Then the United States invaded them for some stupid reason...
Who did the what now?
What alternate-history book did you read THAT in?
And in light of recent history, I don't trust the United States to right its mistakes without making things ten times worse.
And in light of your apparent ignorance of history (US invading Iran? Seriously?? WTF?), I don't trust you to make any foreign-policy decisions:) If you think that recent history is a reason not to trust the US, chances are you don't really understand recent history.
There's cynicism, and then there's outright paranoia. It's safe to say that this type of concrete invariably WILL be used in bunkers, but there are also a multitude of other uses for it. Unless the Iranian government specifically created this project in order to create hardened bunkers (which they didn't) there's no reason to immediately get paranoid about it. Let the boys in the pentagon worry about possible military implications - the rest of us should be thinking about ways in which it could be used to improve civilian infrastructure.
Besides which, chunks of ultra-hard concrete aren't exactly a threatening concept, even coming from a violent and slightly insane theocracy:) Now, if they start making really big trebuchets, THEN we can start to worry...
The girl in the article did not have the ability to make that decision; it was made for her.
Oh, you're a psychic too? Wow! What other tricks have you got up your sleeve?
On the other hand, if what really happened is that you told your parents you wanted to switch schools and they made the decision for you, based on your input, then that's something else entirely: the choice was out of your hands, and you were just lucky enough that the folks with the power chose to listen to you. Not everyone can expect to be so lucky.
No shit sherlock! And you think every adult has the option of switching jobs? If so, you must have spent your entire adult life in academia. The rest of the world has plenty of people who do the same job for their entire lives, simply because they feel that they have no other choice. Do the experience of those unfortunates mean that we live in an oppressive society in which nobody is able to switch careers or chose employers? Or does it just mean that you like to emphasize outliers in order to try and dismiss the general trend?
The rules we impose on minors are no more legitimate than the rules imposed by a dictator.
You're an idiot. I don't know if you have kids or not - hopefully not - but if you ever have some, I hope that they tell you to go fuck yourself any time you ask them to do anything. Something like:
"Clean your room please" "FUCK YOU DAD! I won't stand for your fascist-imperialist dictatorship! One man one vote! Power to the people!"
And then I hope they shit on your couch, piss on your cat, rape your apple pie, and stage a sit-in in your bedroom.
Meanwhile, I'm done here. I don't deal well with loony extremists. If you ever rejoin the rest of the human race, let me know and we can try having a civilized discussion. Until then, please, please, PLEASE don't breed.
No, they can't. Once again, that's the difference between students and employees!
Really? Gee, I'm sure glad I didn't know that when I was in school. Might have stopped me from switching.
What it means is you'd rather play word games than have an honest discussion.
Or that you're a closed minded bastard who refuses to look past his blinders. I'd tend to go with that interpretation. You don't need to blame me for your narrow view.
All you showed is a poor understanding of democracy.
Huh?
Now you're just making shit up. My comment had absolutely nothing to do with democracy. Children do not live in a democracy.
I was arguing that minors aren't responsible for the laws they're expected to follow
Which I would agree with, but that's not what you were arguing. Once again you're moving the goal-posts.Either that or you phrased your initial argument extremely badly. There's a world of difference between "not being responsible" and "having no say".
And, before you throw another feint at me, I just gotta ask... what the fuck are you trying to prove, exactly? That minors should have the exact same rights and responsibilities as adults? If so, you may as well end this conversation right now, since you're even more of a fool than I thought. If not, maybe you can outline your argument in a more linear fashion so that I can figure out what's got your panties in a bunch.
Employees are there because they choose to be. They voluntarily submit to their employer's rules. If they don't like those rules, they can look for work elsewhere, or become self-employed.
Students, on the other hand...
Can find a different school?
It's unreasonable to expect the same blind obedience from someone who has rules imposed upon him, against his will, as you would from someone who chooses to live by those rules in exchange for payment.
I'll grant you that much, but it's irrelevant. You could also argue that it's unreasonable to expect adults to show blind obedience towards rules foisted on them by the society in which they happen to be born - such as the prohibitions against theft, murder, and rape. It's a silly argument. We all have to follow certain rules, regardless of what we think of them. We're free to try and persuade others to our way of thinking, but we cannot simply disregard the law. Without that, society disintegrates.
