I don't think anywhere you'll find him getting "all the credit" for Lineage's success, or even part of it for that matter. Now if you said he's getting all the attention in the North American release, I would agree, but it's hardly the same thing, and it's exactly what they wanted.
Richard Garriot's involvement isn't about how successful Lineage is in Asia, it's not about downplaying the work of its Korean's developers, it's about having a successul North American launch.
Sure he's a figurehead, but that's the whole point. An icon in the gaming industry decided to associate with this game, an association which got me, by the way, to check out the game. Mission accomplished, except in my case, I don't find it particularly interesting and won't likely continue to play.
I believe that was on Nightline about a week ago, and your percents look right. Japan was quoted at 60+% and Europe at 35+% dependence on Middle East oil.
On NPR I heard a quote stating that we get about 20% from the Middle East, and in another article [can't remember which periodical], I heard as high as 30%. Anyone know of a reliable source for this information, or does one even exist?
As to the argument that US Middle East policy is to assist its allies' oil interests moreso than its own, some analysts would argue it's not that simple. They theorize that since oil is a commodity that has its price set by the world market, any significant disruption in oil production is bad. Even if the US could absorb the loss of 10% oil production, the impact of that reduction in Middle East output could force the world's other consumers, dependent on Middle East oil, to hit suppliers used by the US, increasing demand and driving up prices. So as the argument goes, the US is acting in its own interests, not just as favor to its allies. This is without looking at the economic impact it might have on those nations, and therefor world trade.
However, by way of reference, as of 1999 10% is about 2 million barrels a day for the U.S., 60% is over 3 million barrels a day for Japan, and 35% is over 5 million barrels a day for Western Europe. This is based on statistics at http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/ieapdf/t0 1_02.pdf
Does this all mean that the airline industry wanted to use fuel cells for years or that the oil industry lobbied the FAA against it? In my opinion and experience that statement would be a little far fetched, however if you disagree, I'd love to see some data/reports showing otherwise, as I'm always curious about the data behind the conspiracy. ..
Big SNAFU on my part, I was reading another article on Tom Ridge and got mixed up. Considering I have family in his old gubernatorial stomping ground with whom I was JUST discussing Tom's appoinment . . . that's rather pathetic.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think anywhere you'll find him getting "all the credit" for Lineage's success, or even part of it for that matter. Now if you said he's getting all the attention in the North American release, I would agree, but it's hardly the same thing, and it's exactly what they wanted.
Richard Garriot's involvement isn't about how successful Lineage is in Asia, it's not about downplaying the work of its Korean's developers, it's about having a successul North American launch.
Sure he's a figurehead, but that's the whole point. An icon in the gaming industry decided to associate with this game, an association which got me, by the way, to check out the game. Mission accomplished, except in my case, I don't find it particularly interesting and won't likely continue to play.
I believe that was on Nightline about a week ago, and your percents look right. Japan was quoted at 60+% and Europe at 35+% dependence on Middle East oil.
On NPR I heard a quote stating that we get about 20% from the Middle East, and in another article [can't remember which periodical], I heard as high as 30%. Anyone know of a reliable source for this information, or does one even exist?
As to the argument that US Middle East policy is to assist its allies' oil interests moreso than its own, some analysts would argue it's not that simple. They theorize that since oil is a commodity that has its price set by the world market, any significant disruption in oil production is bad. Even if the US could absorb the loss of 10% oil production, the impact of that reduction in Middle East output could force the world's other consumers, dependent on Middle East oil, to hit suppliers used by the US, increasing demand and driving up prices. So as the argument goes, the US is acting in its own interests, not just as favor to its allies. This is without looking at the economic impact it might have on those nations, and therefor world trade.
However, by way of reference, as of 1999 10% is about 2 million barrels a day for the U.S., 60% is over 3 million barrels a day for Japan, and 35% is over 5 million barrels a day for Western Europe. This is based on statistics at http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/ieapdf/t0 1_02.pdf
Does this all mean that the airline industry wanted to use fuel cells for years or that the oil industry lobbied the FAA against it? In my opinion and experience that statement would be a little far fetched, however if you disagree, I'd love to see some data/reports showing otherwise, as I'm always curious about the data behind the conspiracy. . .
Big SNAFU on my part, I was reading another article on Tom Ridge and got mixed up. Considering I have family in his old gubernatorial stomping ground with whom I was JUST discussing Tom's appoinment . . . that's rather pathetic.
My apologies to Tom and Dick.