We hit peak oil because it got too expensive in the mid 80s to continue drilling and pumping the US. It's cheaper to source from overseas. The big price crash of oil in 1985 is what closed a lot of our production.
So, since you want to take new drilling, oil shale, and coal liquefaction off the table, then what the heck do we run on for the 20 years while alternative energy sources AND infrastructure are deployed? What powers airplanes, ships, trains, streetlights, IC fabs? What creates the plastics, drugs and fertilizers that modern society needs? What's your solution?
I say - if you're serious about wanting to be out of the Middle East because of our dependency on their oil, then we immediately develop our existing oil reserves so we have the energy to use while we transition to a different source. But we have to have the intermediate step.
Yes, I am willing to bet my family and life on that statement; however, I believe too many people are not aware of the realities so the actual chance of harvesting the oil shale we have will be limited.
Oil shale is profitable at today's oil prices; once up and running it'll be around half the price of oil today. Given that we don't pay anywhere NEAR $15/gallon for gas now, I doubt we'd pay that for oil shale based gas.
Realistically, if the political will existed, the US could be energy independent TODAY, and for the next few centuries. Canada's already exporting large amounts of oil-sands based oil, and it's not too different than oil shale sources. We could do it, if we wanted. It would take a willingness on ALL sides to commit to energy independence NOW, though.
Searching for alternative energy solutions is fine; however, we need energy NOW and to fund the search. To ignore the massive proven reserves we have - 3 TIMES those that are in Saudi Arabia, and even larger than the entire Middle East - is IMHO folly.
Bill should have learned from Hillary - she invoked "I don't recall" around 50 times in the fraud indictment of Webb Hubbell... Of course, Bill DID use that line a few hundred times in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case...
Peak oil is a myth. I remember it being bandied about back in the 1970s, then the 1980s, then the 1990s... We're on our 40th+ year of "we've hit the oil peak!" and each year the proven reserves seem to grow.
Additionally, add in oil shale; at today's prices it's definitely affordable to develop (see Alberta and the oil sands projects). The US has enough PROVEN oil shale reserves alone to power us for 200+ years at today's consumption rate. And we're not even talking about coal liquification, which will add another 200+ years of petroleum reserves.
Peak oil has at least 300+ years before we reach it. Unless, of course, we decide to artificially limit our use of our own massive reserves of petroleum for the simple fact that some feel "it's the right thing to do". Sure, develop alternative power sources, but the "OMG WE'RE OUT OF OIL!" crisis is a LONG way from coming, and is only a crisis if we choose to make it - there's plenty of petroleum around for us to use while we're developing new power sources.
And, of course, there's plenty of oil if we COULD muster the political will to access it, right here in the US. For those who crow about us being in the Middle East because of oil, how about letting us access the oil right here in exchange for getting out of the Middle East?
They clamp down really extremely on extremists. China's probably not going to have much of an Islamic Jihad issue, at least for the next 20-30 years...
Considering that the US still manufacture 3 times the product - by dollars - than China, and that the US' total manufacturing annual output is equal to the ENTIRE GDP of China, I'd say we're a LONG way from your position...
The open source community, that is... This is the type of behavior that will forever keep it 'second tier' to the big commerical/closed groups. That is, the for-profit type companies. Making the source available to those who buy the package is completely in keeping with the original intent (as far as I understand it) of open source. It was by no means a push for free software, all the time, every time. And as long as the latter stays the focus of the OS community, it will always be second fiddle.
Like it or not, companies rely on solid sources and suppliers. A supplier that does not have a reliable revenue stream just can't be relied upon. And not every company has the resources or desire to staff up and do all its own software development in-house. Commercial, for-profit software has a serious role in business. And that means all involved in it need to make money. Giving away everything - for free - puts a big crimp on that.
When I work with some of the big boys in the consumer electronics market to qualify a new factory, they don't just audit the floor, the QA department, and the PMs. They look at the suppliers, they look at financials, they look at receivables, they look at other customers. Because if they are going to rely upon this new factory, they want to know it's got a future outside of just them. It's got to be stable.
It's REALLY HARD to make that case when your products are available for free, and you're trying to rely upon pure support as your only income stream...
