First, why upgrade my computer's OS when MS's own evaluation app warns me that my installed apps won't run or will need upgrades (my hardware level is just fine)? Secondly, I've been walking my parents through the process of learning Vista (lots of: where's this, how do we do that, why won't the printer work, etc), after they got a laptop with it, and I don't see the need? Sure it looks pretty, but I need to work, not sit back back and think about how pretty the desktop is.
I think the biggest problem with the whole climate change debate, is that the common man can't easily do all the research to come to their own good conclusion. So they have to believe whoever in the media has the best song and dance show.
Exactly. In fact, I've lost track; are we now hurtling towards another ice age or a global BBQ? It seems to change every few decades. A frustrating pattern is that the evidence that was used to justify [insert environmental disaster] is then found to actually justify [insert environmental disaster], even though to the layman, [insert environmental disaster] and [insert environmental disaster] appear to be diametrically opposed. Of course, when that's pointed out, there's a whole bunch of yelling/spinning and accusations that the person isn't a scientist and couldn't possibly understand.
Review it for what? A client who's confident that he's going to win? That sounds about like 100% of political canidates out there. Of course, I'm sure you realize your recollection is applicable to either Bush or Gore? Al's been saying "that's not possible, it can't be" for about 6 years now.
It was a pretty lengthy process with multiple warnings about losing some or all of your money and just how risky the whole proposition was. It also wasn't a click-click-click accept type of form, they had a mixture of input types that forced you to read the page to see what they were looking for.
Yep, they made you go through multi stage process where they warned you multiple times that you could lose some or all of your money. They also made you analyze your threshold of risk and after all that and a few more dire threats you were given the agreement to puchase an unknown number of shares. It was unknown since the number of share available was dependent on the number of people participating.
You're correct though, you weren't agreeing to purchase the shares before the IPO (since the price wasn't known), you were agreeing to purchase the shares at the opening IPO price.
Since the IPO was pretty bad, you've now got some upset people.
It was interesting to see one thread start with someone asking if they felt more psychically aware or tuned in after the infection (as if the fibers are like little antennas?) and pretty soon you had other people jumping on board...
What makes you think that.xxx would have done anything to clean up the internet? All it would have done is make some registrars some $$$, but that's about all.
BTW, what constitutes pornography? Would it be the American idea? The French idea? The Iranian idea? Maybe the Nigerian idea?
Oh... and would decide the global definition of porn? How would you determine who finally gets hotteenbabes.xxx domain? Is it the hotteenbabes.com or hotteenbabes.org or the hotteenbabes.net guys?
Mine says the same (Nearest...), but the return address on the envelope was located in CA, rather than FL (where I am) for some reason (where it was shipped _from_?).
Needless to say, I trashed that envelope and doubled up on one of the return envelopes that was addressed to Tampa, FL. Sending back to CA would put a serious dent in my TAT.
Do you think so at this point? They've made me wait 10 years, so why should I be in a rush to give them $59.95? Besides, after this length of time and the nightmare the development process was, I'm going to wait for the community reviews, before I even think about dropping some dough on it.
Is this really a shocker? Bush has had a policy of denying global warming is a result of humans, the fact he is giving the NOAA extra money for research rather than prevention is quite interesting, global warming is something that is happening.
From the article: "Although Bush and his top advisers have said that Earth is warming and human activity has contributed to this, they have questioned some predictions and caution that mandatory limits on carbon dioxide could damage the nation's economy."
It doesn't sound like there's any denying going on, but rather a question regarding the impact?
I'm old enough to remember the original ATMs (called Money Access Centers (MAC) at the time BTW).
Same here! Ours was called Molli Mac (get it>) and the thrill factor was pretty big at the time. No cashing of checks, no waiting in teller lines, etc...
Yeah right, they just want us to stream directly from the Studios. Why have all that pesky content laying around when we can just license everything and let the Studios keep it in-house?
I think what some people are missing is the cause in the drop. We shouldn't forget to take economic, environmental and political reasons into account for the drop in production. A drop is not necessarily due to supply exhaustion.
"You obviously don't know the effect what happens if the prof's findings are true and this gets to the mainstream media. Governments, companies and people will start stockpiling and prices will skyrocket. People WILL panic, no matter what anyone says."
Actually, each time someone has predicted this (it happens fairly regularly, starting in the late 1800s), people have remained fairly calm. Of course, you have the "TRUE BELIEVERS" who say "THIS time, it REALLY did happen".
Don't take the apparent sincerity of the Professor as any indicator of truth or correctness.
That's the problem with all these supposed expert claiming they can model an oil peak. There is so much excluded from the peak equation, it's a complete waste of time unless you're attempting to put across some sort of agenda.
