"Although the accident itself did not result in a radiation leak, many argue that the sodium spill itself came very close to detonating Monju, a catastrophe which would have spilled plutonium into the environment."
If the US were to tap some of its vast oil resources (be they of the coast of florida ot in the arctic), that would affect the equation, but the "oil production" would go from zero for the US to zero, despite a (assumed) net gain of several million barrels in world production (choose the appropriate time scale to make tht number appropriate in size). It presumes that any nation which is not currently exporting will never find more oil, and will never export. Perhaps a valid assumption
For the most part a valid assumption. A counter exaple is the Soviet union. They had a twin peak in exports. They peaked just before they fell apart('89ish) and they are peaking again now(or the near future). The reason their exports fell was because of political reasons.
But for a country like the US (and just about everyone else) the peak is geological. So it reflects Hubberts curve better.
Even if the US taps all its remainin oil, off the coast of florida, in alaska, everywhere, it is just peanuts compared to what we pumped out of the east Texas fields in the 60's and 70's. Pissing in the ocean, it won't even come close to making us an exporter again.
The same holds true for most of the world. All the big easy fields have been found decades ago.
Jack 2, the new deep water gulph "find" is a collection of hundreds of tiny fields under miles of water an rock. It will proberbly never be developed no matter what the cost of oil. The tar sands in canada won't ever produce anything near what a traditional light sweet field gives us. There are good reasons we ignored these marginal sources for so long, they suck, we can't get (very much) oil from them.
but if you're looking for peak oil, shouldn't you look at all the production?
Actually peak exports is really the problem. Who cares how much oil a country is producing if they use it all themselves. The US and EU are oil importers. We really only care about oil that we can import, not how much Russia is keeping for themselves.
Read this primer for a better explanation than I can give
http://www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk/
Okay, so I skimmed that article. All these graphs and charts seem to be based on a non-zero origin - the export quantity of oil. Shouldn't you start with the total capacity of oil (not just exports), then subtract the projected use of oil to get a net supply-demand curve and extrapolate dollars (or future world collapse) from there?
No, Not really. The whole point is to find the peak in production. By using a non zero origin, you are just zooming in on the top of the graph for clarity.
The problems arise when the world produces as much oil this year as last year. But the world uses more oil than last year. Past evidence is pretty conclusive that when this peak hits it is permanant. Yet consumption is not constrained until recession/depression hits.
Yeah, It was pretty scary. Those dips (one in the late 70"s and one in the early 80"s) were the oil shocks and they damn near crippled the country.
Sometimes I forget how young everyone is on Slashdot, but then something like this reminds me. Ask your parents about it, it sucked.
And the difference is the Oil Shocks were artificial, OPEC just turned the screws a bit. The upcoming crisis is not artificial its geological. The next Oil Shock will be permanant. Alberta Tar sands, nuclear, solar, wind etc all together will not ramp up quickly enough to provide us with enough energy. Oh, they could if we invested heavily in them now, but we aren't. And won't till its too late.
Rethin
According to this article http://news.com.com/2100-1023-888893.html The yodeler Wylie Gustafson was paid a one time fee of $590 for one television commercial in 1996.
Yahoo then took that same yodel and used it again and again in ther advertaisments without paying Wylie.
Wylie sued Yahoo and received an undisclosed sum of money. Proberbly on the order of a million dollars (he sued for 5 million).
After that Yahoo had a Yodel contest to replace Wylie's yodel http://promotions.yahoo.com/yodel/ They paid some little girl $10,000 and proberbly forced her to sign over the rights to the yodel as well (to avoid another lawsuit.)
You are correct. Band-Aid brand adhesive bandages are a very strong trademark. And the Johnson and Johnson company works very hard to keep it that way. I don't have a box in front of me, perhaps you can check it, but I'm pretty sure it says something along the line of "Band-Aid brand adhesive bandages" instead of somethinglike just "Band-Aids." Its part of the effort to keep their name from becoming generic.
That's where the trouble begins, when a trademark becomes diluted enough to be considered generic than anyone can use it to describe their competing product. That is if Johnson and Johnson just labeled their boxes "band aids" then the trade mark becomes generic and anycompany can call bandages Bandaids.
That's something Tivo wants to avoid. They want to become Tivo Brand digital video recorders. If Tivo and dvr become synonomous then it becomes much harder to protect their trademarked brand.
Why? you ask?
Because it dilutes the brand name. And building a respected well known brand name is very expensive and difficult.
Companies are expected to take reasonable steps to protect their trademarked name. For example the Xerox corp has been fighting tooth and nail to keep the verk xerox from becoming synanomous with photocopy.
