But Apple is still going to have to pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Er what? No one from Apple is coming to your house to destroy your nano. Apple is simply not making or selling any new ones on their website. You can still get one at other retailers like BestBuy, Target, Walmart, Newegg, Amazon, eBay, etc.
Considering that the Canadian tar stands require oil at least $70/barrel to be viable, I can't see how you can say it was "easier and cheaper" to extract than shale oil at $30/barrel. And during the height of oil prices, the tar sands were being used. But this shale oil reservoir was not. That kinda destroys your argument doesn't it?
What the CBO actually said was that 22 million Americans would not be forced to purchase a service that they did not want and have no use for.
All you are doing is spinning. What a bunch of crock. If I am buying a service I have no use for, then what is the point? If I buy a car insurance policy I have no use for, then do I have car insurance? The number is actually higher than 22 million because the CBO also estimated that millions would likely die because they were no longer covered and died as a result.
If it can be done for $30/barrel, why wasn't it done? When crude oil was $100/barrel why wasn't it done? You can't really answer that can you? The fact of the matter since it wasn't done, it is probably a safe bet he was right.
If something has not been developed yet, how can you include it in the realm of possibility? That's like me saying that fossil fuels will be economically infeasible when fusion technology is available.
The assumption that 28% of people will take public transport is wrong. When there is bad weather, more people take their car. When there are events, more people from outside the company visit the campus. So the number varies a lot and then unless you've catered for the worst case, you run out of parking spots.
The assumption is that 28% of their employees will take public transportation. Where does that number come from? I would assume it's because that's what their employees do now.
"Currently, the main Apple campus has a 28 percent transportation demand management rate, which means that 28 percent of employees at that campus use an alternate mode of transportation, other than a single-occupancy vehicle,"
America was on track to increase production to the level of consumption, but the dramatic fall in prices put many frackers out of business. There is plenty of idle capacity, and if prices go back up, we can have a lot of active wells in six months or less. American frackers have become the world's swing producers.
Considering at no time when the price of oil was high that production was anywhere near meeting more than half of consumption, that's a stretch to say. I have friends who work in the oil industry. The difference when prices are high and prices are low is that at high prices they will tap sources that were considered to expensive to use. For example, the Canadian tar sands, extremely heavy sour crude, etc. But there's not a lot of unused potential sitting out there just sitting because of no reason. The reason is mostly that the cost extracting/refining the source is not economically viable until prices are higher.
But there will always be some imports, because oil is not fungible. Sweet crude is great for gasoline, but Venezuelan heavy crude is much cheaper and good enough for asphalt, heating oil, and bunker fuel.
Well that's not how it works. Every oil company would love to have light sweet crude but that's not realistic. At times all they have is heavy, sour crude. So it will cost more to refine Venezuelan heavy into gasoline but if that's all you have, it's what is used.
The Green River Formation contains the largest oil shale deposit in the world. It has been estimated that the oil shale reserves could be equal up to 3 trillion barrels (480 billion cubic metres) of shale oil, up to half of which may be recoverable by shale oil extraction technologies (pyrolysis, hydrogenation, or thermal dissolution of kerogen in oil shale). However, the estimates of recoverable oil has been questioned by geophysicist Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, who argues that the technology for recovering oil from the Green River oil shale deposit has not been developed and has not been profitably implemented at any significant scale.
I was referring to "the Earth will not be habitable to humans or most life so I don't see that being a problem". If some of the hysteria was to be believed, we're all gonna drown then fry by next year as the ice caps melt and the temps rise.
The Earth will not habitable in a few billion years due to the life-cycle of the sun. That's not the same as the Earth will not be habitable in a few hundred years due to humans changing the environment. You don't see a distinction between the two?
Nothing can be done, too late to fix it. Putting something like this off to 2040 means you don't *really* care about saving the planet, right?
In the sun scenario, nothing can be done except for changing the sun which is very much beyond current capabilities to change the nuclear reactions within a star. In terms of global warming, polluting significantly less is what has been proposed. These are not the same. That's a false equivalence.
Besides there isn't any definitive word that this factory would make displays for Apple. Foxconn is an Apple supplier but they manufacture for many companies. The displays could be manufactured for LG or Samsung.
Well considering that Trump hasn't held Ford or Carrier to their promises, I doubt it. It's a soundbite when Trump originally announces new jobs. Following through has not been a strong point for the administration on this issue.
For all we know, these 110 had the most severe neurological issues (hence why they were donated by the family).
