Even my 60 year old mother, who buys about 12 CD's in a year, made a comment to me about how the cost of making CD's goes down, but the cost to consumers does not
That's because your grandmother isn't buying plastic discs. She's buying content. The CD is simply the device by which it is delivered, and is only one part of the 'cost' of the product. This is no arguement for proof of price fixing (If so we could sue each and every book publisher for not adjusting the price of a book every time the price of paper changes).
As if ANY software licence (GPL included) allows you to sue the maker. MS, Oracle, Lotus/IBM, Sun, etc all license their software such that they are absolved if anything goes wrong.
Honest question here, when was the last time anyone's been sued for COTS software defects? I can't recall any.
WVU has had the PRT for a donkey's age. Sure it doesn't float, but it got my drunken ass around campus, to and from football games, and out to tutor engineers with ease.
Truly neat stuff.
Of course, getting stuck on one packed with students on a hot day sucked, but that's what deodorant is for anyway...
I'd prefer a solid state player for its better performance under duress (during exercise) and cheap media.
Well, I agree about the performance under duress, but the media sure ain't cheap (but its coming down). For a damn good cheap/durable ratio my money still goes with...
<MiniDisc Plug>
the minidisc.
</MiniDisc Plug>
I'm drooling over an iPod (and am about to buckle under and buy one) but for sheer "beat the crap out of it" ability along with cheap media and player you can't beat the minidisc.
Don't get me wrong, I'll dance the dance of the contented geek when solid state media prices drop to the point where 80 minutes of near CD quality costs a couple of buck, but that's still a few years away I think. Until then I'll keep abusing the hell out of my MD systems.
I'm running on a Sony laptop so that may be the cause of the problems. Most hangs take place when I'm putting a bit of a load on the box (6 or 7 IE windows open, various Office apps and the odd background task or two... and at least one of the IE windows running flash or something). Sometimes IE just hangs, but I have had the box lock up pretty tight as well. I haven't been able to figure it out, but like I said for the most part its a hell of a lot better than NT (which I used to have to develop on... ick) and I've been pretty impressed with its stability.
I'm pulling this out of my butt (er... long term memory) so I may be getting part of this wrong, but I remember seeing a history of the publishing industry where they tried to do this very thing. I believe it was around the turn of the last century. Book publishers were trying to make books "licensed", thus keep them from being re-sold (or I assume checked out from a library) without the publisher's consent. I can't remember why it failed (could have been taken to court, or could have been a public relations nightmare), but it did.
Another poster has links to court cases upholding the doctorine of first sale. I'd expect the music industry to achieve the same amount of success as book publishers a hundred years ago.
True enough. Win2K is the most tolerable version of Windows I've ever used. But its still damn annoying when IE goes down and makes the box unstable. Granted, it doesn't happen *that* often, but often enough to get on my nerves. Plus, hibernate and my Sony laptop do not play nicely either. About 10% of the time it requires a reboot.
Having said all that I still think if you have to use Windows then 2K is the way to go. Its head and shoulders above NT, and not as bloaty and moronic as XP.
Now if I could just convince the guys I work for to use iBooks....
Jesus christ on a crutch. You are quite possibly the stupidest person I've ever had the pleasure of not meeting.
First off, reread the parent post of the one you just sent. I pointed that very quote out! Is your reading comprehension that bad? Is English your third language, or did you ride the short yellow bus when you were in school?
So lets review dipshit.
I ask again... since when does
Why, because it shows that petroleum engineers are taught that the origins of petroleum aren't known?
I mean, seriously, do you have no clue whatsoever how those two sentences are not the same????
Somewhere there's a village yearning for an idiot of your stature to trundle along. Did your dad sniff a little too much FCCU catalyst during his Mobil days, or did he just beat the crap out of your mom when she was pregnant with you? If I didn't know better I'd say they'd finally taught that gorilla Coco to use a keyboard, but I've seen her on the Discovery Channel and she has more basic comprehension skills than you seem to possess.
So please, one last time you mongoloid hump, point out the post where I said "You indeed said that engineers are being taught that we know nothing about oil"! Or for that matter data to back anything else you've said up (beyond my daddy told me, of course).