The parent post was correct, if you've only explored an area of 2.5%, what's under the rest of the 97.5% of the area? If people get desperate enough, I'll bet they'll want to find out
Besides, let's use up the Middle East's reserves first and then we can start seeing what we have and how much China wants to pay for it.
Here are some quotes from the National Center For Policy Analysis, regarding Oil Peaks and attempting to forecast oil production:
In 1855, an advertisement for Kier's Rock Oil advised consumers to "hurry, before this wonderful product is depleted from Nature's laboratory."
In 1874, the state geologist of Pennsylvania, the nation's leading oil-producing state, estimated that only enough U.S. oil remained to keep the nation's kerosene lamps burning for four years.
In May 1920, the U.S. Geological Survey announced that the world's total endowment of oil amounted to 60 billion barrels.
In 1950, geologists estimated the world's total oil endowment at around 600 billion barrels.
From 1970 through 1990, their estimates increased to between 1,500 and 2,000 billion barrels.
In 1994, the U.S. Geological Survey raised the estimate to 2,400 billion barrels, and their most recent estimate (2000) was of a 3,000-billion-barrel endowment.
By the year 2000, a total of 900 billion barrels of oil had been produced. Total world oil production in 2000 was 25 billion barrels. If world oil consumption continues to increase at an average rate of 1.4 percent a year, and no further resources are discovered, the world's oil supply will not be exhausted until the year 2056.
The estimates above do not include unconventional oil resources. Conventional oil refers to oil that is pumped out of the ground with minimal processing; unconventional oil resources consist largely of tar sands and oil shales that require processing to extract liquid petroleum. Unconventional oil resources are very large. In the future, new technologies that allow extraction of these unconventional resources likely will increase the world's reserves.
Oil production from tar sands in Canada and South America would add about 600 billion barrels to the world's supply.
Rocks found in the three western states of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming alone contain 1,500 billion barrels of oil.
Worldwide, the oil-shale resource base could easily be as large as 14,000 billion barrels -- more than 500 years of oil supply at year 2000 production rates.
Unconventional oil resources are more expensive to extract and produce, but we can expect production costs to drop with time as improved technologies increase efficiency.
With every passing year it becomes possible to exploit oil resources that could not have been recovered with old technologies. The first American oil well drilled in 1859 by Colonel Edwin Drake in Titusville, Pa. -- which was actually drilled by a local blacksmith known as Uncle Billy Smith -- reached a total depth of 69 feet (21 meters).
Today's drilling technology allows the completion of wells up to 30,000 feet (9,144 meters) deep.
The vast petroleum resources of the world's submerged continental margins are accessible from offshore platforms that allow drilling in water depths to 9,000 feet (2,743 meters).
The amount of oil recoverable from a single well has greatly increased because new technologies allow the boring of multiple horizontal shafts from a single vertical shaft.
Four-dimensional seismic imaging enables engineers and geologists to see a subsurface petroleum reservoir drain over months to years, allowing them to increase the efficiency of its recovery.
New techniques and new technology have increased the efficiency of oil exploration. The success rate for exploratory petroleum wells has increased 50 percent over the past decade, according to energy economist Michael C. Lynch.
Are they more learned or are they just able to fit in successfully with another group of liberal academics? It could be the more learned have moved into the private sector? You could play this game all day long.:-) My experiance is that for some of the professors I ran into, the academic setting is the only setting they would survive in.
This is _very_ true, the closest I can come to explaining it is like this: it is only a lie if they get caught lying (and even then, good luck getting them to admit to a falsehood, it was all just a "misunderstanding"). If you believe the lie, there was no lie told.
I've been very happy with the service. For some reason, I have better luck getting a signal with the card than the phone (Verizon too), although it could be that a voice connection makes it easy to detect a drop out, versus the internet connection just slowing down. It rarely hits top speed, but the worst successful connection I've had is still faster than dialup.
MSNBC has Chris Matthews, who is a moderate (not a liberal), and seems slightly more independent of either party.
Not a liberal? I'd agree in only one respect. He's still a stong Roman Catholic, so he'll break with his party on certain issues, but don't confuse that with being independent of the party. You don't become a speech writer for Pres Jimmy Carter and a top aide for Tip O'Neil by being independent of the party.
The hard questions aren't asked and if they are, you either get complete bullshit or you get offense. Take for example Stewart's lampooning of Zel Miller (sp?), the democratic senator that delivered the keynote address at the RNC. When interviewed by Russert, Miller took such offense to moving away from the republican talking points, or even questioning his use of metaphor and asking what it referred to, that he challenged Russert to a duel and stormed off the set.
