The Oil and Gas Journal, Nov 11, 2002 v100 i46 p46(3)
And for another view.
Parker, H.W., "Demand, supply will determine when world oil output peaks," OGJ, Feb. 25, 2002, pp. 40-48
The first article has the full text available on Infotrac if your library has got it.
Oil is finite. Right now it is a matter of best estimates for demand and discovery. But the peak is out there somewhere. I have seen a number of reasonable studies that estimate anywhere from 10-30 years.
We are probably headed for world peak oil production in the next 20 years anyway. We'll have to switch to something eventually. Nuclear is probably the way to go. Say goodbye to cheap gasoline for everyone's automobiles, however. And before anyone says it, hydrogen is a pipe dream.
"it is not a case where 100% of the viewing audience is hostile to viewing commercials"
Yeah, actually it is. Just like nobody likes telemarketers, nobody likes TV commercials. They both work (or in the case of telemarketers, worked) because the convience of having a listed phone number, or the enjoyment of watching television, which makes people willing to tolerate the aggravation. But as soon as that aggravation is easy to remove, the masses will do so.
I suppose I should amend my comment for the inevitable Slashdot poster who will say something stupid like "but Joe Blow in Idaho likes commercials, so see! it's not 100%." There are exceptions, as in every statement about human nature. Nearly all of them fall into the categories of either obsessive compulsive types who enjoy memorizing train schedules or those with IQs 1 or 2 standard deviations below the norm.
Wait a sec...you said earlier that we did not have a right to screen them out. The networks have a "right" to make money when you view their programs. But now you are saying that we do have a right to fast-forward through commercials with a VCR. Which is it? You've made me confused. Help!
Explain exactly what this "right" of the networks to make money allows them to force you to do.
"Of course, even the best of us only use 10% of our brains...looking at that simple fact most people would realize the junk science that's being put forward here..."
It is a very good read. Crichton claims that the public believes in things like Global Warming and Nuclear Winter for the same reasons that it believes in little green men. He says that science has failed to act as "a candle in the dark."
Even on the Earth's surface, those objects would be pretty spread out. The surface area of a sphere varies by r^2 and stable orbits starts quite a distance away from the Earth. So I would be interested in hearing the exact probability of getting hit by something; I don't imagine it's all that big.
MSNBC should retract that damn interview. It does include the "Parody" notice right beside the headline, but that is hardly clear enough. Wendell Wittler created the whole thing. Wittler wrote the dialogue for Opus, not Breathed. I really don't see how they thought a story like this was ethical. It's there to fool readers, and probably violates copyright.
Exactly. Be rational. For God's sake, fake your return address.
(Once you are assured of your anonymity, make sure that the threat is extremely detailed. A threat to snipe employees in the parking lot -- located at the intersection of streets Y and X -- is the kind of threat that companies take seriously. If necessary, you can spell out the profit/loss calculus for them. 10,000,000 spam emails = 10 penis devices sold = 1 crazy nut shooting up your place of business. Is it worth it, punk?)
Maybe a perfect game of Go has been proven to be so. I don't know, actually. But beating a human at Go is something else. There is no way to construct a proof for how hard it is to beat a human at Go. It might be a linear problem for all we know.
Certainly as long as the american-dominated mass-market movie production aims all its movies at dumb-of-the-mill average americans, we're not going to be seeing better scripts from them.
Oh, it's far worse than that. America has begun to dumb its movies down for foreign audiences which make up a large portion of sales nowadays. Wit, and other things that don't subtitle well, are being traded for explosions.
The level of education is a substantial problem as you say. But it is even a greater problem than most people realize. Level of education of the parents turns out to be the number one predictor in level of education of the children. The contribution of immigrants and the next two generations makes up a minimal part of the GDP despite their numbers. And the social burdens they place on the systems generally cancels that out. I wonder if it really can be solved.