What a moron. What you said is a matter of public record. Hit the parent button a few times go re-read what you wrote. You indeed said that engineers are being taught that we know nothing about oil. Don't you read your own posts?
I sure do. I'm starting to wonder if you do though. Here's the first quote:
And as for knowing a shitload (isn't that a "weasel" word), when did I imply that we didn't know a lot about petroleum? What I did say was there was still a lot we don't know, including how it was created. There are theories, but the book isn't closed on those issues (damn that scientific method, coming up with discoveries that don't fit the established model... how inconsiderate).
Even petroleum engineering classes will tell you "Caution: specific models of the origin of fossil fuels should not be taken as absolutely established. [washington.edu]" Silly academics, what do they know?
And here's the second:
Why, because it shows that petroleum engineers are taught that the origins of petroleum aren't known?
Neither of which say "You indeed said that engineers are being taught that we know nothing about oil."
So please, point me to where I said "engineers are being taught that we know nothing about oil." It shouldn't be that hard. Just keep whacking that Parent link. I await your reply with baited breath. (I look forward to your bad spelling and insults)
Go back and re-read the original document. Now tell me where it proves that "engineers are taught that the origins of petroleum aren't known?".
"Caution: specific models of the origin of fossil fuels should not be taken as absolutely established."
i.e. We're not 100% sure. I think that does it pretty well.
Oh one more tip for you. Don't point to some obscure document written in 1996 to re-enforce an obscure document written in 1997 especially if your argument is that we...
a) Don't know anything about the origins of oil.
Of course, what I said nothing of the kind. What I did say was:
"The fact is there's still a lot *not* known about petroleum (how its made, how to find it, how to extract it), even by the experts. "
and
"The fact is we don't know *exactly* how petroleum came to be."
But hey, don't let that get in the way of your tirade...
b) Engieers are taught in schools that we don't know where oil comes from.
which is your take on:
"There are theories, but the book isn't closed on those issues. Even petroleum engineering classes will tell you "Caution: specific models of the origin of fossil fuels should not be taken as absolutely established. "
c) We don't know a whole lot about the origins of oil.
d) There is a lot we don't know about where oil comes from (as if that was even provable).
Well, at least that's a little closer to what I was saying...
BTW. My father worked for Mobil Oil all his life as a chemical engineer (he is now retired). Through him I have met countless engineers and scientists in the oil industry and not one of them would claim that we don't know how oil is made or that we don't know a lot about how oil gets made. The percentage of uncertainty is probably less then 5%. Go ask them yourself.
I have. I actually work with reservoir guys from the majors, and this is a topic I've asked about quite a bit: from questions about Thomas Gold (some think he's a bit mad, some think he may be on to something but more work needs to be done) to reservoirs refilling themselves (most are stumped on that one although they all have their own pet ideas about could be causing it) to why reservoir definition is still one of the riskiest (in terms of project economics) bits of an upstream capital project (*). Almost every one of them to a T will, when asked such controversial things will say "well, there's still a lot we just don't know for sure." But maybe I've just been unlucky enough to know the %5 of dumbshits that you talk about.
So pick an argument from the above and then find some recent knowledge to back it up. Otherwise you are just another dumb idiological fuck who is unable to process information which goes against your beliefs.
What! My beliefs that there's a fair amount of uncertainty out there in the world of petroleum? Which, by the way, has been the only thing I've been arguing about from post one. You seem to be the one with the dogmatic hang up (you can tell by the high insult to data ratio). I'm sorry, but we do not know everything thing there is to know about petroleum. Work in the industry (especially around some reservoir guys) for more than 5 minutes and you'd realize this.
(*) The answer to which is because its god damn hard to define a reservoir. I have seen project blow millions by putting rigs out on land where very smart men with very powerful computers said there would be lots and lots of petroleum and low and behold only to drill some production wells and find that they're sitting on squat. Conversly I've also seen a lot of money made when the reservoir guys got it wrong in the other direction and discovered after the fact they were sitting on a hell of a lot more oil than the previously thought. Of course why these well paid, very educated resevoir guys still have a hard time finding and defining a reservoir when, at least according to you, we know everything there is to know about petroleum I'll leave for you to answer.