If by brilliance, you mean discarding every scruple, any basic sense of ethics or morality, to sink below the meanest and vilest acts of his opponents to get his candidate elected (or re-elected), then I guess he's a genius.
Why I think you just described James Carville to a "T".
I don't think it takes a genius intellect to send out the bad vibes through the journalistic sewer questioning John McCain's sanity
Why? He's seriously unhinged. It takes genius intellect to stand up and say what needed to be said without getting oneself stoned...
or to invent out of thin air the crap that was flung at John Kerry.
And those inventions would be? Saw a LOT of personal attacks from the left against the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, but nothing to actually counter the claims they made. Politics of Personal Destruction used in big heaping spoonfuls, though...
As such, I say "FUCK YOU" to Mr. Rove, and I sincerely hope that one of those dove's that he's planning on killing drops a turd right in his eye.
And a "FUCK YOU" to you too, you righteous asshole. This is a man who perfected the modern use of hate as a political lever. He shall reap what he was sown.
A lever which you seem perfectly willing to pull with all your might...
What motive would anyone have for trying to convert you to a false belief in climate change? Is there some massive influential industry that would profit from reduced CO2 emissions? Are weathermen trying to sell you something? What happens if we follow their advice and they turn out to be wrong?
Or the billions and trillions that a carbon credit industry may be worth?
The AGW supporters are led by those at least as economically driven by those "evil" oil companies. That much is indisputable. Even the prophet of AGW, Al Gore, makes millions in pushing his AGW viewpoint. This level of hypocrisy and insider trading would be shouted from the rooftops if it was a "denier" so linked. But for the prophet, hardly a hiccup, especially among his acolytes...
Hmmm... Greenland is ACCUMULATING ice and snow at 5 cm/year average across the entire continent. Antarctica and thousands of other glaciers worldwide are growing.
About Indonesian islands being submerged? It's been going on for 8,000 years at least; this is nothing new. At the same time, the big island of Hawaii is adding area daily. Guess what: islands - and coastlines - always change. Always have, always will.
Oh, and about the air in China being unbreathable? I just got back from 25 days working in the Shanghai area (from Suzhou down to Ningbo). I can assure you I didn't hold my breath for 25 days. And in fact the air was cleaner than what I was breathing 40 days ago in LA. Thick dust blew into Shanghai one day, but no worse than the dust I've experienced in McPherson, Kansas or Lubbock, Texas. Thankfully the dust was gone in a day as we had some strong thunderstorms roll in...
Lastly, you're correct that "climate scientists *have* shown that increased CO2 can lead to warming in all kinds of closed systems". However, the Earth is NOT a closed system. Over 30,000 metric tons of space dust are added to the Earth each year, and the dominant source of energy - the Sun - is constantly changing it's input to the Earth.
Or that an 8,000 year old village was found on the bottom of the English Channel. I guess Global Warming's been going on for quite a while, eh?
The issue that so many anthropogenic global warming advocates refuse to discuss is the anthropogenic part. VERY few people actually discount that global warming happens; it's the REASON it's happening that should be in contention. Setting up strawmen about "global warming fanatics" is wrong; they're discounting the position of most AGW proponents because of the anthropogenic part, not the global warming part.
Things like ice core records showing CO2 lagging behind temperature increases by 800 years casts a lot of doubt on man's ability to significantly alter the climate.
Is denying belief in a lie enough to label one a denier? What if AGW isn't real - maybe the truth is that it's not man causing the issue. Making the pro-AGW movement the real deniers...
How about just calling people AGW proponents or AGW opponents, and leave it at that. Or better yet, how about letting the real scientists work on it without politicization?
One of the BIG DATA POINTS of the anthropogenic global warming proponents is to point to the melting of the GreenlandIceSheet. It's widely held up as proof - why, the AGW scientists have measured the melt and concluded that Greenland is melting, and we're going to lose all that ice and we're going to flood.
Of course, a real study of the thickness of the ice sheet shows that it's actually GROWING, an average of 5.4 cm per year. If you only look at the edges, yes they're losing 2 cm per year. Of course, the vast majority of the ice sheet is in the center, and it's GROWING by 6.4 cm per year.
Selective data is oft-used on the pro-AGW side; when a basic flaw in the underlying data is discovered, rather than doing the proper scientific thing - which is to step back, re-examine the data, your process, and your conclusions - the modus operandi seems to be to slander the source, label, attack, and whine.
