I think they shot it down because they decided it was a good idea. What's the problem? The US is going to get criticized by someone for any choice it could possibly make, including doing nothing. This was probably the choice with the least uncertainty.
Why are you arguing reason with a "hater"? He's a hater. He doesn't decide things based on reason.
Arguments that are more suited to your audience:
- That was Sony's secret plan all along. You fell for it by not buying Blu-Ray. - The DVD Forum said your mom is a whore. - Really? All the cool people have turned around on this. Hating Sony is so last year.
Theoretically, yes. Unless the huge die size results in low yield, or thermal issues, or time-to-market issues, or integration of unused functionality that makes the chip too expensive to compete with chips with smaller functionality sets, or some other issue.
And even if it's only a little cheaper, then it may not be worthwhile either.
I'm in the business. Integration is great sometimes, ok sometimes, and bad sometimes. Single-chip solutions sometimes lose out to multi-chip solutions.
Yeah, but all the arguments in the court trial would have to be repeated at least 9 times with different voice actors reading the same transcript lines for some reason.
Simple efforts to remove some obstacles are great -- providing clean drinking water and a few other background-style resources. But people make their own choices. Just giving people stuff doesn't change who those people are. They need to accomplish things on their own for that.
Exactly. It is the laws that are the problem. No law should exist that you don't want enforced 100% of the time.
Selective enforcement or lax enforcement encourage injustice and allow government power to grow quietly.
If we had 100% enforcement, the majority would support freedom. Would-be tyrants are in the majority now -- they think it's cool to use government power against people they don't like to promote their tyrannical preferences.
The story about it being back will show up tomorrow or the next day.
Slashdot is more of a weekly news/opinion magazine than a timely source of information. They should probably change it to "old news for slow nerds and propaganda about what our editors hate".
You don't know the cost and selling price of every barrel of oil Exxon sells, so you can't predict whether selling more from offshore rigs will help. That's OK. Exxon knows. If the areas are opened up, Exxon will either drill or not drill. If they don't, nothing changed so there was no downside. If they do, more supply means lower gas prices.
And you have yet to identify a cost. The oil companies are paying all the cost. They will decide whether they can make a profit before they drill. If there's no significant oil there, they won't drill at all. Off-shore rigs are super expensive. They would not drill unless they could get lots of oil.
But the leftists won't allow any of these decisions to be made or even voted on.
Normally, when the government tries to do something...
The government doesn't have to do anything except get out of the way and let ordinary commerce happen. But they're desperately trying to avoid that.
This has gone on all summer. The Republicans are holding every bill hostage to this drilling. The Democrats refuse to even allow a vote on drilling. If this doesn't mean anything, then all the Democrats have to do is allow a vote and this whole problem goes away for them.
---
If oil development is restarted in the US again, it will send a signal to the oil markets. That signal will say that more oil will be available in the future -- more supply. It will cut the potential sale price of the oil reserves still in the ground. Since oil is very high right now, producers will have an incentive to pump more oil now and sell it at a high price rather than leaving it in the ground to sell at a lower price in the future. They will respond by working overtime pumping more oil now. That will cause immediate supplies to go up, which will cause immediate prices to drop.
This won't happen in 10 years. It'll happen in days. The current price of oil has the future scarcity of oil built in. Lower that scarcity and the price drops. No one knows how much. Maybe only a little bit, maybe more.
A small part of the recent drop in oil prices is probably due to predictions that the US might change from "no new production" to a policy of "some new production". Mostly it's related to higher inventories of oil and gasoline.
That's why this is a big deal. No one knows how much oil is out there. When it's all off-limits, the answer is "none". If that were to change to "some", prices would drop.
The DOE link does not mention the discounting of future availability of oil being built into the current price and it doesn't appear to do any demand estimation at all. What makes someone at the DOE qualified to discount worldwide supply and demand for oil 25-years in the future? Maybe she knows something about the amount of oil there. How does she know the economic growth of China and India in 2025?