Is this supposed to be relevant to what I said? Surely you don't think violating a school's code of conduct is a crime, do you?
Absolutely. The first definition of law in the dictionary is:
"A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority."
Codes of conduct certainly fit into that category. Moreover, codes of conduct for public schools are generally developed by a government ministry and as such are backed by the full power of the state. That certainly makes them into official laws. Sure, they don't fall into the categories of criminal law, civil law, tax law, highway traffic law, property laws, military law, maritime law, international law, law of armed conflict, or any of the myriad other types of laws that you could probably think of. But that doesn't mean they're not laws - only that they're not in the category you're thinking of.
Heh, I don't think you could've picked a worse example if you tried. The achievement in that article was to strike a part of the state constitution that had been found unconstitutional and hadn't been enforced for decades. It was uncontroversial and it affected no one; it certainly didn't give students any more rights.
All of which is irrelevant, since you were arguing that minors cannot change laws, and I showed that you're full of shit. At least be honest enough to admit that you were wrong, before jogging your goalposts another hundred yards upfield.
And you're an idiot for calling names instead of recognizing the real, important differences between a student's position and an employee's. So nyah.
There is no difference, or if there is you certainly haven't demonstrated it.
Incorrect. When the GP wrote "Students shouldn't be texting in class. If a student refuses to follow the rules, you have to do something", he wasn't discussing legality. "Students shouldn't be texting" and "you have to do something" are normative judgments, not legal facts: it's not illegal for students to text in class, nor for teachers to let them do it.
Really? Have you got a copy of that schools code of conduct handy? Maybe you could e-mail it to me?
Ha! You seem to have forgotten that we're talking about a minor here, who had no say in the law in the first place.
Untrue - minors have the same right to petition their government and carry out non-violent protests as anyone else, they just don't have the right to vote. There's plenty of cases where students have played a key role in changing laws - here is one random example from a 10 second google search. Moreover, student councils can and do petition schools and school boards on a regular basis, which is more pertinent to what we're discussing here.
If they refuse to leave, you call their parents and have her talk to them
Good luck with that when she keeps giving you the wrong number. Even if you do have the number, what makes you think he/she would WANT to talk to them? Or that it would do any good? And why exactly do you want to go wasting class time on negotiating with some stuck-up brat, when the school cop is just down the hall?
School is not a job, students are not employees, and members of a disenfranchised minority have no moral obligation to meekly submit to whatever arbitrary policies their overlords come up with.
Well, you're an idiot for turning this into some anti-slavery anti-oppression Viva La Revolution! nonsense, but, besides that, we're not discussing morality, we're discussing legality. You don't like the law, fine, fight to change it. Meanwhile, behave yourself or face the consequences.
Indeed because, as we all know, refusing to comply or follow orders in a non-military school is indeed a crime against all of society punishable by a sentence decreed in a court of law!
Yes, actually, depending on how disruptive your behavior is. Of course, the real problem here is that people who act out in this way generally tend to keep escalating the situation until they end up in handcuffs (and even after that, in some cases).
It's like the "don't taze me bro!" retard. He was acting like an idiot, being insulting as hell, and generally distrusting the event at which he was present. Even so, both the speaker and the security personnel restrained themselves and gave him a chance to speak his mind. When they finally asked him to leave, he refused. They still restrained themselves, and gave him every opportunity to do the right thing. Instead, his behavior got worse and worse until he ended up on the ground getting zapped and cuffed.
Some people simply have no common sense. They seem to think that they have unlimited freedom to encroach on the rights of others, and do not acknowledge authority of any kind. Well, so be it - whether or not they want to acknowledge authority figures is irrelevant, as long as we have authority figures who are authorized to use force.
What point? That you don't have to pay attention in class? Uh, sorry, no. The schools all have codes of behavior which outline how a student is to behave, as well as the disciplinary measures to be implemented in case of non-compliance. Sure, you can ignore those rules, but you can ignore laws too - either way, you're going to have to deal with the repercussions.
Interesting... one little teenie tiny problem though; it can be proven scientifically that Elvis is dead through forensic examination.
What??? YOU'RE ONE OF THEM??? And here I thought you were a rational person and a critical thinker! How can you say something so stupid?
Everyone knows that the body they put in the ground wasn't really Elvis, and the forensic evidence they kept wasn't him either! Besides, since Elvis is all powerful, he could remotely modify the results of their test! So your "science" couldn't prove anything!