So I assume we can wait for you to take the ESA to task for their latest measurements showing that Greenland is NOT melting away, since it does not fit the current AGW claims?
Not a denier, just one who's keeping an open mind, looking at the data critically...
Good elections start with clean voter rolls. Until we also work at cleaning the voter rolls, all this smoke-and-fury over the machines is irrelevant. John Fund has written extensively about the issues of voter registration fraud. Sound Politics's Stephan Sharkansky has worked tirelessly to uncover literally thousands of illegal registrations here in King County, Washington. Not to mention the fact that there were thousands more votes than voters...
Clean the rolls, and I bet 99% of all "election fraud" issues go away... I'd say force everyone to reregister, nation-wide. Proof of citizenship and proof of residence must be provided, or you don't get to register. Provisional ballots? Throw them out... Mail in ballots? Unless you're physically incapable of making it to the polls (medical condition or overseas), you gotta get your butt down to the polling station - no mail in ballots for you. And you have to provide proof of identity at least as good as if cashing a check at a bank - two pieces of ID, please.
The power of the vote is one of the most important powers that citizens have. It should be protected and cared for at least as vigorously as the Bill of Rights. The fact so many scream about supposed infringement of their "rights" but are lackluster at best towards voting is truly the scary part...
100% mechanical fuel injection has been around since 1900; in fact, it was all the rage when made a factory option in the late 50s on Corvettes.
100% mechanical ABS has been around since at least the early 30s in aircraft, and the late 60s Austins had mechanical ABS as well.
Adaptive shifting? Continuously Variable Transmissions have been around since the late 1800s, extensively used in power generation in planes, and I think in Volvos since the 1950s.
Real time diagnostics? See through fuel filters and flow indicators are de riguer in many racing/drag circles, since many restrict the use of electronics.
Now, I agree that it CAN be easier with an OS to do many things, but that doesn't mean it can't be done, and has not been done reliably, affordably, and efficiently in the past without an OS. And no, it's not troubleshooting a board full of PLDs or discretes; it's looking at a set of belts, gears, valves, and springs, most of which are pretty easy to see the status of with a quick visual inspection.
And for the record, I much prefer working on my 1963 Mercury Comet with the original numbers-matching 260 V8 and Merc-O-Matic tranny than servicing my 1999 Ranger or 2002 Taurus. The old Merc can have just about anything fixed with your choice of a flat blade screwdriver, cresent wrench, or hammer...:)
Read and learn: http://opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110010400 - if a 97% FAKE rate isn't enough to make you question the motives of ACORN, you're a lot more partisan than you think I could ever be...
Try PHProjekt - I use it, and am quite happy with it. Group policies, project/task tracking, time logging, threaded discussions, etc. Pretty full-featured, simple to use, I can grant and limit access to whomever I choose.
1. It is NOT illegal in the US to use embryonic stem cells for research. Period. The government won't fund it, but there is ZERO restriction on private funding of such research. And it does happen. You're completely off base.
2. It is NOT illegal to research reverse engineering. Period. If it is done for academic or research reasons you can reverse engineer, even implement patents without violating the law.
As far as the original poster goes, he is 100% correct - the best of the best in China want to go to the US to learn engineering, science, business, pretty much anything. Why? Because for all its faults and foibles it's still the best place on earth where your potential is limited only by you. And yes, I type that as an American citizen reading Slashdot, watching the morning CCTV2 channel here in my apartment in Shanghai, China.
Asking any of the engineers, businesspeople, or even drycleaners around here what country they would want to go to and they immediately state "America". It's not because I'm American (most mistake me for Italian - they have a stereotype that people with beards are from Italy, no one in America has a beard!), but because that's what they want.
America is what most people want to experience. You may not, but the original poster was 100% dead on.
It's registration that's the problem. You want clean elections? Start by cleaning the registration lists, and implementing sane laws to keep them clean. Motor Voter is a farce; registration drives are rife with corruption (ACORN just got busted in Pierce County of Washington for 1748 fake registrations).
Start with cleaning up who can vote first, then worry about the vote itself. The vast majority of elections fraud so far has been cases of fraudulent registrations, not vote tampering. People voting who should not have been allowed to vote. Using multiple registrations to cast multiple votes. Creating fake registrations to cast ballots as desired.