Estimates of oil reserves are always low. Technology improves and it gets cheaper to get at oil. Prices rise and oil that was considered "too expensive to drill for" at $40/barrel is now highly profitable at $120/barrel. Does she discount future technology improvements? Not explicitly she doesn't.
This is why the Democrats won't allow this drilling. Because it might work and because it would likely cut gas prices (maybe only a very small amount) immediately. But their policy is "no new development", and they don't care if Americans are hurt by that. "I'm trying to save the planet" is what Pelosi said.
--
It's normally a waste of time explaining this. It's reality and people don't care. They want to be told a story. The right argument is usually that the story is obviously a lie, as the Democrats' story is this time. It's quite obvious.
It's probably useless to explain reality this time too. People "trying to save the earth" are more cartoon-storytelling-people than economics people. But I got started and here you go.
So you're saying there's lots and lots of oil there, but this is magic oil and the laws of supply and demand don't apply to this oil. And increasing supply by a lot won't change the price.
And it's a lot more likely that oil will be spilled when it's drilled a short distance off the coast in a strict environmental jurisdiction than when it's drilled half-way around the world in a lose environmental jurisdiction and then floated thousands of miles here here on oil tankers.
Other than "oil companies might make some money", you have yet to identify a downside to opening up drilling. All anyone says is it might not help as much as everyone wishes it would. I'm not sure how that's a downside.
If there's no oil there, the oil companies won't even bother drilling for it. So opening up the areas to drilling will, at worst, change nothing. And at best, it will help people.
But you can't risk that possibility that it might help people, can you?
Even the opposition talking points admit that drilling will help people a little. Now you're saying it won't help them at all. Sticking to one answer makes a more credible argument in an absolute (but not necessarily a partisan) sense.
I dispute the DOE numbers you are using as your only basis for argument. I'm not sure why you're so desperate to hide behind them to oppose oil drilling. You have yet to identify a downside to oil drilling.
It's actually a silly argument. You're opposed to it because it might only help a little and you want to argue about how much "a little" is.
Without any identified downside, it only makes sense to try drilling. Then we'll see if "a little" is really a little. But this isn't about doing things that make sense, is it?
And let's not forget that these so called nasty corporations keep a lot of folks employed. I guess it would be better if we all stand in line and collect unemployment.
Apparently, there are environmental concerns. I don't know enough about those concerns...
So screw the needs of people. Nevermind poor people who can't afford the costs of perfect environmental spiritual purity.
Ascribing nefarious motives to people who just have a legitimate policy disagreement with you is not endearing or even sensible. You might try assuming, for a moment, that people can disagree with you for reasons other than craziness or evil. You might learn something, especially if those people present numbers when you don't appear to have any.
I don't want to be friends. You guys hurt people intentionally to consolidate your power. You guys take and take and take from working people to give the money to people who produce nothing -- trapping those people who get the checks in a lifestyle of poverty, irresponsibility, and hopeless dependence. All for power. You guys choose union control over learning in education. You guys choose "the earth" and animals over people.
Slashdot Mirror
I think they shot it down because they decided it was a good idea. What's the problem? The US is going to get criticized by someone for any choice it could possibly make, including doing nothing. This was probably the choice with the least uncertainty.
Why are you arguing reason with a "hater"? He's a hater. He doesn't decide things based on reason.
Arguments that are more suited to your audience:
- That was Sony's secret plan all along. You fell for it by not buying Blu-Ray.
- The DVD Forum said your mom is a whore.
- Really? All the cool people have turned around on this. Hating Sony is so last year.
Etc.
How would you know the benefits of flying or the actual cost or difficulty of the searches? From reading complaints about it on the Internet?
You haven't flown since 1999? What value could you possibly bring to the discussion then?