I think in Zell's case it was more about the question wasn't allowed to be answered. Chris Matthew simply wouldn't let Zell answer the question. Each time Zell started to answer Chris would talk or yell over his answer, since that's Chris' style. Finally Zell got pissed off and left. Can't say that I blame him. Why stick around for that kind of abuse?
Slashdot Mirror
First, why upgrade my computer's OS when MS's own evaluation app warns me that my installed apps won't run or will need upgrades (my hardware level is just fine)? Secondly, I've been walking my parents through the process of learning Vista (lots of: where's this, how do we do that, why won't the printer work, etc), after they got a laptop with it, and I don't see the need? Sure it looks pretty, but I need to work, not sit back back and think about how pretty the desktop is.
I'm willing to bet the side opposing ExxonMobil has kicked in a few bucks too.
I think the biggest problem with the whole climate change debate, is that the common man can't easily do all the research to come to their own good conclusion. So they have to believe whoever in the media has the best song and dance show.
Exactly. In fact, I've lost track; are we now hurtling towards another ice age or a global BBQ? It seems to change every few decades. A frustrating pattern is that the evidence that was used to justify [insert environmental disaster] is then found to actually justify [insert environmental disaster], even though to the layman, [insert environmental disaster] and [insert environmental disaster] appear to be diametrically opposed. Of course, when that's pointed out, there's a whole bunch of yelling/spinning and accusations that the person isn't a scientist and couldn't possibly understand.Review it for what? A client who's confident that he's going to win? That sounds about like 100% of political canidates out there. Of course, I'm sure you realize your recollection is applicable to either Bush or Gore? Al's been saying "that's not possible, it can't be" for about 6 years now.
He'd... better... talk... reeeaaaallll... sssllllloooooowwwwww....
It was a pretty lengthy process with multiple warnings about losing some or all of your money and just how risky the whole proposition was. It also wasn't a click-click-click accept type of form, they had a mixture of input types that forced you to read the page to see what they were looking for.
Yep, they made you go through multi stage process where they warned you multiple times that you could lose some or all of your money. They also made you analyze your threshold of risk and after all that and a few more dire threats you were given the agreement to puchase an unknown number of shares. It was unknown since the number of share available was dependent on the number of people participating.
You're correct though, you weren't agreeing to purchase the shares before the IPO (since the price wasn't known), you were agreeing to purchase the shares at the opening IPO price.
Since the IPO was pretty bad, you've now got some upset people.
It was interesting to see one thread start with someone asking if they felt more psychically aware or tuned in after the infection (as if the fibers are like little antennas?) and pretty soon you had other people jumping on board...
A different form of mass hysteria?
"serving your porn" - So who gets to decide what's porn? Different countries, states, cities, villages, etc all have different ideas of what porn is.
.com domain" - What about .net, .org, .tv, etc with overlapping domain names?
"every registered
What makes you think that .xxx would have done anything to clean up the internet? All it would have done is make some registrars some $$$, but that's about all.
BTW, what constitutes pornography? Would it be the American idea? The French idea? The Iranian idea? Maybe the Nigerian idea?
Oh... and would decide the global definition of porn? How would you determine who finally gets hotteenbabes.xxx domain? Is it the hotteenbabes.com or hotteenbabes.org or the hotteenbabes.net guys?
Mine says the same (Nearest...), but the return address on the envelope was located in CA, rather than FL (where I am) for some reason (where it was shipped _from_?).
Needless to say, I trashed that envelope and doubled up on one of the return envelopes that was addressed to Tampa, FL. Sending back to CA would put a serious dent in my TAT.
Do you think so at this point? They've made me wait 10 years, so why should I be in a rush to give them $59.95? Besides, after this length of time and the nightmare the development process was, I'm going to wait for the community reviews, before I even think about dropping some dough on it.
... a test level, a vehicle sequence and a few test rooms????
From the article: "Although Bush and his top advisers have said that Earth is warming and human activity has contributed to this, they have questioned some predictions and caution that mandatory limits on carbon dioxide could damage the nation's economy."
It doesn't sound like there's any denying going on, but rather a question regarding the impact?
Same here! Ours was called Molli Mac (get it>) and the thrill factor was pretty big at the time. No cashing of checks, no waiting in teller lines, etc...
Yeah right, they just want us to stream directly from the Studios. Why have all that pesky content laying around when we can just license everything and let the Studios keep it in-house?
I think what some people are missing is the cause in the drop. We shouldn't forget to take economic, environmental and political reasons into account for the drop in production. A drop is not necessarily due to supply exhaustion.
Actually, each time someone has predicted this (it happens fairly regularly, starting in the late 1800s), people have remained fairly calm. Of course, you have the "TRUE BELIEVERS" who say "THIS time, it REALLY did happen".