So you do or do not believe that the worlds oil supply is infinite (inexhaustible)?
Of course not. The earth is a finite object. The headline of the editorial was pretty stupid (a better one would have been "There may be a shit load more oil there than we ever thought"). But the meat of the actual article was spot on. No one is sure how large the pool of oil is; those claiming that its a dead cert that its going bust in 30-40 years don't know either. People (most notibly the oil industry itself) have been claiming we're nearing the end of oil supply for neigh on 100 years now, and it hasn't happened. And part of the reason is no one's quite sure how petroleum comes to be. The popular belief for a while was it was a byproduct of decayed organic matter (hence "fossil fuel"). When looked at it through that lens it made sense to think that there wasn't all that much of it lying around. The problem is, of course, that there is mounting evidence that oil doesn't come from decayed orgaic material and there might be a hell of a lot more of it than originally thought. Of course, that doesn't stop folks from using increasingly shaky science to push their own agenda.
you have a horrible concept of even the basics of math
Well, there goes my degree...
the researchers who believe the the world oil suppy is inexhaustable are pretty damn stupid...
and there go the people I work with... (well, they don't think its inexhaustable, but they do know that there's not definitive answer yet to how petroleum came to be, how much of it there actually is, etc... funny people those petroleum engineers / geologists).
"when did I imply that we didn't know a lot about petroleum? "
Mmmm let's see perhaps when you said "The fact is there's still a lot *not* known about petroleum (how its made, how to find it, how to extract it), even by the experts."
Holy lack of logic Batman! Since when does "There is a lot not known" = "We don't know a lot"?
Oh yea one more thing your link is just about useless. Class notes from a 1997 lecture? Give me a break.
Why, because it shows that petroleum engineers are taught that the origins of petroleum aren't known? Then this guy must be full of it as well.
... unless you are a complete moron, you obviously believe in a statement that you are backing up...
*BZZZZ* Wrong. Thank you for playing. What I was pointing out was that its not a scientific certainty that oil will dry up in 30-40 years. Some researchers (who must "be shot because they have no scientific knowledge" disagree with the current theories about the origins of petroleum. The Detroit News' logically shaky headline does not an arguement make.
Amazing how dogma effects someone's skills in logic.
Again this is a silly statement. Not knowing EXACTLY how it came to be is not the same as not knowing ANYTHING about it. The fact is we know a shitload but not everything.
Hmmm... lets look at all the parent posts to see where I said "we don't know ANYTHING about oil"...
But no "We don't know ANYTHING about it." So "weazel" [sic] words are bad, but outright fabrication is ok?
And as for knowing a shitload (isn't that a "weasel" word), when did I imply that we didn't know a lot about petroleum? What I did say was there was still a lot we don't know, including how it was created. There are theories, but the book isn't closed on those issues (damn that scientific method, coming up with discoveries that don't fit the established model... how inconsiderate). Even petroleum engineering classes will tell you "Caution: specific models of the origin of fossil fuels should not be taken as absolutely established." Silly academics, what do they know?
You seem to claim that we know nothing about oil or that we knoe very little about oil. Of course that's nonsense.... but to claim that we do know how oil gets made is just silly.
Really? From the detroit press article:
With growing improvements in technology that are making possible oil drilling at greater and greater depths, it may soon be economically feasible to explore and produce oil from these deep deposits.
The existence of oil much farther below the surface than it was previously thought to exist raises new questions about the origins of oil and natural gas.
Not to mention that there are reservoirs that seem to be filling themselves up show that we are pretty piss poor at defining reservoirs, or that there are other feeder reservoirs that we just don't know about. The fact is we don't know *exactly* how petroleum came to be.
And you expect this trend to continue forever? Unless you think there is a cornucopia down there somewhere continuously pouring out hydrocarbons, you must realize the supply of fossil fuels is finite.
The supply of iron, silicon, and carbon are also finite on this planet. Does that mean we should looking for ways for Intel/AMD/Moto to save silicon?