Theoretically, yes. Unless the huge die size results in low yield, or thermal issues, or time-to-market issues, or integration of unused functionality that makes the chip too expensive to compete with chips with smaller functionality sets, or some other issue.
And even if it's only a little cheaper, then it may not be worthwhile either.
I'm in the business. Integration is great sometimes, ok sometimes, and bad sometimes. Single-chip solutions sometimes lose out to multi-chip solutions.
They could make projections or otherwise state that there's some advantage.
Does the combined Fusion chip have advantages over the separate chips?
If not, there's no point. I don't think anyone doubts that the separate chips exist.
Without cost and performance (speed) info, this is not really interesting.
Facts in the story:
- AMD using TSMC
- AMD using 40nm instead of 45 or 32
- DirectX 10.1 support with the R800 engine on the chip.
None of this matters unless it does something better and/or cheaper than some other option.
Yeah, but all the arguments in the court trial would have to be repeated at least 9 times with different voice actors reading the same transcript lines for some reason.
People need to stand up on their own.
Simple efforts to remove some obstacles are great -- providing clean drinking water and a few other background-style resources. But people make their own choices. Just giving people stuff doesn't change who those people are. They need to accomplish things on their own for that.
Exactly. It is the laws that are the problem. No law should exist that you don't want enforced 100% of the time.
Selective enforcement or lax enforcement encourage injustice and allow government power to grow quietly.
If we had 100% enforcement, the majority would support freedom. Would-be tyrants are in the majority now -- they think it's cool to use government power against people they don't like to promote their tyrannical preferences.
The story about it being back will show up tomorrow or the next day.
Slashdot is more of a weekly news/opinion magazine than a timely source of information. They should probably change it to "old news for slow nerds and propaganda about what our editors hate".
You don't know the cost and selling price of every barrel of oil Exxon sells, so you can't predict whether selling more from offshore rigs will help. That's OK. Exxon knows. If the areas are opened up, Exxon will either drill or not drill. If they don't, nothing changed so there was no downside. If they do, more supply means lower gas prices.
It's a cost-benefit analysis.
And you have yet to identify a cost. The oil companies are paying all the cost. They will decide whether they can make a profit before they drill. If there's no significant oil there, they won't drill at all. Off-shore rigs are super expensive. They would not drill unless they could get lots of oil.
But the leftists won't allow any of these decisions to be made or even voted on.
Normally, when the government tries to do something...
The government doesn't have to do anything except get out of the way and let ordinary commerce happen. But they're desperately trying to avoid that.
This has gone on all summer. The Republicans are holding every bill hostage to this drilling. The Democrats refuse to even allow a vote on drilling. If this doesn't mean anything, then all the Democrats have to do is allow a vote and this whole problem goes away for them.
---
If oil development is restarted in the US again, it will send a signal to the oil markets. That signal will say that more oil will be available in the future -- more supply. It will cut the potential sale price of the oil reserves still in the ground. Since oil is very high right now, producers will have an incentive to pump more oil now and sell it at a high price rather than leaving it in the ground to sell at a lower price in the future. They will respond by working overtime pumping more oil now. That will cause immediate supplies to go up, which will cause immediate prices to drop.
This won't happen in 10 years. It'll happen in days. The current price of oil has the future scarcity of oil built in. Lower that scarcity and the price drops. No one knows how much. Maybe only a little bit, maybe more.
A small part of the recent drop in oil prices is probably due to predictions that the US might change from "no new production" to a policy of "some new production". Mostly it's related to higher inventories of oil and gasoline.
That's why this is a big deal. No one knows how much oil is out there. When it's all off-limits, the answer is "none". If that were to change to "some", prices would drop.
The DOE link does not mention the discounting of future availability of oil being built into the current price and it doesn't appear to do any demand estimation at all. What makes someone at the DOE qualified to discount worldwide supply and demand for oil 25-years in the future? Maybe she knows something about the amount of oil there. How does she know the economic growth of China and India in 2025?