I agree completely! Even worse are those Elvis-is-not-still-alive loonies! Fine, I say, prove it. show me your documented research on the subject, using whatever methodology you wish, that establishes, scientifically/logically/whatever, that elvis isn't alive. oh, you mean you accept it on FAITH that he isn't alive?....
The moon is as big a contributor to life on Earth as its water, because of how the tide has stirred the water like no other planet we've discovered yet.
That's complete woo-woo. There's absolutely no reason to believe that the moon had any effect on the emergence of life. It's a fun little theory if you're the kind of person who likes abstract art, but it's certainly not supported by any scientific evidence.
I think it'd pretty much have to be a one-way trip. Sending people 10 lightyears through space isn't cheap. The only reason to send people there in the first place would be either to act as ambassadors and advisers to the intelligent species living there, or to set up a colony if the planet happens to be devoid of intelligent life. Either way, coming back wouldn't be part of the plan. The ship could be put to much better use such as ferrying things back to earth, whether they be alien ambassadors or physical specimens of extraterrestrial discoveries.
first off, the original peak oil predictions were for US oil production, which did in fact peak back then.
I stand corrected. Of course, if the US starts processing oil sands/shales, your "peak" will become more of a plateau:)
i mean, saudi aramco could make a profit if oil sells for less than 10 bucks a gallon. what magical technology is going to let oil sands compete with that?
I'm going to assume you mean 10 bucks a barrel?
You're right, they can afford to do it due to low labor costs, low-to-no exploratory costs, and the existing infrastructure. But oil isn't selling for that price now, and is never going to drop that low. The Arabs aren't stupid; they know that their oil will run out eventually, so they're unlikely to start selling at break-even prices. They need the money in order to finance projects to ensure future profitability for their nations, such as all those crazy resorts they've been building in the UAE. Even if they did start dropping prices, they don't have the supply to drop global prices to that extent. Their oil would sell faster, but more expensive oils would still sell. That's essentially always been the situation - even conventional oil extraction in the US has always been more expensive than in the middle east.
as to cheap, our whole country is structured around cheap oil, cheap as in as cheap as it used to be. canadian oil sands are only profitable at a per-barrel oil cost which would, if permanent, really hurt this country.
Canadian oil sands are still profitable at $50 a barrel (up to 27% profit according to wikipedia). If that's going to "really hurt" your country, then you guys are in worse shape than I thought:)
It's velocity that's the problem. That term is squared. Double the velocity and you get 4x the energy on impact.
Well, sure, if you're lobbing satellite parts at the moon. The earth has an atmosphere, though. Air resistance doesn't scale linearly. The faster your initial velocity, the greater your loss of velocity due to air resistance. At very high velocities, air resistance increases exponentially. Therefore, double the velocity on de-orbit does not mean double the impact velocity.
It's not the mass that's the important part.
A low enough mass won't impact at all - it'll burn up long before it hits the ground.
So I still stand by it - this would make impressive impacts, easily confused with earthquakes I'm sure.
It might make an impressive impact. Without knowing the variables, you have no basis for concluding that it would.
I understand the concept, I just chose my words badly:) A better way to phrase it would have been something like:
Realistically, while oil prices will undoubtedly continue to rise over time, we're not likely to see any major spike due to "peak oil" for a long, LONG time.
If you're near a couple of tons at reentry speed, yeah. I'll bet you'd think it was an earthquake too.
Except that none of the pieces would be anywhere NEAR that size. The iridium satellite was about half a ton, and the Russian satellite weighed in at just under a ton. Even if they had fused into one solid mass on impact, you still wouldn't have enough material to make up "a couple of tons".
that's not right at all. the idea of peak oil does in fact factor in new discoveries, it just asserts that new found reserves of light sweet crude will be of dwindling size and not meet the ever-increasing need for petroleum. same is true of new technologies.
I'm a bit skeptical of that claim - the original "peak oil" predictions were for, what, 1980? Either they didn't account for new reserves/technologies at all, or they made a serious miscalculation in their estimates. I see no reason to believe that current predictions are any more accurate, especially when:
the tar sands are a great example - there's tons of oil in them, but it costs a shit ton to extract
That statement depends entirely on the idea that no new technologies will emerge to make the extraction process more cost-effective. There is no basis for making such a prediction. It could possibly be true, but it's still baseless, and is more probably wrong.