I'm not against conservation. What I do have a problem with is people taking as gospel truth that oil is running out soon. The fact is there's still a lot *not* known about petroleum (how its made, how to find it, how to extract it), even by the experts.
The most sober meditation I've seen on this was a Scientific American article archived at dieoff.com called The End of Cheap Oil.
Again, simply due to a lack of a full understanding of petroleum these economic studies also have a huge belt of uncertainty around them. They tend to look at the situation as it exists at the time of the study and assume that nothing is going to change. In the 70s the Oil bosses loved to bet among themselves on when the price of oil would hit $100 a barrel. It never happened and these guys had the best data with which to make predictions.
Of course some researchers estimate that in 30-40 years we won't have much of a choice.
And others tend to disagree. Ever since the oil industry has come into existance there has been dire predictions of oil running out "real soon now," none of which have come true. Most estimates come from provable, recoverable reserves which are not static. New discoveries are made, as are new, cheaper methods to extract oil that was previously thought to be uneconomical.
I'd wager that we'll still be swimming in oil in 30-40 years.
I've never tried the full Moz on OSX, but Chimera 0.2.7 gets about 50% usage on my box. Its lite and fairly quick (well, quick for an OSX based browser). The feature set is a little light but I'm sure that's being worked on, and I see a little less flakiness than IE (which I use about 45% of the time and I think is a pretty good browser).
OmniWeb is damn pretty and my third browser of choice, but man it seems to be one hell of a pig. It eats up cycles like there's no tomorrow. Granted I haven't pulled down the latest beta so it may have gotten better.
Except not everyone ones some all-in-one privacy intruding box from MS.
I'll go you one further: hardly anyone wants these type of boxes.
Remember, Sony had the same vision for the PS2, which has been pushed back for the PS3. Plus, when it comes to a smart cable boxs you have do deal with cable companies, not the end users.
How many people use thier Xbox as their only DVD player, CD player, MP3 player, etc? I'd wager not many (and those that do are cheap ass college students.. I know I would).
Slashdot Mirror
Even my 60 year old mother, who buys about 12 CD's in a year, made a comment to me about how the cost of making CD's goes down, but the cost to consumers does not
That's because your grandmother isn't buying plastic discs. She's buying content. The CD is simply the device by which it is delivered, and is only one part of the 'cost' of the product. This is no arguement for proof of price fixing (If so we could sue each and every book publisher for not adjusting the price of a book every time the price of paper changes).
Last I looked, the Linux version of Microsoft Office didn't exist. When given the choice between "cake or death", most everyone will choose the cake.
Except for Hitler. Remember, he took the vegitarian (that Nazi shithead).
My other favorite is "Who are you going to sue?"
As if ANY software licence (GPL included) allows you to sue the maker. MS, Oracle, Lotus/IBM, Sun, etc all license their software such that they are absolved if anything goes wrong.
Honest question here, when was the last time anyone's been sued for COTS software defects? I can't recall any.
WVU has had the PRT for a donkey's age. Sure it doesn't float, but it got my drunken ass around campus, to and from football games, and out to tutor engineers with ease.
Truly neat stuff.
Of course, getting stuck on one packed with students on a hot day sucked, but that's what deodorant is for anyway...
I'd prefer a solid state player for its better performance under duress (during exercise) and cheap media.
Well, I agree about the performance under duress, but the media sure ain't cheap (but its coming down). For a damn good cheap/durable ratio my money still goes with...
<MiniDisc Plug>
the minidisc.
</MiniDisc Plug>
I'm drooling over an iPod (and am about to buckle under and buy one) but for sheer "beat the crap out of it" ability along with cheap media and player you can't beat the minidisc.
Don't get me wrong, I'll dance the dance of the contented geek when solid state media prices drop to the point where 80 minutes of near CD quality costs a couple of buck, but that's still a few years away I think. Until then I'll keep abusing the hell out of my MD systems.
I'm running on a Sony laptop so that may be the cause of the problems. Most hangs take place when I'm putting a bit of a load on the box (6 or 7 IE windows open, various Office apps and the odd background task or two... and at least one of the IE windows running flash or something). Sometimes IE just hangs, but I have had the box lock up pretty tight as well. I haven't been able to figure it out, but like I said for the most part its a hell of a lot better than NT (which I used to have to develop on... ick) and I've been pretty impressed with its stability.