And what is your evidence behind your assertion that 110 had severe neurological issues? The research seems to suggest otherwise:
"Informants reported that 43% of participants had behavior or mood symptoms as their initial presentation. . . Although the criteria for participation were based on exposure to repetitive head trauma rather than on clinical signs of brain trauma, public awareness of a possible link between repetitive head trauma and CTE may have motivated players and their families with symptoms and signs of brain injury to participate in this research."
Remember, thousands of people have played pro football over the last few decades. Taking a truly random sample of another 110 football players might only show a 5% rate.
Again show evidence of your assertion. By the way the number is not 110 of all football players. The number is 110 of 111 NFL players. Out of all football players here are the breakdowns:
0 of 2 pre–high school
3 of 14 high school (21%)
48 of 53 college (91%)
9 of 14 semiprofessional (64%)
7 of 8 Canadian Football League (88%)
110 or 111 NFL players
Then you would need to take another sample of non-football players to see if there is any significant difference before you could show a 'definite link'.
That was acknowledged by the study that there is no comparative study; however, an average person would not be motivated to donate their body for CTE research. However researchers could look at brains donated in the past not associated with this study and see if they can determine rates. That would require the brain being donated and properly prepared etc.
If there are shortage in US produced oil it will be because.gov wants it that way. The surplus that developed during the Obama years was despite his actions, which delayed or effectively stopped development of oil resources on public lands. The growth was nearly all private development on state and private lands.
Bahahahaha. What surplus? During the early Obama years, there was more oil produced and consumed because the price of oil was higher. This was due to OPEC reducing the supply of oil to try to control the market. This increased the price of oil to where sources of fossil fuels like the Canadian tar sands, fracking, etc was profitable worth pursuing. Then some members of OPEC refused to abide and countries like Saudi Arabia releasing a large supply of oil to punish other members.
Want a shortage? Get an administration or an overzealous EPA to prevent private and state level development.
What is the US capacity of oil and what is the US consumption of oil? The US uses way more oil that it has. Estimates of the US Strategic Reserves is 2-5 years of oil.
Considering that the US is currently pumping more oil than it can use, and is actively selling it on the foreign market...I seriously doubt what you say would happen in my lifetime.
Refinery capacity is slightly different because the US can refine more than 10M bbl/day but (and this is distinction), not all of that oil is US oil. For example, one reason for the Keystone Pipeline was so that oil from Canada could be transported cheaper than by rail or truck through the US. It goes to Houston where it is refined then shipped overseas. So in essence, the pipeline was never about getting more gasoline or oil products for the US. It was about the US subsidizing Canadian oil costs for the worldwide market.
If the foreign market dried up, we'd stop selling our excess and enjoy it for many, many years to come.
There is no excess. You've not been told the truth.
Car makers stay profitable by making the same car and selling it around the world (with a few planned modifications, such was flipping the steering wheel, and maybe a renaming). It keeps supply chains simple and amortizes design costs
While car makers manufacture the same model for different markets (normally in the same region), no maker makes the same car and sells it around the world. There are a number of differences between countries that simple modifications will not be sufficient. At best the cars might look similar but have different interior, engine, features, etc.
In terms of supply chains, most manufacturers tend to assemble cars closer to their markets (or in their markets) for logistical,economic, and tax reasons. For example, Fords made in Mexico are generally sold in Mexico, Central and South America. These Fords are not sold in the US or Canada.
GM isn't going to make an electric cars for other markets, and then have a special gas car for the UK; they'll just stop making gas cars.
Depends on how many cars GM would tolerate not selling and how the economics play out. They'll consolidate production like any good manufacturer if it is worth it. For example station wagons are not a big seller in the US. Some companies like Acura (Honda) makes them in factories in Japan and will ship a few to the US because they have enough customers to do so.
That also means increased dependence on foreign oil. The US does not have enough oil for long term. That means the US will be dependent on other countries for oil.
This issue is one of many. As for healthcare I would not consider 22 million Americans who would lose healthcare as a large enough proportion of the population as bullying.
Well by the time the sun runs out many billion years from now, the Earth will not be habitable to humans or most life so I don't see that being a problem. By the time the sun become a red giant in about 5 billion years, the oceans will have boiled away by then.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes but not as many as when iPod was popular. If you need a small media player, these were ideal.
But Apple is still going to have to pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Er what? No one from Apple is coming to your house to destroy your nano. Apple is simply not making or selling any new ones on their website. You can still get one at other retailers like BestBuy, Target, Walmart, Newegg, Amazon, eBay, etc.
