Rt&Dzine
Apr 22, 10:55 PM
or vice versa for that matter.
Good point.
Good point.
Peterkro
Mar 14, 12:01 PM
And gravity has yet to go up. :p LOL
While the idea is ridiculous Lewis Carroll (who was a mathematician amongst other things:rolleyes:) did some work on the problem and in a fictional work came up with this:
"In Chapter 7 of Lewis Carroll's 1893 book Sylvie and Bruno. The fictional German professor, Mein Herr, proposes a way to run trains by gravity alone. Dig a straight tunnel between any two points on Earth (it need not go through the Earth's center), and run a rail track through it. With frictionless tracks the energy gained by the train in the first half of the journey is equal to that required in the second half. And also, in the absence of air resistance and friction, the time of the journey is about 42 minutes (84 for a round trip) for any such tunnel, no matter what the tunnel's length."
f
While the idea is ridiculous Lewis Carroll (who was a mathematician amongst other things:rolleyes:) did some work on the problem and in a fictional work came up with this:
"In Chapter 7 of Lewis Carroll's 1893 book Sylvie and Bruno. The fictional German professor, Mein Herr, proposes a way to run trains by gravity alone. Dig a straight tunnel between any two points on Earth (it need not go through the Earth's center), and run a rail track through it. With frictionless tracks the energy gained by the train in the first half of the journey is equal to that required in the second half. And also, in the absence of air resistance and friction, the time of the journey is about 42 minutes (84 for a round trip) for any such tunnel, no matter what the tunnel's length."
f
edifyingGerbil
Apr 23, 01:25 PM
I haven't seen that in my experience. Most atheists put a great deal of deliberative thought into their position. "Casual" atheists are more commonly, in my experience, agnostics with a poor vocabulary. In fact, the very idea of holding a position without substantiation is an anathema to what atheists hold above all else: the triumph of reason over "intuition."
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
Piggie
Apr 9, 07:30 PM
It's quite obvious what Apple are doing.
They're not going to make a console as such because it's a cumbersome solution. What they'll do is continue to improve and expand their current iOS platform and the games involved.
The "console" solution they're working on is quite simple. Airplay. If the rumours are true about Apple trying to licence the tech and if we go by the relatively cheap Apple TV iteration the future is staring you in the face.
Your iPhone, iPod or iPad will become the console or the controller in the tradition console sense. Games will be sent wirelessly without lag to the TV where others can join in with their own iOS devices. The devices can change depending on the game and the flexibility of the touch screen. Once you've finished you take your iOS device with you and carry on playing on the go.
Apple will never make a traditional games console. It isn't in their DNA to make something so vulgar. They'll simply integrate experiences into a whole. Airplay is the way they'll do it in regards to the TV.
%IMG_DESC_5%
%IMG_DESC_6%
%IMG_DESC_7%
%IMG_DESC_8%
%IMG_DESC_9%
%IMG_DESC_10%
%IMG_DESC_11%
%IMG_DESC_12%
%IMG_DESC_13%
%IMG_DESC_14%
%IMG_DESC_15%
%IMG_DESC_16%
%IMG_DESC_17%
%IMG_DESC_18%
%IMG_DESC_19%
They're not going to make a console as such because it's a cumbersome solution. What they'll do is continue to improve and expand their current iOS platform and the games involved.
The "console" solution they're working on is quite simple. Airplay. If the rumours are true about Apple trying to licence the tech and if we go by the relatively cheap Apple TV iteration the future is staring you in the face.
Your iPhone, iPod or iPad will become the console or the controller in the tradition console sense. Games will be sent wirelessly without lag to the TV where others can join in with their own iOS devices. The devices can change depending on the game and the flexibility of the touch screen. Once you've finished you take your iOS device with you and carry on playing on the go.
Apple will never make a traditional games console. It isn't in their DNA to make something so vulgar. They'll simply integrate experiences into a whole. Airplay is the way they'll do it in regards to the TV.
OnionMike
Jun 7, 02:42 PM
i have been dropping calls a lot lately for some reason. up until last year i have no drop call but this year i have **** load of drops. COME ON ATT!! :mad:
p0intblank
Sep 20, 08:01 AM
So it does include a hard drive? Very nice! I was already planning on purchasing an "iTV", but this just makes it sound that much cooler. :D
NT1440
Mar 16, 01:39 PM
I'm glad you understand the nuclear is a good solution. You're a bit off base regarding drilling though...