Estimates of oil reserves are always low. Technology improves and it gets cheaper to get at oil. Prices rise and oil that was considered "too expensive to drill for" at $40/barrel is now highly profitable at $120/barrel. Does she discount future technology improvements? Not explicitly she doesn't.
This is why the Democrats won't allow this drilling. Because it might work and because it would likely cut gas prices (maybe only a very small amount) immediately. But their policy is "no new development", and they don't care if Americans are hurt by that. "I'm trying to save the planet" is what Pelosi said.
--
It's normally a waste of time explaining this. It's reality and people don't care. They want to be told a story. The right argument is usually that the story is obviously a lie, as the Democrats' story is this time. It's quite obvious.
It's probably useless to explain reality this time too. People "trying to save the earth" are more cartoon-storytelling-people than economics people. But I got started and here you go.
Those companies will be getting rich pumping the oil that can't help lower prices because it doesn't exist, I guess.
Who owns these big, rich oil companies anyway? Oh yeah, workers' pension funds own the stock. Screw them too, right?
And so people who want to pay 10 cents a gallon less can go screw themselves.
Sure, change the subject and make this about me. Nevermind the needs of poor people.
So you're saying there's lots and lots of oil there, but this is magic oil and the laws of supply and demand don't apply to this oil. And increasing supply by a lot won't change the price.
And it's a lot more likely that oil will be spilled when it's drilled a short distance off the coast in a strict environmental jurisdiction than when it's drilled half-way around the world in a lose environmental jurisdiction and then floated thousands of miles here here on oil tankers.
That's your argument?
Or, maybe you're just being a ridiculous ass saying the opponents of drilling don't care for their own well being.
So you care about yourself. Aside from yourself, you don't care about people. Especially not poor people who are hardest hit by high gas prices.
Pollution of our waterways.
If there's no oil there, how does it pollute anything? If there's an insignificant amount of oil, then the pollution must also be insignificant.
So there's no downside.
Unless this one talking-point number is wrong and people can be helped a lot. But you can't take the risk that people might be helped, can you?
What was the downside again?
Other than "oil companies might make some money", you have yet to identify a downside to opening up drilling. All anyone says is it might not help as much as everyone wishes it would. I'm not sure how that's a downside.
If there's no oil there, the oil companies won't even bother drilling for it. So opening up the areas to drilling will, at worst, change nothing. And at best, it will help people.
But you can't risk that possibility that it might help people, can you?
Even the opposition talking points admit that drilling will help people a little. Now you're saying it won't help them at all. Sticking to one answer makes a more credible argument in an absolute (but not necessarily a partisan) sense.
I dispute the DOE numbers you are using as your only basis for argument. I'm not sure why you're so desperate to hide behind them to oppose oil drilling. You have yet to identify a downside to oil drilling.
It's actually a silly argument. You're opposed to it because it might only help a little and you want to argue about how much "a little" is.
Without any identified downside, it only makes sense to try drilling. Then we'll see if "a little" is really a little. But this isn't about doing things that make sense, is it?
And let's not forget that these so called nasty corporations keep a lot of folks employed. I guess it would be better if we all stand in line and collect unemployment.
They don't care about people.
Apparently, there are environmental concerns. I don't know enough about those concerns...
So screw the needs of people. Nevermind poor people who can't afford the costs of perfect environmental spiritual purity.
Ascribing nefarious motives to people who just have a legitimate policy disagreement with you is not endearing or even sensible. You might try assuming, for a moment, that people can disagree with you for reasons other than craziness or evil. You might learn something, especially if those people present numbers when you don't appear to have any.
I don't want to be friends. You guys hurt people intentionally to consolidate your power. You guys take and take and take from working people to give the money to people who produce nothing -- trapping those people who get the checks in a lifestyle of poverty, irresponsibility, and hopeless dependence. All for power. You guys choose union control over learning in education. You guys choose "the earth" and animals over people.