Pangloss

Have you tried square brackets around all your column names in your queries? I dimly recall something about Access and simulated-spaces using underscores in the column names. (Normally square brackets are only required if there's a space in the name, but I'm thinking it could be a problem related to the translation of string text through the VB-to-Access interface, e.g. it loses the underscore along the way, possibly producing the error we see here.) Apologies if that's just completely off.

Only Nixon could go to China.

The church performed gay marriages until the 10th century? How do we know this?

I appreciate the responses on this and I think it, and similar recent discussions, has reminded me that there's a lot of level-headedness and sanity in this crowd, and not just political correctness. The main point I had really, which I think is accepted, is about keeping an open mind about potential scientific solutions. I accept that such solutions may not be forthcoming and we have to move in the most logical direction given what we CAN do. That being said, why don't we filter coal plants today? I still don't get that. I don't mean to put you guys in the middle of a local dispute without the full background (which I don't know myself), but I just don't understand why we don't use low-cost interim solutions when we know about them and have the ability to use them without a lot of expense. Why aren't we mailing filters by the thousands to Chinese households? Why doesn't ever coal-fired power plant in the US have a filter on every smokestack? Those might be better questions for one of the science sub-boards, I don't know.

Would that "all" include Proposition 8 and similar measures that just passed in two other states? Don't count our chickens before they're hatched. But you have a point there, and I can't disagree with the thrust of what you're saying. Perhaps that podium-pounding has been more of a factor than I had considered. I still think there's a lot to be said for compromise and consideration of all points of view. I think we have to be very careful to educate the not-quite-sleeping-again-but-somewhat-droopy-eyed conservative dragon and not jab it back into emotional reaction again. Given a choice between "giving Rush Limbaugh talking points" and "not giving Rush Limbaugh talking points", may we please select the latter? Yah, I get it. No worries.

I'm finding it pretty hard to support more bailouts myself, but it does seem to be the way we're heading. I wonder if this could be a problem for Obama down the road a bit; something that will bleed his popularity and push the emphasis back towards partisanship. Dare I call it... his Iraq? I may be alone on this but I'm supporting this bailout, mainly because of the specific terms and the political realities involved. Politics is funny in that doing the right thing doesn't always equate to effective problem-solving. Sometimes there are no good answers, but temporary measures can be taken and the short-term benefits can be useful. Such is the case here, I predict. This failed because unions threw their weight at Congressional Democrats. They have no such pull in the White House, either now OR in the next administration. Which means that they may have no choice but to drop down to the level of the Honda/Toyota/BMW workers -- refusing to do so will have the same result AND they lose their grip. Making concessions means they keep their power. But I think there is also a possibility that it COULD work. I think the loan situation is frequently overlooked here. Dealers are saying that as many as 25% of their customers that are ready to sign on the dotted line are unable to do so because of loan denials, when their credit scores suggest that they would have gotten a loan under the typical conditions of just a few months ago. If that's the case then this week's changes at the Fed, which are already spiking a huge surge in real estate interest, could also spark the auto industry. Combine that with massive union concessions and you have something that could actually work. Maybe even in only 90 days. Cross your fingers.

Sure. In a nutshell, I was saying that if we assume that science can clean up fossil fuel power production, then the objections to fossil fuel consumption were comparable to the objections to nuclear power production. Science didn't always have the answers to the scary potentials for nuclear disaster. It developed them over time. And yet we accept that that works for nuclear power, but we assume that that's impossible with fossil fuels. Why? If you prefer to answer as part of your answer on the issue of coal in the other thread, that's cool with me, or I could merge those posts back if you feel they're similar enough. My feeling was that this was in keeping with bascule's point in the OP, when he said "Now I'm starting to wonder if Democratic opposition to nuclear power (in favor of wind, solar, etc.) is actually a science-based position, rather than just an ignorant one." I think it's reasonable to ask whether that point can be extrapolated to all fossil fuels.

Good lord, iNow is siding with Congressional Republicans! Next up: Flying pigs!

Well on a short-term basis it's pretty clear that coal is going to continue to be used for a while (as I imagine you would agree). But on a longer-term basis it's going to take a great deal of power generation to replace coal. We can certainly follow the advice of the Ed Begley types and cut per-capita consumption, but ultimately we want the economy to grow, not shrink, and making energy production more efficient only gets us so far. So if science found a way to make coal "clean" (i.e. eliminate the current objections, e.g. sulfer content) then what exactly is the problem? Why wouldn't we just keep doing that until we run out of the stuff? With surface mining, I only care WHERE they put it, not that they do it. We have room for wind turbines and trash dumps, so I guess we got room for surface mining. If there are environmental hazards that need to be addressed, let's address them. You know. With science. Is that a problem? Which ultimately brings me around to my main objection, which is that all of this seems like an example of rejecting science for reasons that are actually socio-political in nature. We see a problem that is not solved by current science, we rally around the idea and then push for its elimination, regardless of how the science subsequently develops. Nuclear being a perfect example, but I think it applies in a lot of areas. I'm not saying there's no development of unpopular technologies, but those who pursue those advances are often admonished merely because of their association with industry. Every once in a while something will come out that all sides can agree on, but it seems more the exception than the rule. So, as I asked in the OP, why can't we make coal clean? What are the scientific reasons? I know filters aren't expensive, as I used to work for a pollution filter manufacturer who lobbied the state to force Florida Power to buy pollution filters to control sulfur emissions at its coal plants (unsuccessfully). There's a disposal issue frequently raised by Greenpeace et al, but so what? We know how to dispose of physical material -- just throw it in the nearest landfill. If more is needed, well, why don't we figure out what that would be, and what it would cost? Why?

