I don't think you see the real point. They could only kill 10 million tops with a single hit in a single American city (unless of course they coordinated multiple attacks) and could possibly destroy Israel in a single blow or two. Israel is the target. It is unlikely they would go after the US until Israel no longer exists. Of course, they face MAD with Israel probably more than with the US, which brings me to my next point.
Perhaps, it is really what they want, but I can't really see how it provides anyone with the progression of their religion if they are all dead.
The idea is that after Armageddon, the twelfth Imam shows up and leads whatever Muslims are left to conquer the world for Islam. It's really not much different than what is said in The Book of Revelation in the Bible, except most Christians are not trying to bring the Rapture on. The idea of martyrdom is held with high esteem in the Muslim culture. If the entire country if Iran is made to be martyrs, the leaders of Iran are OK with that.
Ignore the hurricanes, tsunamis flooding Bangladesh, and the loss of island nations worldwide, if you must. But don't call your "belief" science.
You just shot down your own argument. Hurricanes: Wasn't this last hurricane season supposed to be the worst in history due to global warming. How did that work out? Tsunamis: Are you saying that earthquakes are caused by global warming? Please! Stop blaming everything on GW. It just makes you look (more) stupid. Loss of nation states: Name one nation that is now underwater.
However, China on the other hand... Well, we are seeing for the first time in 50 years a nation that could soon simply outspend us on the military front.
China's military budget for FY2007 is about $44.94 billion. The US military budget for FY2007 is $532.8 billion. (source) Eventually, China may outspend the US, but they need about a 1250% increase to do so.
Um... That was the whole point of MAD. If one side did it, both had to do it to ensure no one used it. It may not be moral, but it is logical to create any type of weapons in response to the fact the other side has done so.
Good point, but false on two counts: 1) The whole MAD excuse for Iran to have nuclear weapons doesn't fly when the US has had them for over 50 years and hasn't nuked Iran yet. 2) The argument for MAD assumes that both sides care about assured destruction. While the US doesn't want to be destroyed, I can't say the same for Iran (or at least it's Muslim based leadership). Many people believe that the rulers of Iran WANT Armageddon as signals the Muslim equivalent of "The Second Coming". From NPR:
It is said that in the 10th century, the 12th and last Imam of the Shiite branch of Islam disappeared. He is said to be hidden by God and will reappear at the end of history to lead an era of Islamic justice. But lately, actions by -- and rumors about -- Iran's president have renewed interest in the 12th Imam.
Centuries ago, this holy person is said to have disappeared, hidden by God, but kept alive since then, to reappear at the end of history to lead an era of Islamic justice. The belief, which helped to inspire Iran's Islamic Revolution 27 years ago, diminished in importance over the years.
Now it has found renewed inspiration in Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
A better article can be found HERE, but I didn't think you'd give it credit considering the source.
So the threat of MAD does not apply to a country that has no fear destruction.
I don't see Gentoo failing any time soon due to the distro's that are being based on Gentoo. I see fewer and fewer people using "pure" Gentoo in the future, but more people using distro's based on Gentoo. Face it, Stage 1 Gentoo is hard to set up. Why bother when you can run something like Sabayon or Vida that gives you all the benefits of Gentoo with a much easier installer, provided you set up your use flags recompile after install (or not... your call). Just like few people actually run "true" Debian, many people run Debian based distro's such as Ubuntu, Linspire and so on.
12. Other nations are justified in building "space weapons" because the US has done so, or is about to do so.
This argument never seems to work both ways. It always justifies any other country's space weapons, laying the blame on something the US has done, may do, is thinking about doing, or is merely accused of doing in the mass media. But it never seems to justify any US hardware-development response to actual space weapons deployed by other countries, from the cannon mounted on a Soviet manned space station, to its operational killer satellites and orbital nuclear weapon launchers, to the recent Chinese anti-satellite missile test. The US did not respond in kind to those weapons because they made no military sense--there was no mindless reflex, but instead a rational assessment of security requirements. Those assessments usually can be made regardless of the actions of other parties, especially regarding the level of required space weapons.
Unfortunately, too many people use the "US does it" excuse to justify the nuclear proliferation of other countries (read: Iran). I feel this is an accurate counterpoint to such an argument.
NOW they invent something that can tell if life was ever there! Now we have to start all over.
Impressive, but unnecessary
on
LinuxBIOS Gets GUI
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
While the X server was quite cool, I don't see what functionality it can bring at this stage of the game. I want to see a Linux BIOS that works for my hardware that allows me all the features of my existing BIOS. If you can do that with X, great! But right now, I want function over form. A text base menu like what I have now would be fine.
Wasn't the UN supposed to be taking this on? Why is that those that don't want the US to be the world's policeman are suddenly crying for the US to be the world's defender? This is a global problem that requires a global response!