'peak oil' was never about 'oil running out'. oil will never technically run out. but cheap oil, that's another thing.
"cheap" is a relative term. That latest price hike was enough to make Canadian oil sands competitive with traditional oil sources. The US now gets the majority of it's oil from us. The biggest holdup in the development of the Canadian oil sands projects has been a labour shortage - the resources are there, the willingness is there, and the financial incentive is there, we just simply didn't have the manpower to do everything that needed doing. And yet even the prices we were paying last summer were fairly cheap; they just happened to be higher than what we're used to.
Peak oil is, for all intents and purposes, a myth. It relies on the idea that no new oil reserves will be found, and no new technologies developed. That is a massively erroneous assumption. For instance, the recent price-hike encouraged us Canadians to start mining our reserves of oil-sands. The world oil-sands reserves are massive (more than the oil sources we use now), and they're simply not taken into account when computing "peak oil" projections. Oil-shales are another source which has barely been tapped, and world reserves are estimated to be even higher than oil-sands. US oil shale deposits alone exceed all the remaining conventional oil deposits in the entire world. Likewise, oil-shales aren't included in the computation.
Realistically, while oil prices will undoubtedly rise over time, we're not likely to hit any "peak" for a long, LONG time. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be looking at ways to minimize our oil consumption - I'm all for developing alternate-fuel vehicles, and building more nuclear reactors - but it does mean that we aren't facing a looming crisis just over the horizon.
Slashdot Mirror
Who did the what now?
What alternate-history book did you read THAT in?
And in light of your apparent ignorance of history (US invading Iran? Seriously?? WTF?), I don't trust you to make any foreign-policy decisions :) If you think that recent history is a reason not to trust the US, chances are you don't really understand recent history.
By that standard, Cuba is also a democracy. You can vote for Castro, or you can vote for Castro. How much more choice do you need?
Completely off topic, but I gotta ask - which scripture DO you subscribe to? You can't make a comment like that without including more details ...
I'll be conducting remedial English lessons after class ... you're welcome to stay behind for some extra help ...
There's cynicism, and then there's outright paranoia. It's safe to say that this type of concrete invariably WILL be used in bunkers, but there are also a multitude of other uses for it. Unless the Iranian government specifically created this project in order to create hardened bunkers (which they didn't) there's no reason to immediately get paranoid about it. Let the boys in the pentagon worry about possible military implications - the rest of us should be thinking about ways in which it could be used to improve civilian infrastructure.
Besides which, chunks of ultra-hard concrete aren't exactly a threatening concept, even coming from a violent and slightly insane theocracy :) Now, if they start making really big trebuchets, THEN we can start to worry ...
Oh, you're a psychic too? Wow! What other tricks have you got up your sleeve?
No shit sherlock! And you think every adult has the option of switching jobs? If so, you must have spent your entire adult life in academia. The rest of the world has plenty of people who do the same job for their entire lives, simply because they feel that they have no other choice. Do the experience of those unfortunates mean that we live in an oppressive society in which nobody is able to switch careers or chose employers? Or does it just mean that you like to emphasize outliers in order to try and dismiss the general trend?
You're an idiot. I don't know if you have kids or not - hopefully not - but if you ever have some, I hope that they tell you to go fuck yourself any time you ask them to do anything. Something like:
"Clean your room please"
"FUCK YOU DAD! I won't stand for your fascist-imperialist dictatorship! One man one vote! Power to the people!"
And then I hope they shit on your couch, piss on your cat, rape your apple pie, and stage a sit-in in your bedroom.
Meanwhile, I'm done here. I don't deal well with loony extremists. If you ever rejoin the rest of the human race, let me know and we can try having a civilized discussion. Until then, please, please, PLEASE don't breed.
Really? Gee, I'm sure glad I didn't know that when I was in school. Might have stopped me from switching.
Or that you're a closed minded bastard who refuses to look past his blinders. I'd tend to go with that interpretation. You don't need to blame me for your narrow view.
Huh?
Now you're just making shit up. My comment had absolutely nothing to do with democracy. Children do not live in a democracy.
Which I would agree with, but that's not what you were arguing. Once again you're moving the goal-posts.Either that or you phrased your initial argument extremely badly. There's a world of difference between "not being responsible" and "having no say".