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
AppliedVisual
Oct 25, 11:57 AM
If I get a 30", then I need to also get an expensive dualink DVI KVM, but the dell is so less expensive, getting that over the apple would completely offset the cost of the switch.
Just thought I'd put in my piece of advice about DVI-DL KVM switches. I'm only aware of three of them on the market, the two most common are from Gefen (www.gefen.com). I'm using the 4x1 Gefen and it works perfectly switching my primary display between my G5 quad, two PCs and my MBP. I know the quad switch is double the price, but DO NOT BUY THE 2x1 DVI-DL SWITCH from Gefen!!! It is using an older design and internal chipset and requires you to disassemble it to tweak an internal control dial. Then use two fine-tuning dials on the front (one for each input) to stabilize the picture. Unfortunately, unless all your devices are using identical video chipsets and putting out identical (or as close as possible) signals, you will never get both displays synchronized. Gefen knows about the problem but remains silent about the issue. They swapped my 2x1 switch for a 4x1 switch and gave me a decent discount after I went through two 2x1s with the same issue. Finally one of their senior tech guys admitted to the problem... So if you're connecting two G5's with the same video card, go for it. but if you have different hardware, then steer well away. The 4x1 switch has no compensation dials and does it's own on the fly signal tuning for each input, just as DVI is supposed to.
Sorry for the rant, but I just wanted to vent on this and maybe share someone else the frustration. Besides, dealing with Gefen is a total PITA! It's been two months of me calling them every other day trying to get a refund for something I returned long ago.
The other DVI-DL switch I know of is a matrix switch costing close to $6K. If you want the details I'll fill you in, but it's a commercial A/V electronic patching matrix suitable for running a mix of high-res or HD res displays and video walls in sports bars and/or shopping malls. :D
Just thought I'd put in my piece of advice about DVI-DL KVM switches. I'm only aware of three of them on the market, the two most common are from Gefen (www.gefen.com). I'm using the 4x1 Gefen and it works perfectly switching my primary display between my G5 quad, two PCs and my MBP. I know the quad switch is double the price, but DO NOT BUY THE 2x1 DVI-DL SWITCH from Gefen!!! It is using an older design and internal chipset and requires you to disassemble it to tweak an internal control dial. Then use two fine-tuning dials on the front (one for each input) to stabilize the picture. Unfortunately, unless all your devices are using identical video chipsets and putting out identical (or as close as possible) signals, you will never get both displays synchronized. Gefen knows about the problem but remains silent about the issue. They swapped my 2x1 switch for a 4x1 switch and gave me a decent discount after I went through two 2x1s with the same issue. Finally one of their senior tech guys admitted to the problem... So if you're connecting two G5's with the same video card, go for it. but if you have different hardware, then steer well away. The 4x1 switch has no compensation dials and does it's own on the fly signal tuning for each input, just as DVI is supposed to.
Sorry for the rant, but I just wanted to vent on this and maybe share someone else the frustration. Besides, dealing with Gefen is a total PITA! It's been two months of me calling them every other day trying to get a refund for something I returned long ago.
The other DVI-DL switch I know of is a matrix switch costing close to $6K. If you want the details I'll fill you in, but it's a commercial A/V electronic patching matrix suitable for running a mix of high-res or HD res displays and video walls in sports bars and/or shopping malls. :D
kevin.rivers
Jul 12, 02:14 PM
man, my head is spinning...Yonah, Mermon, Woodcrest, Core Duo 2 (isn't that redundant?)
Don't you just long for the good old days when we'd get one G4 processor for 18 months? ;)
Yonah is Core Duo
Merom and Conroe are Core 2 Duo
Woodcrest is considered a Xeon
Don't you just long for the good old days when we'd get one G4 processor for 18 months? ;)
Yonah is Core Duo
Merom and Conroe are Core 2 Duo
Woodcrest is considered a Xeon
reel2reel
Apr 15, 09:50 AM
That's awesome.
Humans can be some nasty creatures.
Yep, this hate is dying off. Demographics are destiny. Younger people, writ large, are not homophobic or anti-gay.
But they're still pretty good at hating and excluding for other reasons. Some things never change, unfortunately.
Humans can be some nasty creatures.
Yep, this hate is dying off. Demographics are destiny. Younger people, writ large, are not homophobic or anti-gay.
But they're still pretty good at hating and excluding for other reasons. Some things never change, unfortunately.
Eidorian
Jul 12, 02:11 PM
If they can put that BURNING G5 into iMac, why not the Conroe?