You're seriously comparing oil extraction's effects on the ANWR (a complex, interdependent ecosystem) with its effects on a man-made corn monoculture, where fertilizers and pesticides are the norm? Yes, I am. I think it is plainly obvious that the oil extraction does not mean an "instant ecological disaster". The cornfield proves that. But don't take my word for it. Go to California and take a look at the natural beauty there. Take a look at where they drill for oil in California and you will find that they are extracting oil well within the area that ANWR takes up. I challenge you to find organic certified farms that is not within 32000 square miles of an oil platform. I'm no ecologist, but I have common sense. To "Put another way, if ANWR were the size of a page of the Washington Post, and you put something on it about a square quarter inch, that would be about the size of the drilling footprint of ANWR." Again, we are not talking about all of ANWR.
Further, you're seriously asking me to base my opinion on something you once saw driving in Michigan? How does your over-the-dashboard view of this field qualify as a comprehensive ecological study, demonstrating the harmlessness of oil extraction? Like I said, I have common sense. If oil is being extracted in a cornfield in Northern Lower Michigan, and oil was an ecological disaster, then there wouldn't be pristine wilderness in Northern Lower Michigan, or the Michigan Upper Peninsula (UP). If you've ever been to either place, you'd know what I'm talking about. This is an area that still has wild deer, turkey, brown bears (yes, BEARS!) and other wildlife, all completely unaffected by the energy industry of Michigan. Actually, the corn field causes more eco damage the oil derek, yet I see no one protesting corn fields!
So, you're saying that the oil companies are going to drill ANWR pro bono? That all the pressure to drill ANWR is coming from the Alaskan congressional delegation? That the government never uses its power and influence to funnel money into corporate coffers? This is not about money, it's about energy independence. And, yes, the "Alaskan congressional delegation" is pressuring for drilling in ANWR. I never said that no one was going to make money. Have you ever met a roughneck? Have you ever met their families? Have you ever been to their home and had dinner? You'll find that these people are not rich, but yes, they will make money from Alaskan drilling. Do you have a problem with people working for a living? What I said is you are not going to make a Jed Clampet style fat-cat from drilling in ANWR. (We all know how much Democrats hate to see people making money!) As to corporate coffers, do you have a 401k? That, my friend is a corporate coffer. I think it says a lot that you have such disdain for private property (yes, corporations are private property). You would think that it would make you happy that ANWR is federal land and no corporation can own it. Yes, it certainly be a large company hired to extract the oil, but if you can find a small business or non-profit organization with the knowhow to extract oil and be environmentally sound, make sure they enter the bidding process.
It sounds to me like you're using some Sean Hannity clone for your talking points. And you sound like some Karl Marx clone, so what's your point?
If the oil companies weren't going to make a nice fortune off the contract, they wouldn't sign it. I think you are confusing profit with fortune. (again, do you own a 401k? Even George Soros invests in Haliburton) I mean, really, if you are anti-profit, move to a place that agrees with you. I hear Cuba is nice.
But the longer we avoid reducing our exposure to the risk of oil scarcity, the more likely it is that we'll be unprepared for a sudden, sharp shock. Also, the greater our daily demand compared to the supply, the harder we have
The ANWR provides wildlife habitat, which is critical to the overall health of the ecology and therefore benefits you even if you don't give a rat about moose.
First, the ecology in ANWR has no effect on the ecology in Juno, much less N. Dakota or the rest of the states. The ecology in ANWR effects the ecology in ANWR, nothing more. And don't give me that a moose sneezes which sets off a chain of events that causes a sand-storm 10000 years later either. Yes, we are all somewhat interconnected, but major events render the little ones meaningless. Next, like I've said a hundred times, the ecology in ANWR is not in any danger, drilling or otherwise. It's a big big big place and the area where we will be drilling is extremely miniscule when compared to the size of ANWR (which, as I said, is the size of S. Carolina!)
Next, ever been to Michigan? With the exception of Detroit and Flint, it really is a beautiful place. I remember driving from Lansing MI to Traverse City and seeing an oil derek right in the middle of a corn field. We eat that corn! So far, there have been no reported problems from eating corn that was grown near an oil derek. Now if we pump oil out of a field that grows our food, I don't think there will be a problem with the porcupine caribous that migrate through the area. Again, they don't seem to have a problem with Prudhoe Bay that is 50 miles away. You talk about drilling in ANWR as if there is a 100% chance of the entire ecosystem being destroyed for eternity. Nothing can be further from the truth.
ANWR is irrelevant, because we can never become an energy-independent nation until we break the oil addiction. But there is money to be made by businesses, so the right wing and their amply-funded but empty-headed think tanks are screaming to get the drilling going.
You are correct that it is about money, but not about people getting rich. This is on National land, therefor, it's National oil. The government hires companies to pump it out (after a bidding process) and the government keeps the profits. It's about the money that we will NOT be sending money to governments that will spend it trying to kill us. Countries like Iran, Venezuela, and Russia are all oil rich, and want to see the US fall. Why do we keeping sending these people money when there is more oil in ANWR than we are importing from these anti-American tyrants? Will it solve our oil dependency? NO, but it will keep that dependency from propping up tyrannical dictators and offer us more energy independence than we have today.
Oil sucks. It pollutes the atmosphere, raises the temperature of the globe, and keeps us dependent on a resource that--ANWR or no--will be gone soon. There. I've been "honest" by your reckoning--as though environmentalists were insincere about wanting to protect wilderness.
Thank you. I feel that the problem is more with oil than with protecting the "wildernesses". This is why drilling is being opposed across the board in the US, no matter where it is. Unfortunately, it's actually making drilling for oil more of a risk than before. First, because we can't drill in the Great Lakes for example, oil companies have started to drill horizontally from land to under the great lakes. This is actually a greater risk to the environment than just drilling off a rig in the lake itself. Enviro's are OK with this because it makes the drilling more expensive, thus making more of the oil not worth going after.
Still, if the problem is with oil, then why not do something about it. Plant a windmill and solar panels in your back yard and disconnect from the grid. Of course, you'll have to sell your car and grow your own food (how else do you think food gets to the store?). Yes, we dependent on oil. There is nothing we can do about that except voluntarily turn ourselves into a starving third world country. You think starvation in Africa is bad? That will be nothing to an fossil-fuel-free America!
Yes, I agree that ANWR is simply a band-aid on a much bigger problem. But then again, do you bandage a wound until you can get to the hospital or do you let the patient bleed to death? You are suggesting the latter.
We could drill ANWR out, completely ruin the habitat and only have to revert to importing foreign oil after 5 years. Where the hell would that get us?
That would leave us with enemies that are five years worth of oil poorer than they would be otherwise. That would be about 20,000 families that could be supported for five years.
Of course, your five year estimate is the most conservative that I've seen. Actually, the big debate among geologists isn't how much oil is there, it is how much we can retrieve cheaper than the current market price. The estimates I've read are about 30 billion barrels if oil is priced above $30 a barrel. When it drops below that price, it is no long worth retrieving beyond the five years estimate you've thrown out.
Prudhoe Bay and its Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System average over 500 reported spills every year of oil and other toxic substances.
Wow! and yet the porcupines caribous still live and thrive in the area. I figured that such an environmental would have devastated all of Alaska and part of Canada... and yet the pristine virgin wilderness of ANWR remains unscathed by such environmental devastation a mere 50 miles away!
In other words, ANWR is fucking big... I mean really really fucking big! If Bill Gates sold everything he owns and used it to purchase crude to dump all over ANWR, he wouldn't make a fucking dent! ANWR is that fucking big. ANWR is about the size of South Carolina kind of fucking big. I seriously doubt that exploration in less that 5% and actual drilling in less that.001% is going to ruin all of ANWR. Of course, the oil would be piped out via existing pipelines because it would make no sense to build entirely new pipelines. And since no pipelines run through ANWR today, it all but eliminates the risk of an ANWR oil spill.
So if the environment really is your reason for not drilling in ANWR, I call bullshit. If you pumped all the oil out of 1002 area and sprayed it all around, the impact would only be limited to the local area, leaving the rest of ANWR completely unscathed for you to not take your granola fueled nature hikes on.
Now of course, if you care to be honest and simply say that you don't like oil, we can debate that. But until then, quit being a pussy and saying it's all about saving the wilderness that you will never visit and you wouldn't know it existed if Democrats didn't oppose it and show you pretty pictures that are not even from the same area that the oil is in!
Since it got modded out of existence because of the brownshirts that don't agree with it: Let me try on that shiny hat you got on there!
Again, are you sure he's the only one whose rights were violated ? No. Are you sure that this started with the war on terror? Are you absolutely sure that the kids you see on milk cartons are not kidnapped for IRS experiments?
How could you be sure, if our judicial system is no longer transparent What makes you think the judicial system was EVER transparent?
Do you simply trust the government and 'intelligence data' it receives ? Not since I've put on this shiny hat of yours
They are the same people who either lied about Iraq WMDs or were actually dumb enough to believe in those WMDs - either way they were dead wrong based on 'classified intelligence'. OK, let me pull the hat off. Since the director of the CIA risked his career on telling the Prez that WMD's in Iraq was a slam dunk, I'd say that they really believed it, which would eliminate the liar angle I hear over and over and over and over again. Since we all know that the Prez and CIA director Tenet sincerely believed that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD's, that kinda makes those that call Bush a liar liars themselves, doesn't it. (I stress stockpiles because we did find WMD's there. But the press ignored it because it wasn't giant warehouses full). As to the being dumb enough to believe in those WMDs, unfortunately, that goes for the world's intelligence services as well. The kicker for me, however, was that Bush received a message from Putin saying that Russian intelligence had intel that Iraq was planning to attack the US. Now, less than two years after 9-11, the President is told a sworn enemy of your country that tried to kill a former president, is known (albeit incorrectly) to posses chemical and biological weapons and is not afraid to use them on civilians, is planning to attack your country, do you REALLY want a president that will sit back and do nothing? Do you want a president that will NOT unleash the most powerful military in the world to defend its citizens? Not me.
But if that's the kind of president Americans want, and it looks like the press has done its damnedest to see that through, then the citizens deserve whatever they get.
Odd how Alaskans, who all profit off of oil, would be in favor of something that would give them a bigger government check. Strange how externalities like destruction of habitat impact everyone, not just those living nearby.
We are drilling in Prudhoe bay, about 50 miles from ANWR. Is there a "destruction of habitat" there? Nope. The wildlife is actually doing better there. Besides, who's habitat is it if not the Alaskans? Would like Eskimos telling your state where it can build roads or structures?
Weird how little oil there actually is in the ANWR.
It's estimated that we will be able to pump as much out of ANWR as we are importing from Saudi Arabia for 30 years. Some say it's only about 3% of us annual oil use, but that's still a LOT of friggin oil!
Bizarre how the only possible alternative to drilling in a wildlife refuge is importing foreign oil.
Well, if we are not drillining ANWR, it's either import it or not use it. While everyone agrees that we should eliminate our need for fossil fuels altogether, that's still a long way off. Hopefully, 30 years should cover it.
Oh this will NEVER work, it won't even put a DENT in the countries energy needs, it's all a POINTLESS endeavor.
You'll just have to keep buying foreign oil.
Funny, that is the exact same argument that liberals use when talking about ANWR. Fact is, any energy added to the grid is a good thing, as long as it produces more energy than what you put into it!
hat must be why nVidia has decided to enter the x86 chip market and Intel has significantly improved their GPU offerings, as well as indicate they may include vector units in future chips, because these companies plan to work together in the future! It's so obvious! I wish I hadn't paid attention these past 6 months, as it's clearly confused me!
Sarcasm suits you well.
While Intel and nVidia may both be independently reinventing the wheel right now, neither seems to be getting very far very fast. Intel's video offerings have been poor at best and no one has seen an nVidia x86 processor. AMD has already demo'd a prototype, which means they are further along with this Fusion than both Intel and nVidia combined. I don't think it will take long for the decision makers at both of these companies to realize that the other has the missing component.
Of course, you could be right. This is pure speculation on my part and I am pretty much talking from my ass. Still, the idea makes perfect sense to me.
Isn' the reason this is so interestiong because you cannot have a Intel Core 2 Extreme with 2 x nVidia GTXs in a dual SLI arrangement using CUDA pushing a tflop at this present time?
Excellent point! Expect to see a nVidia/Intel partnership in 5, 4, 3, 2...
Again, are you sure he's the only one whose rights were violated ? No. Are you sure that this started with the war on terror? Are you absolutely sure that the kids you see on milk cartons are not kidnapped for IRS experiments?
How could you be sure, if our judicial system is no longer transparent What makes you think the judicial system was EVER transparent?
Do you simply trust the government and 'intelligence data' it receives ? Not since I've put on this shiny hat of yours
They are the same people who either lied about Iraq WMDs or were actually dumb enough to believe in those WMDs - either way they were dead wrong based on 'classified intelligence'. OK, let me pull the hat off. Since the director of the CIA risked his career on telling the Prez that WMD's in Iraq was a slam dunk, I'd say that they really believed it, which would eliminate the liar angle I hear over and over and over and over again. Since we all know that the Prez and CIA director Tenet sincerely believed that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD's, that kinda makes those that call Bush a liar liars themselves, doesn't it. (I stress stockpiles because we did find WMD's there. But the press ignored it because it wasn't giant warehouses full). As to the being dumb enough to believe in those WMDs, unfortunately, that goes for the world's intelligence services as well. The kicker for me, however, was that Bush received a message from Putin saying that Russian intelligence had intel that Iraq was planning to attack the US. Now, less than two years after 9-11, the President is told a sworn enemy of your country that tried to kill a former president, is known (albeit incorrectly) to posses chemical and biological weapons and is not afraid to use them on civilians, is planning to attack your country, do you REALLY want a president that will sit back and do nothing? Do you want a president that will NOT unleash the most powerful military in the world to defend its citizens? Not me.
But if that's the kind of president Americans want, and it looks like the press has done its damnedest to see that through, then the citizens deserve whatever they get.
Will you hear or see that happening ? With jay walkers not being able to face their accusers in court, because their right to habeas corpus is suspended ?
Like we haven't heard about Jose Padilla?
Of course, we all know that once it gets suspended (not that it has), we'll never EVER get it back. Good thing it has NEVERhappenedbefore!
While I agree that the some of items you mentioned are problems, none of these are really Bush's fault and the attempts to fix them have been blocked by Democrats.
huge trade deficit Nothing new. An economics professor told me once that a trade deficit is a sign of a good economy. Besides, I don't know if this is really that much of a problem. Can you remember the last time the US had a trade surplus? I can't. Yet we are still doing much better better than those that have a surplus over us.
budget deficit Nothing new. The US gov't has been in debt since World War II.
outsourcing Nothing new.
insufficient education I disagree. If you want a good education, the opportunity is there for you. Most of the reasons that students are not learning is because they simply don't put in the effort. That is a parental problem, not a department of education one. Granted, there are schools that just suck, and the students have no choice but to attend those crappy schools, but that has been fixed (or at least it would have been had "vouchers" not been blocked by Democrats).
Social security issues Bush tried to fix this, but again, blocked by Democrats who, for some reason, prefer the status quo to a limited privatization of Social Security. While the Democrats were busy screaming about how it wouldn't work, the good citizens of Galveston Texas are proof that it would. Didn't matter since it was a Bush plan, Democrats must oppose it (see my sig for another example).
soaring medical costs Nothing new. Still, I'd rather pay too much for health insurance that too much in taxes!
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you see the real point. They could only kill 10 million tops with a single hit in a single American city (unless of course they coordinated multiple attacks) and could possibly destroy Israel in a single blow or two.
Israel is the target. It is unlikely they would go after the US until Israel no longer exists. Of course, they face MAD with Israel probably more than with the US, which brings me to my next point.
Perhaps, it is really what they want, but I can't really see how it provides anyone with the progression of their religion if they are all dead.
The idea is that after Armageddon, the twelfth Imam shows up and leads whatever Muslims are left to conquer the world for Islam. It's really not much different than what is said in The Book of Revelation in the Bible, except most Christians are not trying to bring the Rapture on. The idea of martyrdom is held with high esteem in the Muslim culture. If the entire country if Iran is made to be martyrs, the leaders of Iran are OK with that.
Ignore the hurricanes, tsunamis flooding Bangladesh, and the loss of island nations worldwide, if you must. But don't call your "belief" science.
You just shot down your own argument.
Hurricanes: Wasn't this last hurricane season supposed to be the worst in history due to global warming. How did that work out?
Tsunamis: Are you saying that earthquakes are caused by global warming? Please! Stop blaming everything on GW. It just makes you look (more) stupid.
Loss of nation states: Name one nation that is now underwater.
China's military budget for FY2007 is about $44.94 billion. The US military budget for FY2007 is $532.8 billion. (source) Eventually, China may outspend the US, but they need about a 1250% increase to do so.
Um... That was the whole point of MAD. If one side did it, both had to do it to ensure no one used it. It may not be moral, but it is logical to create any type of weapons in response to the fact the other side has done so.
Good point, but false on two counts:
1) The whole MAD excuse for Iran to have nuclear weapons doesn't fly when the US has had them for over 50 years and hasn't nuked Iran yet.
2) The argument for MAD assumes that both sides care about assured destruction. While the US doesn't want to be destroyed, I can't say the same for Iran (or at least it's Muslim based leadership). Many people believe that the rulers of Iran WANT Armageddon as signals the Muslim equivalent of "The Second Coming". From NPR: A better article can be found HERE, but I didn't think you'd give it credit considering the source.
So the threat of MAD does not apply to a country that has no fear destruction.
I don't see Gentoo failing any time soon due to the distro's that are being based on Gentoo. I see fewer and fewer people using "pure" Gentoo in the future, but more people using distro's based on Gentoo. Face it, Stage 1 Gentoo is hard to set up. Why bother when you can run something like Sabayon or Vida that gives you all the benefits of Gentoo with a much easier installer, provided you set up your use flags recompile after install (or not... your call). Just like few people actually run "true" Debian, many people run Debian based distro's such as Ubuntu, Linspire and so on.
Unfortunately, too many people use the "US does it" excuse to justify the nuclear proliferation of other countries (read: Iran). I feel this is an accurate counterpoint to such an argument.
NOW they invent something that can tell if life was ever there! Now we have to start all over.
While the X server was quite cool, I don't see what functionality it can bring at this stage of the game. I want to see a Linux BIOS that works for my hardware that allows me all the features of my existing BIOS. If you can do that with X, great! But right now, I want function over form. A text base menu like what I have now would be fine.
Good chat. It really has been fun and informative, I hope for both of us.
Wasn't the UN supposed to be taking this on? Why is that those that don't want the US to be the world's policeman are suddenly crying for the US to be the world's defender? This is a global problem that requires a global response!
You're seriously comparing oil extraction's effects on the ANWR (a complex, interdependent ecosystem) with its effects on a man-made corn monoculture, where fertilizers and pesticides are the norm?
Yes, I am. I think it is plainly obvious that the oil extraction does not mean an "instant ecological disaster". The cornfield proves that. But don't take my word for it. Go to California and take a look at the natural beauty there. Take a look at where they drill for oil in California and you will find that they are extracting oil well within the area that ANWR takes up. I challenge you to find organic certified farms that is not within 32000 square miles of an oil platform. I'm no ecologist, but I have common sense. To "Put another way, if ANWR were the size of a page of the Washington Post, and you put something on it about a square quarter inch, that would be about the size of the drilling footprint of ANWR." Again, we are not talking about all of ANWR.
Further, you're seriously asking me to base my opinion on something you once saw driving in Michigan? How does your over-the-dashboard view of this field qualify as a comprehensive ecological study, demonstrating the harmlessness of oil extraction?
Like I said, I have common sense. If oil is being extracted in a cornfield in Northern Lower Michigan, and oil was an ecological disaster, then there wouldn't be pristine wilderness in Northern Lower Michigan, or the Michigan Upper Peninsula (UP). If you've ever been to either place, you'd know what I'm talking about. This is an area that still has wild deer, turkey, brown bears (yes, BEARS!) and other wildlife, all completely unaffected by the energy industry of Michigan. Actually, the corn field causes more eco damage the oil derek, yet I see no one protesting corn fields!
So, you're saying that the oil companies are going to drill ANWR pro bono? That all the pressure to drill ANWR is coming from the Alaskan congressional delegation? That the government never uses its power and influence to funnel money into corporate coffers?
This is not about money, it's about energy independence. And, yes, the "Alaskan congressional delegation" is pressuring for drilling in ANWR.
I never said that no one was going to make money. Have you ever met a roughneck? Have you ever met their families? Have you ever been to their home and had dinner? You'll find that these people are not rich, but yes, they will make money from Alaskan drilling. Do you have a problem with people working for a living? What I said is you are not going to make a Jed Clampet style fat-cat from drilling in ANWR. (We all know how much Democrats hate to see people making money!)
As to corporate coffers, do you have a 401k? That, my friend is a corporate coffer. I think it says a lot that you have such disdain for private property (yes, corporations are private property). You would think that it would make you happy that ANWR is federal land and no corporation can own it. Yes, it certainly be a large company hired to extract the oil, but if you can find a small business or non-profit organization with the knowhow to extract oil and be environmentally sound, make sure they enter the bidding process.
It sounds to me like you're using some Sean Hannity clone for your talking points.
And you sound like some Karl Marx clone, so what's your point?
If the oil companies weren't going to make a nice fortune off the contract, they wouldn't sign it.
I think you are confusing profit with fortune. (again, do you own a 401k? Even George Soros invests in Haliburton) I mean, really, if you are anti-profit, move to a place that agrees with you. I hear Cuba is nice.
But the longer we avoid reducing our exposure to the risk of oil scarcity, the more likely it is that we'll be unprepared for a sudden, sharp shock. Also, the greater our daily demand compared to the supply, the harder we have
The ANWR provides wildlife habitat, which is critical to the overall health of the ecology and therefore benefits you even if you don't give a rat about moose.
First, the ecology in ANWR has no effect on the ecology in Juno, much less N. Dakota or the rest of the states. The ecology in ANWR effects the ecology in ANWR, nothing more. And don't give me that a moose sneezes which sets off a chain of events that causes a sand-storm 10000 years later either. Yes, we are all somewhat interconnected, but major events render the little ones meaningless. Next, like I've said a hundred times, the ecology in ANWR is not in any danger, drilling or otherwise. It's a big big big place and the area where we will be drilling is extremely miniscule when compared to the size of ANWR (which, as I said, is the size of S. Carolina!)
Next, ever been to Michigan? With the exception of Detroit and Flint, it really is a beautiful place. I remember driving from Lansing MI to Traverse City and seeing an oil derek right in the middle of a corn field. We eat that corn! So far, there have been no reported problems from eating corn that was grown near an oil derek. Now if we pump oil out of a field that grows our food, I don't think there will be a problem with the porcupine caribous that migrate through the area. Again, they don't seem to have a problem with Prudhoe Bay that is 50 miles away. You talk about drilling in ANWR as if there is a 100% chance of the entire ecosystem being destroyed for eternity. Nothing can be further from the truth.
ANWR is irrelevant, because we can never become an energy-independent nation until we break the oil addiction. But there is money to be made by businesses, so the right wing and their amply-funded but empty-headed think tanks are screaming to get the drilling going.
You are correct that it is about money, but not about people getting rich. This is on National land, therefor, it's National oil. The government hires companies to pump it out (after a bidding process) and the government keeps the profits. It's about the money that we will NOT be sending money to governments that will spend it trying to kill us. Countries like Iran, Venezuela, and Russia are all oil rich, and want to see the US fall. Why do we keeping sending these people money when there is more oil in ANWR than we are importing from these anti-American tyrants? Will it solve our oil dependency? NO, but it will keep that dependency from propping up tyrannical dictators and offer us more energy independence than we have today.
Oil sucks. It pollutes the atmosphere, raises the temperature of the globe, and keeps us dependent on a resource that--ANWR or no--will be gone soon. There. I've been "honest" by your reckoning--as though environmentalists were insincere about wanting to protect wilderness.
Thank you. I feel that the problem is more with oil than with protecting the "wildernesses". This is why drilling is being opposed across the board in the US, no matter where it is. Unfortunately, it's actually making drilling for oil more of a risk than before. First, because we can't drill in the Great Lakes for example, oil companies have started to drill horizontally from land to under the great lakes. This is actually a greater risk to the environment than just drilling off a rig in the lake itself. Enviro's are OK with this because it makes the drilling more expensive, thus making more of the oil not worth going after.
Still, if the problem is with oil, then why not do something about it. Plant a windmill and solar panels in your back yard and disconnect from the grid. Of course, you'll have to sell your car and grow your own food (how else do you think food gets to the store?). Yes, we dependent on oil. There is nothing we can do about that except voluntarily turn ourselves into a starving third world country. You think starvation in Africa is bad? That will be nothing to an fossil-fuel-free America!
Yes, I agree that ANWR is simply a band-aid on a much bigger problem. But then again, do you bandage a wound until you can get to the hospital or do you let the patient bleed to death? You are suggesting the latter.
We could drill ANWR out, completely ruin the habitat and only have to revert to importing foreign oil after 5 years. Where the hell would that get us?
That would leave us with enemies that are five years worth of oil poorer than they would be otherwise. That would be about 20,000 families that could be supported for five years.
Of course, your five year estimate is the most conservative that I've seen. Actually, the big debate among geologists isn't how much oil is there, it is how much we can retrieve cheaper than the current market price. The estimates I've read are about 30 billion barrels if oil is priced above $30 a barrel. When it drops below that price, it is no long worth retrieving beyond the five years estimate you've thrown out.
Prudhoe Bay and its Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System average over 500 reported spills every year of oil and other toxic substances.
.001% is going to ruin all of ANWR. Of course, the oil would be piped out via existing pipelines because it would make no sense to build entirely new pipelines. And since no pipelines run through ANWR today, it all but eliminates the risk of an ANWR oil spill.
Wow! and yet the porcupines caribous still live and thrive in the area. I figured that such an environmental would have devastated all of Alaska and part of Canada... and yet the pristine virgin wilderness of ANWR remains unscathed by such environmental devastation a mere 50 miles away!
In other words, ANWR is fucking big... I mean really really fucking big! If Bill Gates sold everything he owns and used it to purchase crude to dump all over ANWR, he wouldn't make a fucking dent! ANWR is that fucking big. ANWR is about the size of South Carolina kind of fucking big. I seriously doubt that exploration in less that 5% and actual drilling in less that
So if the environment really is your reason for not drilling in ANWR, I call bullshit. If you pumped all the oil out of 1002 area and sprayed it all around, the impact would only be limited to the local area, leaving the rest of ANWR completely unscathed for you to not take your granola fueled nature hikes on.
Now of course, if you care to be honest and simply say that you don't like oil, we can debate that. But until then, quit being a pussy and saying it's all about saving the wilderness that you will never visit and you wouldn't know it existed if Democrats didn't oppose it and show you pretty pictures that are not even from the same area that the oil is in!
Since it got modded out of existence because of the brownshirts that don't agree with it:
Let me try on that shiny hat you got on there!
Again, are you sure he's the only one whose rights were violated ?
No. Are you sure that this started with the war on terror? Are you absolutely sure that the kids you see on milk cartons are not kidnapped for IRS experiments?
How could you be sure, if our judicial system is no longer transparent
What makes you think the judicial system was EVER transparent?
Do you simply trust the government and 'intelligence data' it receives ?
Not since I've put on this shiny hat of yours
They are the same people who either lied about Iraq WMDs or were actually dumb enough to believe in those WMDs - either way they were dead wrong based on 'classified intelligence'.
OK, let me pull the hat off.
Since the director of the CIA risked his career on telling the Prez that WMD's in Iraq was a slam dunk, I'd say that they really believed it, which would eliminate the liar angle I hear over and over and over and over again. Since we all know that the Prez and CIA director Tenet sincerely believed that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD's, that kinda makes those that call Bush a liar liars themselves, doesn't it. (I stress stockpiles because we did find WMD's there. But the press ignored it because it wasn't giant warehouses full). As to the being dumb enough to believe in those WMDs, unfortunately, that goes for the world's intelligence services as well.
The kicker for me, however, was that Bush received a message from Putin saying that Russian intelligence had intel that Iraq was planning to attack the US. Now, less than two years after 9-11, the President is told a sworn enemy of your country that tried to kill a former president, is known (albeit incorrectly) to posses chemical and biological weapons and is not afraid to use them on civilians, is planning to attack your country, do you REALLY want a president that will sit back and do nothing? Do you want a president that will NOT unleash the most powerful military in the world to defend its citizens? Not me.
But if that's the kind of president Americans want, and it looks like the press has done its damnedest to see that through, then the citizens deserve whatever they get.
Odd how Alaskans, who all profit off of oil, would be in favor of something that would give them a bigger government check. Strange how externalities like destruction of habitat impact everyone, not just those living nearby.
We are drilling in Prudhoe bay, about 50 miles from ANWR. Is there a "destruction of habitat" there? Nope. The wildlife is actually doing better there. Besides, who's habitat is it if not the Alaskans? Would like Eskimos telling your state where it can build roads or structures?
Weird how little oil there actually is in the ANWR.
It's estimated that we will be able to pump as much out of ANWR as we are importing from Saudi Arabia for 30 years. Some say it's only about 3% of us annual oil use, but that's still a LOT of friggin oil!
Bizarre how the only possible alternative to drilling in a wildlife refuge is importing foreign oil.
Well, if we are not drillining ANWR, it's either import it or not use it. While everyone agrees that we should eliminate our need for fossil fuels altogether, that's still a long way off. Hopefully, 30 years should cover it.
Oh this will NEVER work, it won't even put a DENT in the countries energy needs, it's all a POINTLESS endeavor.
You'll just have to keep buying foreign oil.