Clean the voter rolls first, then work on how the ballots are cast. Or else all is just window dressing...
I wish hydro were viable, but in today's political environment it's a no-go. In fact, in the Pacific Northwest (where I live when not over here in Shanghai, China) most of the extremist environmental groups are pushing to tear DOWN the dams because of the fish. Billions of dollars have already been spent, and billions more will be spent. And most likely dams will come down. All because they want to save a few fish.
I'd love to put a tidal dam across the Puget Sound; yes, it would have a big impact on the local environment, but the amount of energy output from 4000 square kilometers of water rising and falling 6 meterst twice a day is staggering (that's 25 BILLION metric tons of water sloshing each day).
Nuclear is also a no-go, precisely because of the extremist environmental lobbies. We're left with solar and wind, both of which are facing their own problems in terms of viability (what happens when the clouds are present, or the wind dies down?) and in terms of NIMBYs not wanting to see either, or again extremist environmentalists wanting to avoid wind because of potential damage to birds.
We're stuck with coal and fossil fuels for quite a while, not because of the momentum of the energy industry, but because of the pushback from the extremist environmentalists who insist on less-than-zero footprints for anything new...
Slashdot Mirror
Additionally, it's not just ANWR, but the Florida and Californian coasts. A find last year in the Gulf of Mexico will increase US reserves by 50%. There's another BILLION barrels off the coast of California. And those oil shales - enough to power us for decades.
So, since you want to take new drilling, oil shale, and coal liquefaction off the table, then what the heck do we run on for the 20 years while alternative energy sources AND infrastructure are deployed? What powers airplanes, ships, trains, streetlights, IC fabs? What creates the plastics, drugs and fertilizers that modern society needs? What's your solution?
I say - if you're serious about wanting to be out of the Middle East because of our dependency on their oil, then we immediately develop our existing oil reserves so we have the energy to use while we transition to a different source. But we have to have the intermediate step.
Oil shale is profitable at today's oil prices; once up and running it'll be around half the price of oil today. Given that we don't pay anywhere NEAR $15/gallon for gas now, I doubt we'd pay that for oil shale based gas.
Realistically, if the political will existed, the US could be energy independent TODAY, and for the next few centuries. Canada's already exporting large amounts of oil-sands based oil, and it's not too different than oil shale sources. We could do it, if we wanted. It would take a willingness on ALL sides to commit to energy independence NOW, though.
Searching for alternative energy solutions is fine; however, we need energy NOW and to fund the search. To ignore the massive proven reserves we have - 3 TIMES those that are in Saudi Arabia, and even larger than the entire Middle East - is IMHO folly.
Bill should have learned from Hillary - she invoked "I don't recall" around 50 times in the fraud indictment of Webb Hubbell... Of course, Bill DID use that line a few hundred times in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case...
Additionally, add in oil shale; at today's prices it's definitely affordable to develop (see Alberta and the oil sands projects). The US has enough PROVEN oil shale reserves alone to power us for 200+ years at today's consumption rate. And we're not even talking about coal liquification, which will add another 200+ years of petroleum reserves.
Peak oil has at least 300+ years before we reach it. Unless, of course, we decide to artificially limit our use of our own massive reserves of petroleum for the simple fact that some feel "it's the right thing to do". Sure, develop alternative power sources, but the "OMG WE'RE OUT OF OIL!" crisis is a LONG way from coming, and is only a crisis if we choose to make it - there's plenty of petroleum around for us to use while we're developing new power sources.
And, of course, there's plenty of oil if we COULD muster the political will to access it, right here in the US. For those who crow about us being in the Middle East because of oil, how about letting us access the oil right here in exchange for getting out of the Middle East?
At least he avoided offending those shiftless Mennonites...
They clamp down really extremely on extremists. China's probably not going to have much of an Islamic Jihad issue, at least for the next 20-30 years...
Considering that the US still manufacture 3 times the product - by dollars - than China, and that the US' total manufacturing annual output is equal to the ENTIRE GDP of China, I'd say we're a LONG way from your position...
I'll counter with a real life example of the grandparent's claim...
Like it or not, companies rely on solid sources and suppliers. A supplier that does not have a reliable revenue stream just can't be relied upon. And not every company has the resources or desire to staff up and do all its own software development in-house. Commercial, for-profit software has a serious role in business. And that means all involved in it need to make money. Giving away everything - for free - puts a big crimp on that.
When I work with some of the big boys in the consumer electronics market to qualify a new factory, they don't just audit the floor, the QA department, and the PMs. They look at the suppliers, they look at financials, they look at receivables, they look at other customers. Because if they are going to rely upon this new factory, they want to know it's got a future outside of just them. It's got to be stable.
It's REALLY HARD to make that case when your products are available for free, and you're trying to rely upon pure support as your only income stream...
We had those in the US at one time - they were called Company Towns.
Why I think you just described James Carville to a "T".
I don't think it takes a genius intellect to send out the bad vibes through the journalistic sewer questioning John McCain's sanity
Why? He's seriously unhinged. It takes genius intellect to stand up and say what needed to be said without getting oneself stoned...
or to invent out of thin air the crap that was flung at John Kerry.
And those inventions would be? Saw a LOT of personal attacks from the left against the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, but nothing to actually counter the claims they made. Politics of Personal Destruction used in big heaping spoonfuls, though...
And a "FUCK YOU" to you too, you righteous asshole. This is a man who perfected the modern use of hate as a political lever. He shall reap what he was sown.
A lever which you seem perfectly willing to pull with all your might...
Oh, I don't know, maybe the huge funding advantage to pro-AGW researchers; if you're not studying a pro-AGW view, you don't get funded.
Or the billions and trillions that a carbon credit industry may be worth?
The AGW supporters are led by those at least as economically driven by those "evil" oil companies. That much is indisputable. Even the prophet of AGW, Al Gore, makes millions in pushing his AGW viewpoint. This level of hypocrisy and insider trading would be shouted from the rooftops if it was a "denier" so linked. But for the prophet, hardly a hiccup, especially among his acolytes...
About Indonesian islands being submerged? It's been going on for 8,000 years at least; this is nothing new. At the same time, the big island of Hawaii is adding area daily. Guess what: islands - and coastlines - always change. Always have, always will.
Oh, and about the air in China being unbreathable? I just got back from 25 days working in the Shanghai area (from Suzhou down to Ningbo). I can assure you I didn't hold my breath for 25 days. And in fact the air was cleaner than what I was breathing 40 days ago in LA. Thick dust blew into Shanghai one day, but no worse than the dust I've experienced in McPherson, Kansas or Lubbock, Texas. Thankfully the dust was gone in a day as we had some strong thunderstorms roll in...
Lastly, you're correct that "climate scientists *have* shown that increased CO2 can lead to warming in all kinds of closed systems". However, the Earth is NOT a closed system. Over 30,000 metric tons of space dust are added to the Earth each year, and the dominant source of energy - the Sun - is constantly changing it's input to the Earth.
The issue that so many anthropogenic global warming advocates refuse to discuss is the anthropogenic part. VERY few people actually discount that global warming happens; it's the REASON it's happening that should be in contention. Setting up strawmen about "global warming fanatics" is wrong; they're discounting the position of most AGW proponents because of the anthropogenic part, not the global warming part.
Things like ice core records showing CO2 lagging behind temperature increases by 800 years casts a lot of doubt on man's ability to significantly alter the climate.
How about just calling people AGW proponents or AGW opponents, and leave it at that. Or better yet, how about letting the real scientists work on it without politicization?
Of course, a real study of the thickness of the ice sheet shows that it's actually GROWING, an average of 5.4 cm per year. If you only look at the edges, yes they're losing 2 cm per year. Of course, the vast majority of the ice sheet is in the center, and it's GROWING by 6.4 cm per year.
Selective data is oft-used on the pro-AGW side; when a basic flaw in the underlying data is discovered, rather than doing the proper scientific thing - which is to step back, re-examine the data, your process, and your conclusions - the modus operandi seems to be to slander the source, label, attack, and whine.
So I assume we can wait for you to take the ESA to task for their latest measurements showing that Greenland is NOT melting away, since it does not fit the current AGW claims?
Not a denier, just one who's keeping an open mind, looking at the data critically...