Putting 65 W hot processor in iMac enclosure isn't that difficult.Someone posted the BURNING G5's (970FX) wattage. Does anyone remember it?
Edit: I'm getting 970FX wattages ranging from 25-47 watts.
Putting 65 W hot processor in iMac enclosure isn't that difficult.Someone posted the BURNING G5's (970FX) wattage. Does anyone remember it?
Edit: I'm getting 970FX wattages ranging from 25-47 watts.
FoxyKaye
Apr 15, 09:56 AM
Like many of the "It Gets Better" videos, this was very touching. Great job Apple employees, and thank you!
MacCoaster
Oct 12, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by nixd2001
I was thinking of the x86 and PPC assembler produced for the core loops. I could bung the C through GCC and get some assembler on my windy tunnels, true, but I'm not geared up to do the Windows side of things.
You could add the argument --funroll-loops to gcc to `unroll' the loops and make it faster by predicting it more accurately at compile-time.
I was thinking of the x86 and PPC assembler produced for the core loops. I could bung the C through GCC and get some assembler on my windy tunnels, true, but I'm not geared up to do the Windows side of things.
You could add the argument --funroll-loops to gcc to `unroll' the loops and make it faster by predicting it more accurately at compile-time.
chaoticbear
Apr 12, 10:39 AM
I don't care for the difficulty involved in sharing files across OS X/Windows/Linux, but that's hardly the fault of the Mac.
Other nags:
-Requiring 3rd-party software to stay awake when closed
-The terrible built-in webcam (at least where Photo Booth is concerned, I've actually been pretty satisfied with iChat)
The hilarious hillarious way that iTunes and iPhones work. It's the same way on Windows, but I think they sacrificed function for increased integration.
Other nags:
-Requiring 3rd-party software to stay awake when closed
-The terrible built-in webcam (at least where Photo Booth is concerned, I've actually been pretty satisfied with iChat)
The hilarious hillarious way that iTunes and iPhones work. It's the same way on Windows, but I think they sacrificed function for increased integration.
UnixMac
Oct 9, 08:47 PM
Alex you have made some very cogent points. I hope someone at Apple will listen.
Backtothemac
Oct 7, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
Backtothemac:
Does it annoy you to know that even in Photoshop (gasp!) those 25-year old ISA x86 machines kick the snot out of the latest and greatest Mac? Sure seems to.
2.8ghz, by the way.
Um,
Don't know what chart you were looking at, but with both processors being used, the 1.25 kicked the "snot" out of the PC's.
Backtothemac:
Does it annoy you to know that even in Photoshop (gasp!) those 25-year old ISA x86 machines kick the snot out of the latest and greatest Mac? Sure seems to.
2.8ghz, by the way.
Um,
Don't know what chart you were looking at, but with both processors being used, the 1.25 kicked the "snot" out of the PC's.
kdarling
May 8, 04:56 PM
Sounds exactly like my story. I liked Verizon, but couldn't justify another 45 bucks extra for service.
I think that ATT and Verizon are basically the same price nowadays.
If Sprint could roam with EVDO data on Verizon, I'd jump to them in a heartbeat. Hot phones, low price.
I think that ATT and Verizon are basically the same price nowadays.
If Sprint could roam with EVDO data on Verizon, I'd jump to them in a heartbeat. Hot phones, low price.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 04:18 PM
This is just logic. uv AND heat are more potent due to o-zone decimation. Let me see if i can think of an example...............................erm ok car windows filter out uv rays and are tinted so they keep out some heat. If the window is closed you are a little more protected and a little cooler, if it is open you are a little more unprotected and hotter. (in summertime when the temperature is hotter and the earth is tilted towerd the sun)
Hmmm... I don't want to be rude but you really should have some basic knowledge in physics before you make statements like that.
Hmmm... I don't want to be rude but you really should have some basic knowledge in physics before you make statements like that.
samcraig
Mar 18, 09:22 AM
Please point that out in the contract, know it all.
Guess what, it isn't there.
Go look up the word Unlimited in the dictionary. Internalize and understand it. Come back here when you're done. Then come into a court room. Id like to sit back watch you (as I will eventually be watching AT&T) dance around the clear and concise definition of the word.
I've engaged in long, drawn out discussions with my legal pals about this very issue for several years, and they all agree it would completely impossible for AT&T to get out of court unscathed over this word "Unlimited"
Most of you people don't grasp the significance of the word in this case, which is not at all surprising given the crowd. (young and/or naive).