Considering that the Canadian tar stands require oil at least $70/barrel to be viable, I can't see how you can say it was "easier and cheaper" to extract than shale oil at $30/barrel. And during the height of oil prices, the tar sands were being used. But this shale oil reservoir was not. That kinda destroys your argument doesn't it?
What the CBO actually said was that 22 million Americans would not be forced to purchase a service that they did not want and have no use for.
All you are doing is spinning. What a bunch of crock. If I am buying a service I have no use for, then what is the point? If I buy a car insurance policy I have no use for, then do I have car insurance? The number is actually higher than 22 million because the CBO also estimated that millions would likely die because they were no longer covered and died as a result.
If it can be done for $30/barrel, why wasn't it done? When crude oil was $100/barrel why wasn't it done? You can't really answer that can you? The fact of the matter since it wasn't done, it is probably a safe bet he was right.
If something has not been developed yet, how can you include it in the realm of possibility? That's like me saying that fossil fuels will be economically infeasible when fusion technology is available.
The assumption that 28% of people will take public transport is wrong. When there is bad weather, more people take their car. When there are events, more people from outside the company visit the campus. So the number varies a lot and then unless you've catered for the worst case, you run out of parking spots.
The assumption is that 28% of their employees will take public transportation. Where does that number come from? I would assume it's because that's what their employees do now. "Currently, the main Apple campus has a 28 percent transportation demand management rate, which means that 28 percent of employees at that campus use an alternate mode of transportation, other than a single-occupancy vehicle,"
That will be a few years on doing nothing particularly productive. :P
What do you think is wrong about it?
America was on track to increase production to the level of consumption, but the dramatic fall in prices put many frackers out of business. There is plenty of idle capacity, and if prices go back up, we can have a lot of active wells in six months or less. American frackers have become the world's swing producers.
Considering at no time when the price of oil was high that production was anywhere near meeting more than half of consumption, that's a stretch to say. I have friends who work in the oil industry. The difference when prices are high and prices are low is that at high prices they will tap sources that were considered to expensive to use. For example, the Canadian tar sands, extremely heavy sour crude, etc. But there's not a lot of unused potential sitting out there just sitting because of no reason. The reason is mostly that the cost extracting/refining the source is not economically viable until prices are higher.
But there will always be some imports, because oil is not fungible. Sweet crude is great for gasoline, but Venezuelan heavy crude is much cheaper and good enough for asphalt, heating oil, and bunker fuel.
Well that's not how it works. Every oil company would love to have light sweet crude but that's not realistic. At times all they have is heavy, sour crude. So it will cost more to refine Venezuelan heavy into gasoline but if that's all you have, it's what is used.
The Green River Formation contains the largest oil shale deposit in the world. It has been estimated that the oil shale reserves could be equal up to 3 trillion barrels (480 billion cubic metres) of shale oil, up to half of which may be recoverable by shale oil extraction technologies (pyrolysis, hydrogenation, or thermal dissolution of kerogen in oil shale). However, the estimates of recoverable oil has been questioned by geophysicist Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, who argues that the technology for recovering oil from the Green River oil shale deposit has not been developed and has not been profitably implemented at any significant scale.
I was referring to "the Earth will not be habitable to humans or most life so I don't see that being a problem". If some of the hysteria was to be believed, we're all gonna drown then fry by next year as the ice caps melt and the temps rise.
The Earth will not habitable in a few billion years due to the life-cycle of the sun. That's not the same as the Earth will not be habitable in a few hundred years due to humans changing the environment. You don't see a distinction between the two?
Nothing can be done, too late to fix it. Putting something like this off to 2040 means you don't *really* care about saving the planet, right?
In the sun scenario, nothing can be done except for changing the sun which is very much beyond current capabilities to change the nuclear reactions within a star. In terms of global warming, polluting significantly less is what has been proposed. These are not the same. That's a false equivalence.
No the tipping point of irreversible damage due to global warming was 2018 not the oceans boiling away due to the sun.
Besides there isn't any definitive word that this factory would make displays for Apple. Foxconn is an Apple supplier but they manufacture for many companies. The displays could be manufactured for LG or Samsung.
Well considering that Trump hasn't held Ford or Carrier to their promises, I doubt it. It's a soundbite when Trump originally announces new jobs. Following through has not been a strong point for the administration on this issue.
But do you acknowledge that Dell uses the same "slave labor" that you accuse of Apple of using?
My bad but there still is a rather large deficit.
For all we know, these 110 had the most severe neurological issues (hence why they were donated by the family).
And what is your evidence behind your assertion that 110 had severe neurological issues? The research seems to suggest otherwise: "Informants reported that 43% of participants had behavior or mood symptoms as their initial presentation. . . Although the criteria for participation were based on exposure to repetitive head trauma rather than on clinical signs of brain trauma, public awareness of a possible link between repetitive head trauma and CTE may have motivated players and their families with symptoms and signs of brain injury to participate in this research."
Remember, thousands of people have played pro football over the last few decades. Taking a truly random sample of another 110 football players might only show a 5% rate.
Again show evidence of your assertion. By the way the number is not 110 of all football players. The number is 110 of 111 NFL players. Out of all football players here are the breakdowns:
0 of 2 pre–high school
3 of 14 high school (21%)
48 of 53 college (91%)
9 of 14 semiprofessional (64%)
7 of 8 Canadian Football League (88%)
110 or 111 NFL players
Then you would need to take another sample of non-football players to see if there is any significant difference before you could show a 'definite link'.
That was acknowledged by the study that there is no comparative study; however, an average person would not be motivated to donate their body for CTE research. However researchers could look at brains donated in the past not associated with this study and see if they can determine rates. That would require the brain being donated and properly prepared etc.
The link is from the EIA. Dispute the numbers with them.
If there are shortage in US produced oil it will be because .gov wants it that way. The surplus that developed during the Obama years was despite his actions, which delayed or effectively stopped development of oil resources on public lands. The growth was nearly all private development on state and private lands.
Bahahahaha. What surplus? During the early Obama years, there was more oil produced and consumed because the price of oil was higher. This was due to OPEC reducing the supply of oil to try to control the market. This increased the price of oil to where sources of fossil fuels like the Canadian tar sands, fracking, etc was profitable worth pursuing. Then some members of OPEC refused to abide and countries like Saudi Arabia releasing a large supply of oil to punish other members.
Want a shortage? Get an administration or an overzealous EPA to prevent private and state level development.
What is the US capacity of oil and what is the US consumption of oil? The US uses way more oil that it has. Estimates of the US Strategic Reserves is 2-5 years of oil.
Considering that the US is currently pumping more oil than it can use, and is actively selling it on the foreign market...I seriously doubt what you say would happen in my lifetime.
Er what? Where do you get your figures? Right now the US is extracting less than 10M barrels of oil per week (1.4M bbl/day). Current US oil consumption is almost 20 million barrels per day. That's a difference 18M bbl/day.
Refinery capacity is slightly different because the US can refine more than 10M bbl/day but (and this is distinction), not all of that oil is US oil. For example, one reason for the Keystone Pipeline was so that oil from Canada could be transported cheaper than by rail or truck through the US. It goes to Houston where it is refined then shipped overseas. So in essence, the pipeline was never about getting more gasoline or oil products for the US. It was about the US subsidizing Canadian oil costs for the worldwide market.
If the foreign market dried up, we'd stop selling our excess and enjoy it for many, many years to come.
There is no excess. You've not been told the truth.
Car makers stay profitable by making the same car and selling it around the world (with a few planned modifications, such was flipping the steering wheel, and maybe a renaming). It keeps supply chains simple and amortizes design costs
While car makers manufacture the same model for different markets (normally in the same region), no maker makes the same car and sells it around the world. There are a number of differences between countries that simple modifications will not be sufficient. At best the cars might look similar but have different interior, engine, features, etc.
In terms of supply chains, most manufacturers tend to assemble cars closer to their markets (or in their markets) for logistical,economic, and tax reasons. For example, Fords made in Mexico are generally sold in Mexico, Central and South America. These Fords are not sold in the US or Canada.
GM isn't going to make an electric cars for other markets, and then have a special gas car for the UK; they'll just stop making gas cars.
Depends on how many cars GM would tolerate not selling and how the economics play out. They'll consolidate production like any good manufacturer if it is worth it. For example station wagons are not a big seller in the US. Some companies like Acura (Honda) makes them in factories in Japan and will ship a few to the US because they have enough customers to do so.
That also means increased dependence on foreign oil. The US does not have enough oil for long term. That means the US will be dependent on other countries for oil.
This issue is one of many. As for healthcare I would not consider 22 million Americans who would lose healthcare as a large enough proportion of the population as bullying.
Well by the time the sun runs out many billion years from now, the Earth will not be habitable to humans or most life so I don't see that being a problem. By the time the sun become a red giant in about 5 billion years, the oceans will have boiled away by then.