I'm pulling this out of my butt (er... long term memory) so I may be getting part of this wrong, but I remember seeing a history of the publishing industry where they tried to do this very thing. I believe it was around the turn of the last century. Book publishers were trying to make books "licensed", thus keep them from being re-sold (or I assume checked out from a library) without the publisher's consent. I can't remember why it failed (could have been taken to court, or could have been a public relations nightmare), but it did.
Another poster has links to court cases upholding the doctorine of first sale. I'd expect the music industry to achieve the same amount of success as book publishers a hundred years ago.
True enough. Win2K is the most tolerable version of Windows I've ever used. But its still damn annoying when IE goes down and makes the box unstable. Granted, it doesn't happen *that* often, but often enough to get on my nerves. Plus, hibernate and my Sony laptop do not play nicely either. About 10% of the time it requires a reboot.
Having said all that I still think if you have to use Windows then 2K is the way to go. Its head and shoulders above NT, and not as bloaty and moronic as XP.
Now if I could just convince the guys I work for to use iBooks....
Jesus christ on a crutch. You are quite possibly the stupidest person I've ever had the pleasure of not meeting.
First off, reread the parent post of the one you just sent. I pointed that very quote out! Is your reading comprehension that bad? Is English your third language, or did you ride the short yellow bus when you were in school?
So lets review dipshit.
I ask again... since when does
equal
I mean, seriously, do you have no clue whatsoever how those two sentences are not the same????
Somewhere there's a village yearning for an idiot of your stature to trundle along. Did your dad sniff a little too much FCCU catalyst during his Mobil days, or did he just beat the crap out of your mom when she was pregnant with you? If I didn't know better I'd say they'd finally taught that gorilla Coco to use a keyboard, but I've seen her on the Discovery Channel and she has more basic comprehension skills than you seem to possess.
So please, one last time you mongoloid hump, point out the post where I said "You indeed said that engineers are being taught that we know nothing about oil"! Or for that matter data to back anything else you've said up (beyond my daddy told me, of course).
I sure do. I'm starting to wonder if you do though. Here's the first quote:
And here's the second:
Neither of which say "You indeed said that engineers are being taught that we know nothing about oil."
So please, point me to where I said "engineers are being taught that we know nothing about oil." It shouldn't be that hard. Just keep whacking that Parent link. I await your reply with baited breath. (I look forward to your bad spelling and insults)
Go back and re-read the original document. Now tell me where it proves that "engineers are taught that the origins of petroleum aren't known?".
"Caution: specific models of the origin of fossil fuels should not be taken as absolutely established."
i.e. We're not 100% sure. I think that does it pretty well.
Oh one more tip for you. Don't point to some obscure document written in 1996 to re-enforce an obscure document written in 1997 especially if your argument is that we...
a) Don't know anything about the origins of oil.
Of course, what I said nothing of the kind. What I did say was:
"The fact is there's still a lot *not* known about petroleum (how its made, how to find it, how to extract it), even by the experts. "
and
"The fact is we don't know *exactly* how petroleum came to be."
But hey, don't let that get in the way of your tirade...
b) Engieers are taught in schools that we don't know where oil comes from.
which is your take on:
"There are theories, but the book isn't closed on those issues. Even petroleum engineering classes will tell you "Caution: specific models of the origin of fossil fuels should not be taken as absolutely established. "
c) We don't know a whole lot about the origins of oil.
d) There is a lot we don't know about where oil comes from (as if that was even provable).
Well, at least that's a little closer to what I was saying...
BTW. My father worked for Mobil Oil all his life as a chemical engineer (he is now retired). Through him I have met countless engineers and scientists in the oil industry and not one of them would claim that we don't know how oil is made or that we don't know a lot about how oil gets made. The percentage of uncertainty is probably less then 5%. Go ask them yourself.
I have. I actually work with reservoir guys from the majors, and this is a topic I've asked about quite a bit: from questions about Thomas Gold (some think he's a bit mad, some think he may be on to something but more work needs to be done) to reservoirs refilling themselves (most are stumped on that one although they all have their own pet ideas about could be causing it) to why reservoir definition is still one of the riskiest (in terms of project economics) bits of an upstream capital project (*). Almost every one of them to a T will, when asked such controversial things will say "well, there's still a lot we just don't know for sure." But maybe I've just been unlucky enough to know the %5 of dumbshits that you talk about.
So pick an argument from the above and then find some recent knowledge to back it up. Otherwise you are just another dumb idiological fuck who is unable to process information which goes against your beliefs.
What! My beliefs that there's a fair amount of uncertainty out there in the world of petroleum? Which, by the way, has been the only thing I've been arguing about from post one. You seem to be the one with the dogmatic hang up (you can tell by the high insult to data ratio). I'm sorry, but we do not know everything thing there is to know about petroleum. Work in the industry (especially around some reservoir guys) for more than 5 minutes and you'd realize this.
(*) The answer to which is because its god damn hard to define a reservoir. I have seen project blow millions by putting rigs out on land where very smart men with very powerful computers said there would be lots and lots of petroleum and low and behold only to drill some production wells and find that they're sitting on squat. Conversly I've also seen a lot of money made when the reservoir guys got it wrong in the other direction and discovered after the fact they were sitting on a hell of a lot more oil than the previously thought. Of course why these well paid, very educated resevoir guys still have a hard time finding and defining a reservoir when, at least according to you, we know everything there is to know about petroleum I'll leave for you to answer.
So you do or do not believe that the worlds oil supply is infinite (inexhaustible)?
Of course not. The earth is a finite object. The headline of the editorial was pretty stupid (a better one would have been "There may be a shit load more oil there than we ever thought"). But the meat of the actual article was spot on. No one is sure how large the pool of oil is; those claiming that its a dead cert that its going bust in 30-40 years don't know either. People (most notibly the oil industry itself) have been claiming we're nearing the end of oil supply for neigh on 100 years now, and it hasn't happened. And part of the reason is no one's quite sure how petroleum comes to be. The popular belief for a while was it was a byproduct of decayed organic matter (hence "fossil fuel"). When looked at it through that lens it made sense to think that there wasn't all that much of it lying around. The problem is, of course, that there is mounting evidence that oil doesn't come from decayed orgaic material and there might be a hell of a lot more of it than originally thought. Of course, that doesn't stop folks from using increasingly shaky science to push their own agenda.
you have a horrible concept of even the basics of math
Well, there goes my degree...
the researchers who believe the the world oil suppy is inexhaustable are pretty damn stupid...
and there go the people I work with... (well, they don't think its inexhaustable, but they do know that there's not definitive answer yet to how petroleum came to be, how much of it there actually is, etc... funny people those petroleum engineers / geologists).
"when did I imply that we didn't know a lot about petroleum? "
Mmmm let's see perhaps when you said
"The fact is there's still a lot *not* known about petroleum (how its made, how to find it, how to extract it), even by the experts."
Holy lack of logic Batman! Since when does "There is a lot not known" = "We don't know a lot"?
Oh yea one more thing your link is just about useless. Class notes from a 1997 lecture? Give me a break.
Why, because it shows that petroleum engineers are taught that the origins of petroleum aren't known? Then this guy must be full of it as well.
... unless you are a complete moron, you obviously believe in a statement that you are backing up...
*BZZZZ* Wrong. Thank you for playing. What I was pointing out was that its not a scientific certainty that oil will dry up in 30-40 years. Some researchers (who must "be shot because they have no scientific knowledge" disagree with the current theories about the origins of petroleum. The Detroit News' logically shaky headline does not an arguement make.
Amazing how dogma effects someone's skills in logic.
Again this is a silly statement. Not knowing EXACTLY how it came to be is not the same as not knowing ANYTHING about it. The fact is we know a shitload but not everything.
Hmmm... lets look at all the parent posts to see where I said "we don't know ANYTHING about oil"...
I did say "The fact is there's still a lot *not* known about petroleum (how its made, how to find it, how to extract it), even by the experts.
... and of course the one you quoted:
The fact is we don't know *exactly* how petroleum came to be.
But no "We don't know ANYTHING about it." So "weazel" [sic] words are bad, but outright fabrication is ok?
And as for knowing a shitload (isn't that a "weasel" word), when did I imply that we didn't know a lot about petroleum? What I did say was there was still a lot we don't know, including how it was created. There are theories, but the book isn't closed on those issues (damn that scientific method, coming up with discoveries that don't fit the established model... how inconsiderate). Even petroleum engineering classes will tell you "Caution: specific models of the origin of fossil fuels should not be taken as absolutely established." Silly academics, what do they know?
Supplies of oil may be inexhaustible
Uh, exactly where did I say that? Oh yeah, I didn't.
You seem to claim that we know nothing about oil or that we knoe very little about oil. Of course that's nonsense.... but to claim that we do know how oil gets made is just silly.
Really? From the detroit press article:
With growing improvements in technology that are making possible oil drilling at greater and greater depths, it may soon be economically feasible to explore and produce oil from these deep deposits.
The existence of oil much farther below the surface than it was previously thought to exist raises new questions about the origins of oil and natural gas.
Not to mention that there are reservoirs that seem to be filling themselves up show that we are pretty piss poor at defining reservoirs, or that there are other feeder reservoirs that we just don't know about. The fact is we don't know *exactly* how petroleum came to be.
Quoting from your link:
Uh, not my link.
And you expect this trend to continue forever? Unless you think there is a cornucopia down there somewhere continuously pouring out hydrocarbons, you must realize the supply of fossil fuels is finite.
The supply of iron, silicon, and carbon are also finite on this planet. Does that mean we should looking for ways for Intel/AMD/Moto to save silicon?
I'm not against conservation. What I do have a problem with is people taking as gospel truth that oil is running out soon. The fact is there's still a lot *not* known about petroleum (how its made, how to find it, how to extract it), even by the experts.
The most sober meditation I've seen on this was a Scientific American article archived at dieoff.com called The End of Cheap Oil.
Again, simply due to a lack of a full understanding of petroleum these economic studies also have a huge belt of uncertainty around them. They tend to look at the situation as it exists at the time of the study and assume that nothing is going to change. In the 70s the Oil bosses loved to bet among themselves on when the price of oil would hit $100 a barrel. It never happened and these guys had the best data with which to make predictions.
So are you saying that the paper fabricated everything in the article? Does their supposed bias negate anything they publish?
Should I toss aside EVERYTHING Greenpeace / Friends of the Earth / PeTA publish because of their biases?
Of course some researchers estimate that in 30-40 years we won't have much of a choice.
And others tend to disagree. Ever since the oil industry has come into existance there has been dire predictions of oil running out "real soon now," none of which have come true. Most estimates come from provable, recoverable reserves which are not static. New discoveries are made, as are new, cheaper methods to extract oil that was previously thought to be uneconomical.
I'd wager that we'll still be swimming in oil in 30-40 years.
I've never tried the full Moz on OSX, but Chimera 0.2.7 gets about 50% usage on my box. Its lite and fairly quick (well, quick for an OSX based browser). The feature set is a little light but I'm sure that's being worked on, and I see a little less flakiness than IE (which I use about 45% of the time and I think is a pretty good browser).
OmniWeb is damn pretty and my third browser of choice, but man it seems to be one hell of a pig. It eats up cycles like there's no tomorrow. Granted I haven't pulled down the latest beta so it may have gotten better.
Except not everyone ones some all-in-one privacy intruding box from MS.
I'll go you one further: hardly anyone wants these type of boxes.
Remember, Sony had the same vision for the PS2, which has been pushed back for the PS3. Plus, when it comes to a smart cable boxs you have do deal with cable companies, not the end users.
How many people use thier Xbox as their only DVD player, CD player, MP3 player, etc? I'd wager not many (and those that do are cheap ass college students.. I know I would).
I think he was just using that as an example of having more than one client. Don't get your knickers in a twist.
I wrote a god damn text editor in Atari Logo... man, was it primitive, but the damn thing worked!