The Baby Boom generation is getting too old. We would have to get very lucky to grow our way out. Not impossible -- some new technological advance or some such, but unlikely.
More worrying, are the oil reserve studies saying that with best estimates of reserves to be discovered we have 20 years until peak world oil production -- even at zero consumption growth. And peak non-OPEC production hits the top in a decade. That won't be fun.
The 7.2 number sounds good, but it will be revised. You need to understand the nature of these numbers.
Do you even understand how the unemployment requests numbers work? You are putting a lot of faith in some in some rather pitiful news. Unemployment is still pretty bad.
I don't sound like a fiscal conservative for hating huge deficits and being wary about the numbers? Now that's crazy.
Luskin's attacks on Krugman for National Review Online are often rather despicable. I am a conservative, but I can't stand reading Luskin. Besides, Krugman does have some good points. He has been saying that our record deficit (as high a percentage of the GDP as in the Reagan years) is leading to one of three options in the next decade: A) A steep tax hike soon B) A drastic cut in Government programs C) a financial crisis when the market decides that the government is not going to pay them back.
Bush is aiming at B, but he has made no political preparation for it. Nobody is ready to accept drastic cuts in Medicare and Social Security. Without that preparation, we are most likely headed towards C.
Slashdot Mirror
The Oil and Gas Journal, Nov 11, 2002 v100 i46 p46(3)
And for another view.
Parker, H.W., "Demand, supply will determine when world oil output peaks," OGJ, Feb. 25, 2002, pp. 40-48
The first article has the full text available on Infotrac if your library has got it.
Oil is finite. Right now it is a matter of best estimates for demand and discovery. But the peak is out there somewhere. I have seen a number of reasonable studies that estimate anywhere from 10-30 years.
We are probably headed for world peak oil production in the next 20 years anyway. We'll have to switch to something eventually. Nuclear is probably the way to go. Say goodbye to cheap gasoline for everyone's automobiles, however. And before anyone says it, hydrogen is a pipe dream.
Do what everybody else does: Lie. They can't check everything. Half the employers that you work for shouldn't even know your real name.
"it is not a case where 100% of the viewing audience is hostile to viewing commercials"
Yeah, actually it is. Just like nobody likes telemarketers, nobody likes TV commercials. They both work (or in the case of telemarketers, worked) because the convience of having a listed phone number, or the enjoyment of watching television, which makes people willing to tolerate the aggravation. But as soon as that aggravation is easy to remove, the masses will do so.
I suppose I should amend my comment for the inevitable Slashdot poster who will say something stupid like "but Joe Blow in Idaho likes commercials, so see! it's not 100%." There are exceptions, as in every statement about human nature. Nearly all of them fall into the categories of either obsessive compulsive types who enjoy memorizing train schedules or those with IQs 1 or 2 standard deviations below the norm.
Sorry -- I mistook you for the grandfather to your post. So replace "you said" with "you agreed" and it should make more sense.
"You aren't compelled to watch TV commercials."
Wait a sec...you said earlier that we did not have a right to screen them out. The networks have a "right" to make money when you view their programs. But now you are saying that we do have a right to fast-forward through commercials with a VCR. Which is it? You've made me confused. Help!
Explain exactly what this "right" of the networks to make money allows them to force you to do.
When you read a newspaper do you make sure to read ALL of the ads?
THIEF!!!
I'll bet that you even have a pop-up blocker installed on your computer, you evil bastard.
"Of course, even the best of us only use 10% of our brains...looking at that simple fact most people would realize the junk science that's being put forward here..."
Heh. The irony is intentional, correct?
Jerry Pournelle posted a link to this on his site.
Aliens Cause Global Warming
By Michael Crichton
It is a very good read. Crichton claims that the public believes in things like Global Warming and Nuclear Winter for the same reasons that it believes in little green men. He says that science has failed to act as "a candle in the dark."
There should be no law against it. You can already remove anybody wearing, say, a red shirt.
I hate all the anti-racist hysteria that makes racism seem like the worst crime anyone could commit. It's not. Not by a long shot.
Something far more powerful than either. The Inertia party.
Thanks, genius.
Even on the Earth's surface, those objects would be pretty spread out. The surface area of a sphere varies by r^2 and stable orbits starts quite a distance away from the Earth. So I would be interested in hearing the exact probability of getting hit by something; I don't imagine it's all that big.
I did a Google search to find out what you were talking about: http://sethf.com/freespeech/censorware/essays/cens orwareorg.php
Makes sense that this is the kind of person that Slashdot employs. Certainly explains a few things that these people are running the show.
You obviously didn't see him after a few dandelion snorts.
MSNBC should retract that damn interview. It does include the "Parody" notice right beside the headline, but that is hardly clear enough. Wendell Wittler created the whole thing. Wittler wrote the dialogue for Opus, not Breathed. I really don't see how they thought a story like this was ethical. It's there to fool readers, and probably violates copyright.
This game might be really neat with a console controller. As is, mouse and keyboard don't really fit it.
Exactly. Be rational. For God's sake, fake your return address.
(Once you are assured of your anonymity, make sure that the threat is extremely detailed. A threat to snipe employees in the parking lot -- located at the intersection of streets Y and X -- is the kind of threat that companies take seriously. If necessary, you can spell out the profit/loss calculus for them. 10,000,000 spam emails = 10 penis devices sold = 1 crazy nut shooting up your place of business. Is it worth it, punk?)
Maybe a perfect game of Go has been proven to be so. I don't know, actually. But beating a human at Go is something else. There is no way to construct a proof for how hard it is to beat a human at Go. It might be a linear problem for all we know.
Certainly as long as the american-dominated mass-market movie production aims all its movies at dumb-of-the-mill average americans, we're not going to be seeing better scripts from them.
Oh, it's far worse than that. America has begun to dumb its movies down for foreign audiences which make up a large portion of sales nowadays. Wit, and other things that don't subtitle well, are being traded for explosions.
Quantum! The name does sound kind of cool. But try programming for one for a little while. That is something that you can do today with a simulator.
The only use for quantum computers in the future will be cryptography and very specially formulated problems. It won't run Quake VII or Windows 2015.
(Then again, if you chart processor and memory usage, you will find that nothing will run Windows 2015)
The level of education is a substantial problem as you say. But it is even a greater problem than most people realize. Level of education of the parents turns out to be the number one predictor in level of education of the children. The contribution of immigrants and the next two generations makes up a minimal part of the GDP despite their numbers. And the social burdens they place on the systems generally cancels that out. I wonder if it really can be solved.
The Baby Boom generation is getting too old. We would have to get very lucky to grow our way out. Not impossible -- some new technological advance or some such, but unlikely.
More worrying, are the oil reserve studies saying that with best estimates of reserves to be discovered we have 20 years until peak world oil production -- even at zero consumption growth. And peak non-OPEC production hits the top in a decade. That won't be fun.
The 7.2 number sounds good, but it will be revised. You need to understand the nature of these numbers.
Do you even understand how the unemployment requests numbers work? You are putting a lot of faith in some in some rather pitiful news. Unemployment is still pretty bad.
I don't sound like a fiscal conservative for hating huge deficits and being wary about the numbers? Now that's crazy.
Luskin's attacks on Krugman for National Review Online are often rather despicable. I am a conservative, but I can't stand reading Luskin. Besides, Krugman does have some good points. He has been saying that our record deficit (as high a percentage of the GDP as in the Reagan years) is leading to one of three options in the next decade: A) A steep tax hike soon B) A drastic cut in Government programs C) a financial crisis when the market decides that the government is not going to pay them back.
Bush is aiming at B, but he has made no political preparation for it. Nobody is ready to accept drastic cuts in Medicare and Social Security. Without that preparation, we are most likely headed towards C.