And, before you throw another feint at me, I just gotta ask ... what the fuck are you trying to prove, exactly? That minors should have the exact same rights and responsibilities as adults? If so, you may as well end this conversation right now, since you're even more of a fool than I thought. If not, maybe you can outline your argument in a more linear fashion so that I can figure out what's got your panties in a bunch.
Can find a different school?
I'll grant you that much, but it's irrelevant. You could also argue that it's unreasonable to expect adults to show blind obedience towards rules foisted on them by the society in which they happen to be born - such as the prohibitions against theft, murder, and rape. It's a silly argument. We all have to follow certain rules, regardless of what we think of them. We're free to try and persuade others to our way of thinking, but we cannot simply disregard the law. Without that, society disintegrates.
Absolutely. The first definition of law in the dictionary is:
"A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority."
Codes of conduct certainly fit into that category. Moreover, codes of conduct for public schools are generally developed by a government ministry and as such are backed by the full power of the state. That certainly makes them into official laws. Sure, they don't fall into the categories of criminal law, civil law, tax law, highway traffic law, property laws, military law, maritime law, international law, law of armed conflict, or any of the myriad other types of laws that you could probably think of. But that doesn't mean they're not laws - only that they're not in the category you're thinking of.
All of which is irrelevant, since you were arguing that minors cannot change laws, and I showed that you're full of shit. At least be honest enough to admit that you were wrong, before jogging your goalposts another hundred yards upfield.
There is no difference, or if there is you certainly haven't demonstrated it.
Really? Have you got a copy of that schools code of conduct handy? Maybe you could e-mail it to me?
Untrue - minors have the same right to petition their government and carry out non-violent protests as anyone else, they just don't have the right to vote. There's plenty of cases where students have played a key role in changing laws - here is one random example from a 10 second google search. Moreover, student councils can and do petition schools and school boards on a regular basis, which is more pertinent to what we're discussing here.
That doesn't remove them from the classroom.
Good luck with that when she keeps giving you the wrong number. Even if you do have the number, what makes you think he/she would WANT to talk to them? Or that it would do any good? And why exactly do you want to go wasting class time on negotiating with some stuck-up brat, when the school cop is just down the hall?
Well, you're an idiot for turning this into some anti-slavery anti-oppression Viva La Revolution! nonsense, but, besides that, we're not discussing morality, we're discussing legality. You don't like the law, fine, fight to change it. Meanwhile, behave yourself or face the consequences.
Yuhuh. And when the kid tells you to go fist yourself, you do .... what, exactly?
You could always try calling the phone, and see if it vibrates it's way out ...
Yes, actually, depending on how disruptive your behavior is. Of course, the real problem here is that people who act out in this way generally tend to keep escalating the situation until they end up in handcuffs (and even after that, in some cases).
It's like the "don't taze me bro!" retard. He was acting like an idiot, being insulting as hell, and generally distrusting the event at which he was present. Even so, both the speaker and the security personnel restrained themselves and gave him a chance to speak his mind. When they finally asked him to leave, he refused. They still restrained themselves, and gave him every opportunity to do the right thing. Instead, his behavior got worse and worse until he ended up on the ground getting zapped and cuffed.
Some people simply have no common sense. They seem to think that they have unlimited freedom to encroach on the rights of others, and do not acknowledge authority of any kind. Well, so be it - whether or not they want to acknowledge authority figures is irrelevant, as long as we have authority figures who are authorized to use force.
What point? That you don't have to pay attention in class? Uh, sorry, no. The schools all have codes of behavior which outline how a student is to behave, as well as the disciplinary measures to be implemented in case of non-compliance. Sure, you can ignore those rules, but you can ignore laws too - either way, you're going to have to deal with the repercussions.
What??? YOU'RE ONE OF THEM??? And here I thought you were a rational person and a critical thinker! How can you say something so stupid?
Everyone knows that the body they put in the ground wasn't really Elvis, and the forensic evidence they kept wasn't him either! Besides, since Elvis is all powerful, he could remotely modify the results of their test! So your "science" couldn't prove anything!
I agree completely! Even worse are those Elvis-is-not-still-alive loonies! Fine, I say, prove it. show me your documented research on the subject, using whatever methodology you wish, that establishes, scientifically/logically/whatever, that elvis isn't alive. oh, you mean you accept it on FAITH that he isn't alive?....