This is exactly the reason why Federal Express changed their name to Fed Ex, because Fed Ex was becoming a generic verb that means send by express mail.
If TiVo doesn't protect their name, then they may loose their right to their trademark. That would be a disaster to their buisness.
Rethin
I'm sorry to say that the Harley Davidson company doesnot hold a copyright on the sound. They did try to Trademark it back in the 90's but gave up on that for two reasons. 1. its pretty much impossible to trademark a sound 2. The metric cruisers didn't really try to copy the sound (they produced engines than were in tune) and so lost the commercial incentive to protect the "sound".
Slashdot Mirror
From the article
"Although the accident itself did not result in a radiation leak, many argue that the sodium spill itself came very close to detonating Monju, a catastrophe which would have spilled plutonium into the environment."
You insensitive clod! That stupid song is going to be in my head all day now!
Yeah, It was pretty scary. Those dips (one in the late 70"s and one in the early 80"s) were the oil shocks and they damn near crippled the country. Sometimes I forget how young everyone is on Slashdot, but then something like this reminds me. Ask your parents about it, it sucked. And the difference is the Oil Shocks were artificial, OPEC just turned the screws a bit. The upcoming crisis is not artificial its geological. The next Oil Shock will be permanant. Alberta Tar sands, nuclear, solar, wind etc all together will not ramp up quickly enough to provide us with enough energy. Oh, they could if we invested heavily in them now, but we aren't. And won't till its too late. Rethin
Oh wait, that's a real genius
Yes and no.
According to this article
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-888893.html
The yodeler Wylie Gustafson was paid a one time fee of $590 for one television commercial in 1996.
Yahoo then took that same yodel and used it again and again in ther advertaisments without paying Wylie.
Wylie sued Yahoo and received an undisclosed sum of money. Proberbly on the order of a million dollars (he sued for 5 million).
After that Yahoo had a Yodel contest to replace Wylie's yodel
http://promotions.yahoo.com/yodel/
They paid some little girl $10,000 and proberbly forced her to sign over the rights to the yodel as well (to avoid another lawsuit.)
Rethin
Some nice person linked "revert wars" to "edit wars".
So I guess the system works in the end.
Rethin
Wow, and it was deleted just as fast. Oh well, I learned my lesson: Don't bother trying. Rethin
well, sort of.
I did a search for "revert wars" and came up empty.
So I created an article (sort of)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revert_wars
Lets see if we can't get this puppy fleshed out a little.
Rethin
You must be new here. This is slashdot, we don't rtfa around here.
don't worry, you'll get the hang of it soon.
That guy wouldn't be you by any chance?
>>Who needs the linked JPG?
uh... me, I don't have a PC.
Was that a trick question?
Rethin
Slashdot was a relevant new site ? Rethin
>> I went downstairs to show my mom how the models moved
Dude, its cool and all you live with your mom.
But do you really want to be so obvious about it?
Me, I'd just kinda keep it under my hat and all.
Rethin
RazzleFrog,
You are correct. Band-Aid brand adhesive bandages are a very strong trademark. And the Johnson and Johnson company works very hard to keep it that way. I don't have a box in front of me, perhaps you can check it, but I'm pretty sure it says something along the line of "Band-Aid brand adhesive bandages" instead of somethinglike just "Band-Aids." Its part of the effort to keep their name from becoming generic.
That's where the trouble begins, when a trademark becomes diluted enough to be considered generic than anyone can use it to describe their competing product. That is if Johnson and Johnson just labeled their boxes "band aids" then the trade mark becomes generic and anycompany can call bandages Bandaids.
That's something Tivo wants to avoid. They want to become Tivo Brand digital video recorders. If Tivo and dvr become synonomous then it becomes much harder to protect their trademarked brand.
But I'm all with you on that second paragraph.
Rethin
Why? you ask? Because it dilutes the brand name. And building a respected well known brand name is very expensive and difficult. Companies are expected to take reasonable steps to protect their trademarked name. For example the Xerox corp has been fighting tooth and nail to keep the verk xerox from becoming synanomous with photocopy. This is exactly the reason why Federal Express changed their name to Fed Ex, because Fed Ex was becoming a generic verb that means send by express mail. If TiVo doesn't protect their name, then they may loose their right to their trademark. That would be a disaster to their buisness. Rethin
Cloudmaster,
:-)
You're right on all those technical points but...
I'm sorry to say that the Harley Davidson company doesnot hold a copyright on the sound. They did try to Trademark it back in the 90's but gave up on that for two reasons.
1. its pretty much impossible to trademark a sound
2. The metric cruisers didn't really try to copy the sound (they produced engines than were in tune) and so lost the commercial incentive to protect the "sound".
But right on abou the belt
Rethin