Funny, that is the exact same argument that liberals use when talking about ANWR. Fact is, any energy added to the grid is a good thing, as long as it produces more energy than what you put into it!
You do not have to fill them "air". Think GROW FOAM.
Uh, isn't foam filled with air? (forgive me if this was a joke that WHOOSHED over my head?)
-->I think the real question is: should Solaris telnetd have such an immense security hole?
what an idiotic question
I think the question was rhetorical.
My question is: Who the hell still uses telnet? I don't even use telnet on my LAN.
Researchers have found that depressed people performed poorly on the video game...
Maybe they just don't give a shit!
"Oh, why bother."
hat must be why nVidia has decided to enter the x86 chip market and Intel has significantly improved their GPU offerings, as well as indicate they may include vector units in future chips, because these companies plan to work together in the future! It's so obvious! I wish I hadn't paid attention these past 6 months, as it's clearly confused me!
Sarcasm suits you well.
While Intel and nVidia may both be independently reinventing the wheel right now, neither seems to be getting very far very fast. Intel's video offerings have been poor at best and no one has seen an nVidia x86 processor. AMD has already demo'd a prototype, which means they are further along with this Fusion than both Intel and nVidia combined. I don't think it will take long for the decision makers at both of these companies to realize that the other has the missing component.
Of course, you could be right. This is pure speculation on my part and I am pretty much talking from my ass. Still, the idea makes perfect sense to me.
Isn' the reason this is so interestiong because you cannot have a Intel Core 2 Extreme with 2 x nVidia GTXs in a dual SLI arrangement using CUDA pushing a tflop at this present time?
Excellent point! Expect to see a nVidia/Intel partnership in 5, 4, 3, 2...
OK, I won't even contest that point as it really had nothing to do with the substance of my post. What about the rest of it?
Let me try on that shiny hat you got on there!
Again, are you sure he's the only one whose rights were violated ?
No. Are you sure that this started with the war on terror? Are you absolutely sure that the kids you see on milk cartons are not kidnapped for IRS experiments?
How could you be sure, if our judicial system is no longer transparent
What makes you think the judicial system was EVER transparent?
Do you simply trust the government and 'intelligence data' it receives ?
Not since I've put on this shiny hat of yours
They are the same people who either lied about Iraq WMDs or were actually dumb enough to believe in those WMDs - either way they were dead wrong based on 'classified intelligence'.
OK, let me pull the hat off.
Since the director of the CIA risked his career on telling the Prez that WMD's in Iraq was a slam dunk, I'd say that they really believed it, which would eliminate the liar angle I hear over and over and over and over again. Since we all know that the Prez and CIA director Tenet sincerely believed that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD's, that kinda makes those that call Bush a liar liars themselves, doesn't it. (I stress stockpiles because we did find WMD's there. But the press ignored it because it wasn't giant warehouses full). As to the being dumb enough to believe in those WMDs, unfortunately, that goes for the world's intelligence services as well.
The kicker for me, however, was that Bush received a message from Putin saying that Russian intelligence had intel that Iraq was planning to attack the US. Now, less than two years after 9-11, the President is told a sworn enemy of your country that tried to kill a former president, is known (albeit incorrectly) to posses chemical and biological weapons and is not afraid to use them on civilians, is planning to attack your country, do you REALLY want a president that will sit back and do nothing? Do you want a president that will NOT unleash the most powerful military in the world to defend its citizens? Not me.
But if that's the kind of president Americans want, and it looks like the press has done its damnedest to see that through, then the citizens deserve whatever they get.
Will you hear or see that happening ? With jay walkers not being able to face their accusers in court, because their right to habeas corpus is suspended ?
Like we haven't heard about Jose Padilla?
Of course, we all know that once it gets suspended (not that it has), we'll never EVER get it back. Good thing it has NEVER happened before!
While I agree that the some of items you mentioned are problems, none of these are really Bush's fault and the attempts to fix them have been blocked by Democrats.
huge trade deficit
Nothing new. An economics professor told me once that a trade deficit is a sign of a good economy. Besides, I don't know if this is really that much of a problem. Can you remember the last time the US had a trade surplus? I can't. Yet we are still doing much better better than those that have a surplus over us.
budget deficit
Nothing new. The US gov't has been in debt since World War II.
outsourcing
Nothing new.
insufficient education
I disagree. If you want a good education, the opportunity is there for you. Most of the reasons that students are not learning is because they simply don't put in the effort. That is a parental problem, not a department of education one. Granted, there are schools that just suck, and the students have no choice but to attend those crappy schools, but that has been fixed (or at least it would have been had "vouchers" not been blocked by Democrats).
Social security issues
Bush tried to fix this, but again, blocked by Democrats who, for some reason, prefer the status quo to a limited privatization of Social Security. While the Democrats were busy screaming about how it wouldn't work, the good citizens of Galveston Texas are proof that it would. Didn't matter since it was a Bush plan, Democrats must oppose it (see my sig for another example).
soaring medical costs
Nothing new. Still, I'd rather pay too much for health insurance that too much in taxes!