Don't take the apparent sincerity of the Professor as any indicator of truth or correctness.
That's the problem with all these supposed expert claiming they can model an oil peak. There is so much excluded from the peak equation, it's a complete waste of time unless you're attempting to put across some sort of agenda.
The parent post was correct, if you've only explored an area of 2.5%, what's under the rest of the 97.5% of the area? If people get desperate enough, I'll bet they'll want to find out
Besides, let's use up the Middle East's reserves first and then we can start seeing what we have and how much China wants to pay for it.
Here are some quotes from the National Center For Policy Analysis, regarding Oil Peaks and attempting to forecast oil production:
In 1855, an advertisement for Kier's Rock Oil advised consumers to "hurry, before this wonderful product is depleted from Nature's laboratory."
In 1874, the state geologist of Pennsylvania, the nation's leading oil-producing state, estimated that only enough U.S. oil remained to keep the nation's kerosene lamps burning for four years.
In May 1920, the U.S. Geological Survey announced that the world's total endowment of oil amounted to 60 billion barrels.
In 1950, geologists estimated the world's total oil endowment at around 600 billion barrels.
From 1970 through 1990, their estimates increased to between 1,500 and 2,000 billion barrels.
In 1994, the U.S. Geological Survey raised the estimate to 2,400 billion barrels, and their most recent estimate (2000) was of a 3,000-billion-barrel endowment.
By the year 2000, a total of 900 billion barrels of oil had been produced. Total world oil production in 2000 was 25 billion barrels. If world oil consumption continues to increase at an average rate of 1.4 percent a year, and no further resources are discovered, the world's oil supply will not be exhausted until the year 2056.
The estimates above do not include unconventional oil resources. Conventional oil refers to oil that is pumped out of the ground with minimal processing; unconventional oil resources consist largely of tar sands and oil shales that require processing to extract liquid petroleum. Unconventional oil resources are very large. In the future, new technologies that allow extraction of these unconventional resources likely will increase the world's reserves.
Oil production from tar sands in Canada and South America would add about 600 billion barrels to the world's supply.
Rocks found in the three western states of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming alone contain 1,500 billion barrels of oil.
Worldwide, the oil-shale resource base could easily be as large as 14,000 billion barrels -- more than 500 years of oil supply at year 2000 production rates.
Unconventional oil resources are more expensive to extract and produce, but we can expect production costs to drop with time as improved technologies increase efficiency.
With every passing year it becomes possible to exploit oil resources that could not have been recovered with old technologies. The first American oil well drilled in 1859 by Colonel Edwin Drake in Titusville, Pa. -- which was actually drilled by a local blacksmith known as Uncle Billy Smith -- reached a total depth of 69 feet (21 meters).
Today's drilling technology allows the completion of wells up to 30,000 feet (9,144 meters) deep.
The vast petroleum resources of the world's submerged continental margins are accessible from offshore platforms that allow drilling in water depths to 9,000 feet (2,743 meters).
The amount of oil recoverable from a single well has greatly increased because new technologies allow the boring of multiple horizontal shafts from a single vertical shaft.
Four-dimensional seismic imaging enables engineers and geologists to see a subsurface petroleum reservoir drain over months to years, allowing them to increase the efficiency of its recovery.
New techniques and new technology have increased the efficiency of oil exploration. The success rate for exploratory petroleum wells has increased 50 percent over the past decade, according to energy economist Michael C. Lynch.
Are they more learned or are they just able to fit in successfully with another group of liberal academics? It could be the more learned have moved into the private sector? You could play this game all day long. :-) My experiance is that for some of the professors I ran into, the academic setting is the only setting they would survive in.
This is _very_ true, the closest I can come to explaining it is like this: it is only a lie if they get caught lying (and even then, good luck getting them to admit to a falsehood, it was all just a "misunderstanding"). If you believe the lie, there was no lie told.
I've been very happy with the service. For some reason, I have better luck getting a signal with the card than the phone (Verizon too), although it could be that a voice connection makes it easy to detect a drop out, versus the internet connection just slowing down. It rarely hits top speed, but the worst successful connection I've had is still faster than dialup.
Not a liberal? I'd agree in only one respect. He's still a stong Roman Catholic, so he'll break with his party on certain issues, but don't confuse that with being independent of the party. You don't become a speech writer for Pres Jimmy Carter and a top aide for Tip O'Neil by being independent of the party.
I think in Zell's case it was more about the question wasn't allowed to be answered. Chris Matthew simply wouldn't let Zell answer the question. Each time Zell started to answer Chris would talk or yell over his answer, since that's Chris' style. Finally Zell got pissed off and left. Can't say that I blame him. Why stick around for that kind of abuse?