1991 66,970.88 4.85 %
1992 67,136.27 0.25 %
1993 67,587.53 0.67 %
1994 68,927.09 1.98 %
1995 70,130.20 1.75 %
1996 71,712.41 2.26 %
1997 73,459.28 2.44 %
1998 74,109.43 0.89 %
1999 75,872.74 2.38 %
2000 76,779.14 1.19 %
2001 77,468.54 0.90 %
2002 78,163.60 0.90 %
2003 79,708.27 1.98 %
2004 82,564.87 3.58 %
2005 84,067.14 1.82 %
2006 85,132.05 1.27 %
2007 85,901.96 0.90 %
2008 84,463.22 -1.67 %
2009 84,756.56 0.35 %
2010 87,371.34 3.09 %
2011 87,356.29 -0.02 %
Oh forget it, you are being intentionally obtuse. You don't WANT to understand you are wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2...
2005 is the peak, it starts going down late 2005 as the recession that hits the US starts in 2006-2007, but has been a slowdown in Europe.
Your chart does show a dip, not a stop. It matches demand dropping off in the 2005 world recession, but it picks right back up.
Dip in demand, thus a dip in production. No "All the while demand is increasing exponentially.". you do know what an exponential curve looks like right? A hockey stick.
No hockey stick here:
http://www.indexmundi.com/ener...