Silly buggers, the lot of 'em!
That's complete woo-woo. There's absolutely no reason to believe that the moon had any effect on the emergence of life. It's a fun little theory if you're the kind of person who likes abstract art, but it's certainly not supported by any scientific evidence.
I think it'd pretty much have to be a one-way trip. Sending people 10 lightyears through space isn't cheap. The only reason to send people there in the first place would be either to act as ambassadors and advisers to the intelligent species living there, or to set up a colony if the planet happens to be devoid of intelligent life. Either way, coming back wouldn't be part of the plan. The ship could be put to much better use such as ferrying things back to earth, whether they be alien ambassadors or physical specimens of extraterrestrial discoveries.
I stand corrected. Of course, if the US starts processing oil sands/shales, your "peak" will become more of a plateau :)
I'm going to assume you mean 10 bucks a barrel?
You're right, they can afford to do it due to low labor costs, low-to-no exploratory costs, and the existing infrastructure. But oil isn't selling for that price now, and is never going to drop that low. The Arabs aren't stupid; they know that their oil will run out eventually, so they're unlikely to start selling at break-even prices. They need the money in order to finance projects to ensure future profitability for their nations, such as all those crazy resorts they've been building in the UAE. Even if they did start dropping prices, they don't have the supply to drop global prices to that extent. Their oil would sell faster, but more expensive oils would still sell. That's essentially always been the situation - even conventional oil extraction in the US has always been more expensive than in the middle east.
Canadian oil sands are still profitable at $50 a barrel (up to 27% profit according to wikipedia). If that's going to "really hurt" your country, then you guys are in worse shape than I thought :)
Well, sure, if you're lobbing satellite parts at the moon. The earth has an atmosphere, though. Air resistance doesn't scale linearly. The faster your initial velocity, the greater your loss of velocity due to air resistance. At very high velocities, air resistance increases exponentially. Therefore, double the velocity on de-orbit does not mean double the impact velocity.
A low enough mass won't impact at all - it'll burn up long before it hits the ground.
It might make an impressive impact. Without knowing the variables, you have no basis for concluding that it would.
I understand the concept, I just chose my words badly :) A better way to phrase it would have been something like:
Realistically, while oil prices will undoubtedly continue to rise over time, we're not likely to see any major spike due to "peak oil" for a long, LONG time.
Thanks for the correction though.
Except that none of the pieces would be anywhere NEAR that size. The iridium satellite was about half a ton, and the Russian satellite weighed in at just under a ton. Even if they had fused into one solid mass on impact, you still wouldn't have enough material to make up "a couple of tons".
I'm a bit skeptical of that claim - the original "peak oil" predictions were for, what, 1980? Either they didn't account for new reserves/technologies at all, or they made a serious miscalculation in their estimates. I see no reason to believe that current predictions are any more accurate, especially when:
That statement depends entirely on the idea that no new technologies will emerge to make the extraction process more cost-effective. There is no basis for making such a prediction. It could possibly be true, but it's still baseless, and is more probably wrong.
"cheap" is a relative term. That latest price hike was enough to make Canadian oil sands competitive with traditional oil sources. The US now gets the majority of it's oil from us. The biggest holdup in the development of the Canadian oil sands projects has been a labour shortage - the resources are there, the willingness is there, and the financial incentive is there, we just simply didn't have the manpower to do everything that needed doing. And yet even the prices we were paying last summer were fairly cheap; they just happened to be higher than what we're used to.
Peak oil is, for all intents and purposes, a myth. It relies on the idea that no new oil reserves will be found, and no new technologies developed. That is a massively erroneous assumption. For instance, the recent price-hike encouraged us Canadians to start mining our reserves of oil-sands. The world oil-sands reserves are massive (more than the oil sources we use now), and they're simply not taken into account when computing "peak oil" projections. Oil-shales are another source which has barely been tapped, and world reserves are estimated to be even higher than oil-sands. US oil shale deposits alone exceed all the remaining conventional oil deposits in the entire world. Likewise, oil-shales aren't included in the computation.
Realistically, while oil prices will undoubtedly rise over time, we're not likely to hit any "peak" for a long, LONG time. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be looking at ways to minimize our oil consumption - I'm all for developing alternate-fuel vehicles, and building more nuclear reactors - but it does mean that we aren't facing a looming crisis just over the horizon.