Most also think that because AT&T includes fine print in a contract, they can enforce it however they wish...which of course is a laughable fantasy to anyone who has sat through the first day of contract law.
Go look up the words: entitlement, spoiled, ignorance and unfounded :)
Guess what, it isn't there.
Go look up the word Unlimited in the dictionary. Internalize and understand it. Come back here when you're done. Then come into a court room. Id like to sit back watch you (as I will eventually be watching AT&T) dance around the clear and concise definition of the word.
I've engaged in long, drawn out discussions with my legal pals about this very issue for several years, and they all agree it would completely impossible for AT&T to get out of court unscathed over this word "Unlimited"
Most of you people don't grasp the significance of the word in this case, which is not at all surprising given the crowd. (young and/or naive).
Most also think that because AT&T includes fine print in a contract, they can enforce it however they wish...which of course is a laughable fantasy to anyone who has sat through the first day of contract law.
Go look up the words: entitlement, spoiled, ignorance and unfounded :)
WiiDSmoker
May 6, 07:21 AM
I'm not letting AT&T off easily, but I still argue that half of the problem is the iPhone itself. When I'm the only person with an iPhone and everyone else around me is on old cell phones on the same network and they have 5 bars and I have no signal, there's a problem.
cwelsh
Apr 21, 08:57 AM
So are you going to tell me that paying for tethering ON TOP OF DATA YOU ALREADY PAID FOR is fair? Data is data is data... 4gb is 4gb no matter how I use it. Tethering cost are a joke!:mad: /end rant
You are joking right?
Nope. Whether it is fair or not is a completely different topic (I personally feel it is not) but that is what you agreed to in your contract, which specifically states the normal data plans data does not apply to tethering.
I liken this to numerous DLC that appears in videogames today. Often the additonal content is stored on the disk so when you buy the game (data) you technically have bought the DLC already but in order to access it (much like tethering) you need to pay a fee.
I'm not looking to get into a philosophical war over the fairness of tethering, i'm just offering my opinions based on the contract and agreement i've signed.
You are joking right?
Nope. Whether it is fair or not is a completely different topic (I personally feel it is not) but that is what you agreed to in your contract, which specifically states the normal data plans data does not apply to tethering.
I liken this to numerous DLC that appears in videogames today. Often the additonal content is stored on the disk so when you buy the game (data) you technically have bought the DLC already but in order to access it (much like tethering) you need to pay a fee.
I'm not looking to get into a philosophical war over the fairness of tethering, i'm just offering my opinions based on the contract and agreement i've signed.
ClimbingTheLog
Sep 12, 03:55 PM
There's no need for DVR functionality. Apple will replace your cable subscription.
Not at the current prices, they won't. I just did some quick math and for our household, (and we don't watch much TV by national standards), this content model is 50% more expensive than satellite for the shows we watch, and that doesn't include being able to turn on FoodTV or HGTV for some veg. time on occasion.
At 99 cents a show it starts having a price advantage. The trouble with TV is the bandwidth for value balance - a 3.5MB song I'll listen to a hundred times. A 250MB TV show I'll watch once, twice if it's incredible, only more if it's "Best of Both Worlds". Broadcast has a big advantage here.
Not at the current prices, they won't. I just did some quick math and for our household, (and we don't watch much TV by national standards), this content model is 50% more expensive than satellite for the shows we watch, and that doesn't include being able to turn on FoodTV or HGTV for some veg. time on occasion.
At 99 cents a show it starts having a price advantage. The trouble with TV is the bandwidth for value balance - a 3.5MB song I'll listen to a hundred times. A 250MB TV show I'll watch once, twice if it's incredible, only more if it's "Best of Both Worlds". Broadcast has a big advantage here.
R.Perez
Mar 16, 01:35 PM
Apparently five-point has never heard of Hubbert's Peak.
The more you drill for oil, the faster you drill for oil, the sooner you begin to run out of it. Talk about economic catastrophe.
All the easy oil and gas in the world has pretty much been found. Now comes the harder work in finding and producing oil from more challenging environments and work areas. �
The more you drill for oil, the faster you drill for oil, the sooner you begin to run out of it. Talk about economic catastrophe.
All the easy oil and gas in the world has pretty much been found. Now comes the harder work in finding and producing oil from more challenging environments and work areas. �
Lord Blackadder
Mar 16, 01:48 PM
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable energy reserves are accurate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable energy reserves are accurate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar