You're right, although we're not going to "run out" of oil any time soon. The problem is the phrase from the title: peak oil. That is, oil production will peak and then decline as demand (and population) increases. Oil will still be produced but it will be less every year.
Those who think peak oil is not going to be a big factor in 2020 are fooling themselves. Although it's true that estimates of the URR (ultimately recoverable reserve) vary, it is extremely difficult to plot a production curve that doesn't peak later than the 2020s. This is using the extremely optimistic USGS estimates of the URR. Many geologists believe that almost all of the world's oil has already been found.
I recommend you read this paper from the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre for an explanation of why IEA projections are unrealistic.
BTW, Canadian oil sands are not expected to account for more than a few million barrels of oil a day at their peak production. This amount is not enough to make up for the shortfall from depletion.
At any rate, the world of 2020 will likely be a post-peak world, with all the geopolitical implications of this event.
I agree that this is a serious problem with Libertarianism -- it is wrong for the state to allow citizens to fall below a minimum standard of living (nutrition, housing, basic health care). Of course, we allow that to happen already.
In addition, some use of government money for the public good (i.e. some form of public education) seems to be almost universally agreed to be a good thing. Very few (except Libertarians) who oppose waste in public education actually support its abolition.
Nonetheless, I wonder if some Libertarian influence on the way government spends money might increase its efficiency, even if we didn't adopt the ideology hook, line, and sinker.
I'm curious to know how a Libertarian would deal with the fact that some ubiquitous resources are by definition public, i.e. the air and water.
If I own property where the air is being polluted by a nearby factory, isn't the factory owner infringing upon my property rights? How do Libertarians propose to deal with the fact that someone's actions (ostensibly on "their own" property, if the factory is own their own land) affects everyone else's air?
The same argument can be used about water. How do Libertarians propose to stop landowners from polluting or diverting rivers that go through "their own" property?
To address an issue closer to Slashdotters' hearts, what about the airwaves? How would Libertarians divide the electromagnetic spectrum for broadcast?
Some resources are not neatly divided like land. In the case of air and water, one's actions affect other people, even when those actions are taken, "on one's own property." Unless Libertarianism addresses this issue somehow, I see it as an essential contradiction of the ideology.
No, Linux should be for newbies, too. Perhaps the term "newbies" should be seen as relative here. Although I don't expect a lot of first-time computer users trying Linux any time soon, it should be easier for people to transition from Macs or Windows to Linux.
Linux should be an easier alternative for, say, Mac users who want faster hardware but don't want to pay 2 grand *or* the Windows tax.
I'm not sure that should matter. If what he's saying is true for a lot of common hardware and most distros (and not just an anomaly), this kind of investigation is actually a helpful wake-up call to the Linux community. Regardless of the writer's bias, we should be thanking him. Actually, the usability studies they're planning to do over at Groklaw (certainly not anti-Linux by any stretch) should shed more light on this.
Yes, if Linux is going to be the OS for newbies. Yes, if Linux is going to be the OS for the desktop. The users won't care *why* it doesn't work, just *that* it doesn't work.
The real advantage of an analog watch is that it correlates time with space, representing an aspect of time that digital watches overlook. It communicates the dimensionality of time.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, although we're not going to "run out" of oil any time soon. The problem is the phrase from the title: peak oil. That is, oil production will peak and then decline as demand (and population) increases. Oil will still be produced but it will be less every year.
Those who think peak oil is not going to be a big factor in 2020 are fooling themselves. Although it's true that estimates of the URR (ultimately recoverable reserve) vary, it is extremely difficult to plot a production curve that doesn't peak later than the 2020s. This is using the extremely optimistic USGS estimates of the URR. Many geologists believe that almost all of the world's oil has already been found.
I recommend you read this paper from the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre for an explanation of why IEA projections are unrealistic.
http://www.odac-info.org/assessments/documents/IEA projectionsdisputed.pdf
BTW, Canadian oil sands are not expected to account for more than a few million barrels of oil a day at their peak production. This amount is not enough to make up for the shortfall from depletion.
At any rate, the world of 2020 will likely be a post-peak world, with all the geopolitical implications of this event.
I agree that this is a serious problem with Libertarianism -- it is wrong for the state to allow citizens to fall below a minimum standard of living (nutrition, housing, basic health care). Of course, we allow that to happen already.
In addition, some use of government money for the public good (i.e. some form of public education) seems to be almost universally agreed to be a good thing. Very few (except Libertarians) who oppose waste in public education actually support its abolition.
Nonetheless, I wonder if some Libertarian influence on the way government spends money might increase its efficiency, even if we didn't adopt the ideology hook, line, and sinker.
I'm curious to know how a Libertarian would deal with the fact that some ubiquitous resources are by definition public, i.e. the air and water.
If I own property where the air is being polluted by a nearby factory, isn't the factory owner infringing upon my property rights? How do Libertarians propose to deal with the fact that someone's actions (ostensibly on "their own" property, if the factory is own their own land) affects everyone else's air?
The same argument can be used about water. How do Libertarians propose to stop landowners from polluting or diverting rivers that go through "their own" property?
To address an issue closer to Slashdotters' hearts, what about the airwaves? How would Libertarians divide the electromagnetic spectrum for broadcast?
Some resources are not neatly divided like land. In the case of air and water, one's actions affect other people, even when those actions are taken, "on one's own property." Unless Libertarianism addresses this issue somehow, I see it as an essential contradiction of the ideology.
No, Linux should be for newbies, too. Perhaps the term "newbies" should be seen as relative here. Although I don't expect a lot of first-time computer users trying Linux any time soon, it should be easier for people to transition from Macs or Windows to Linux. Linux should be an easier alternative for, say, Mac users who want faster hardware but don't want to pay 2 grand *or* the Windows tax.
I'm not sure that should matter. If what he's saying is true for a lot of common hardware and most distros (and not just an anomaly), this kind of investigation is actually a helpful wake-up call to the Linux community. Regardless of the writer's bias, we should be thanking him. Actually, the usability studies they're planning to do over at Groklaw (certainly not anti-Linux by any stretch) should shed more light on this.
Yes, if Linux is going to be the OS for newbies. Yes, if Linux is going to be the OS for the desktop. The users won't care *why* it doesn't work, just *that* it doesn't work.
The real advantage of an analog watch is that it correlates time with space, representing an aspect of time that digital watches overlook. It communicates the dimensionality of time.