It's these people called the Gamelons. They want to take over Earth. Now I have this plan where we resurrect an old battleship...
Clean the rolls, and I bet 99% of all "election fraud" issues go away... I'd say force everyone to reregister, nation-wide. Proof of citizenship and proof of residence must be provided, or you don't get to register. Provisional ballots? Throw them out... Mail in ballots? Unless you're physically incapable of making it to the polls (medical condition or overseas), you gotta get your butt down to the polling station - no mail in ballots for you. And you have to provide proof of identity at least as good as if cashing a check at a bank - two pieces of ID, please.
The power of the vote is one of the most important powers that citizens have. It should be protected and cared for at least as vigorously as the Bill of Rights. The fact so many scream about supposed infringement of their "rights" but are lackluster at best towards voting is truly the scary part...
100% mechanical ABS has been around since at least the early 30s in aircraft, and the late 60s Austins had mechanical ABS as well.
Adaptive shifting? Continuously Variable Transmissions have been around since the late 1800s, extensively used in power generation in planes, and I think in Volvos since the 1950s.
Real time diagnostics? See through fuel filters and flow indicators are de riguer in many racing/drag circles, since many restrict the use of electronics.
Now, I agree that it CAN be easier with an OS to do many things, but that doesn't mean it can't be done, and has not been done reliably, affordably, and efficiently in the past without an OS. And no, it's not troubleshooting a board full of PLDs or discretes; it's looking at a set of belts, gears, valves, and springs, most of which are pretty easy to see the status of with a quick visual inspection.
And for the record, I much prefer working on my 1963 Mercury Comet with the original numbers-matching 260 V8 and Merc-O-Matic tranny than servicing my 1999 Ranger or 2002 Taurus. The old Merc can have just about anything fixed with your choice of a flat blade screwdriver, cresent wrench, or hammer...:)
Read and learn: http://opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110010400 - if a 97% FAKE rate isn't enough to make you question the motives of ACORN, you're a lot more partisan than you think I could ever be...
Try PHProjekt - I use it, and am quite happy with it. Group policies, project/task tracking, time logging, threaded discussions, etc. Pretty full-featured, simple to use, I can grant and limit access to whomever I choose.
1. It is NOT illegal in the US to use embryonic stem cells for research. Period. The government won't fund it, but there is ZERO restriction on private funding of such research. And it does happen. You're completely off base.
2. It is NOT illegal to research reverse engineering. Period. If it is done for academic or research reasons you can reverse engineer, even implement patents without violating the law.
As far as the original poster goes, he is 100% correct - the best of the best in China want to go to the US to learn engineering, science, business, pretty much anything. Why? Because for all its faults and foibles it's still the best place on earth where your potential is limited only by you. And yes, I type that as an American citizen reading Slashdot, watching the morning CCTV2 channel here in my apartment in Shanghai, China.
Asking any of the engineers, businesspeople, or even drycleaners around here what country they would want to go to and they immediately state "America". It's not because I'm American (most mistake me for Italian - they have a stereotype that people with beards are from Italy, no one in America has a beard!), but because that's what they want.
America is what most people want to experience. You may not, but the original poster was 100% dead on.
Start with cleaning up who can vote first, then worry about the vote itself. The vast majority of elections fraud so far has been cases of fraudulent registrations, not vote tampering. People voting who should not have been allowed to vote. Using multiple registrations to cast multiple votes. Creating fake registrations to cast ballots as desired.
Clean the voter rolls first, then work on how the ballots are cast. Or else all is just window dressing...
I'd love to put a tidal dam across the Puget Sound; yes, it would have a big impact on the local environment, but the amount of energy output from 4000 square kilometers of water rising and falling 6 meterst twice a day is staggering (that's 25 BILLION metric tons of water sloshing each day).
Nuclear is also a no-go, precisely because of the extremist environmental lobbies. We're left with solar and wind, both of which are facing their own problems in terms of viability (what happens when the clouds are present, or the wind dies down?) and in terms of NIMBYs not wanting to see either, or again extremist environmentalists wanting to avoid wind because of potential damage to birds.
We're stuck with coal and fossil fuels for quite a while, not because of the momentum of the energy industry, but because of the pushback from the extremist environmentalists who insist on less-than-zero footprints for anything new...