Fair enough.

I feel that it was. I don't see a rejection of my argument, but I do see a dismissal of it. That warrants a repetition and a call for a more meaningful response. You know that better than anybody else on this board. I'll start a separate thread per your excellent suggestion, thank you. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=37101

Discussion broken off from this thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=37029 That appears to be a "yes" rather than a "no". You appear to be saying that coal is a technology that should not be explored further. I don't really understand that. Why not? The argument seems to be "clean coal isn't really clean, so it shouldn't be used". Why can't it become more clean? Are we saying that there is no way to make it more clean, or that it's too expensive to make it clean? If it's the latter, how do we know it won't become less expensive with further development and research?

Just out of idle curiosity, have you ever considered whether the choice to allow slavery to continue in the new United States might have been a GOOD decision by the Founding Fathers? I'm not saying it was -- I don't think anyone can really say one way or the other, because there's no way to know what would have happened had the abolitionists put their feet down. But it's safe to say that there's a strong chance that there wouldn't have been a country at all, and that slavery might have continued in the South long past 1865. Those are, at the very least, reasonable conjectures. Can't the same reasoning be applied here? How have the podium-pounding unilateral demands by both sides worked so far? Won a lot of hearts and minds, have they? Resolved the issue? Obviously not. I think that people are going to find that as Obama sits both sides down and makes them listen to one another that there's going to be a more rapid change of heart on this subject than you might think. People respond a lot better to "I respect that, now here is what I think" than they do to "you're wrong, now do it my way". And while there are many demagogues on both sides of this issue, the general public has a funny way of thinking for itself sometimes.

I don't think it's right to call that "stupid" -- why be rude about it? And it's a reasonable concern when applied to countries that don't currently have nuclear weapons, even if the concern does have logical opposing arguments. But I agree with the point that just because there are more nuclear plants doesn't mean there will be more nuclear weapons. Given the long history of nuclear and the short list of weapons-capable nations, I'd say we're doing a pretty good job so far. There's no reason to think that can't continue, and in fact we pretty much have to continue to monitor and control proliferation regardless of whether people agree that more nuclear plants are needed, so it's a completely different subject, really.

So then you don't support compromise even if science and technology can fix the problems? Certain technologies cannot be explored, is that your position? Okay, but I'll just repeat the same point I made before which you pretended you weren't addressing. All technologies for power generation have their drawbacks, and those that are realistically capable of powering are society are all dangerous. Science and technology are our built-in tools for solving those problems over time. I believe, as does Obama (and as was Bascule's point), that we should make our decisions based on pragmatism and compromise instead of fear and potential for disaster, ignoring our ability to fix things with science and technology. Exactly. Well put.

Great points from Waitforufo above. I understand where you're coming from Mokele, but if you thought religious influence on government was going to disappear from American life just because Obama got elected, you were mistaken. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but so are others entitled to theirs -- this is a democracy, and religion will play a role because that's what people want. And it's not just a matter of Obama's personal opinion about religion, either. It's his entire philosophy of compromise. This is how things are going to be on ALL issues. Unilateralism has no place in Obama's America. He's talking to you, Mokele, e.g. your branding Warren as a bigot above. But is it really so bad to say that divisiveness is a thing of the past, and in the future we will work together towards common goals? Isn't it better to do that than to label each other bad names?

Been wondering how President Obama will be able to appeal to religious conservatives while keeping gays in his corner? This is a good example of it right here. He's appointed Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church to deliver the invocation prayer at his inauguration. Politics forum members may recall Warren as hosting one of the early debates (actually two separate interviews with Obama and McCain). Warren is considered a more moderate and modern christian conservative, supporting issues such as the fight against global warming. But he is opposed to gay marriage and supported California's Proposition 8. The move also angered some on the right who feel Warren is making a mistake. Surprised? Obama wasn't. Repeating himself, he reminded them of what they signed up for when they voted for him: Exactly right. Fighting partisanship isn't accomplished through appeasement. Rabble-rousing special interest groups are getting a subtle wake-up call with this move. Good for him.

Thanks for making lemonade out of lemons, DH. There were several points in your replies that I hadn't heard before and found really interesting.

It was a generalized comment. Do you agree with my point? Here's another generalized comment, not aimed at you but rather reflecting what actually happens in the politics of energy: It's easy to toss out catchy phrases like "there's no such thing as clean coal" and ignore the necessities of actual life in the real world. The left won the election, now it has to actually fix things. It can't just say "no" to everything scary or fossil-based, assuming wind and solar can't do the job alone.

Given how much we've been spammed lately I thought the subject line might amuse. This thread is, of course, about NASA's announcement of plans to sell off the Space Shuttles after the program ends in 2010. Apparently they're exploring the idea of allowing a museum, school, or other institution to have a shuttle if they're willing to help pay for the cost of getting it there. I think it's a great idea, and I think at least one of the shuttles should go to a little-known air museum in some rural backwater that's not even serviced by a major interstate highway. Something next to an airstrip with faded numbers, a beat-up Navion, and a place at the end of the runway where people sit around and watch the airplanes take off and land. I don't mean that as a symbol of what I think of the space program, but rather as a salute to the true, almost forgotten spirit of aviation. That'll never happen, of course, because the idea of a shuttle -- the epitome of American engineering and accomplishment -- fading and forgotten under the elements will never even be considered. Ah well. ----- On a related note (and just to add a little diversity to the thread), when I was coming here to post this and pondering the subject line, it occurred to me to wonder how much mileage these puppies actually have on them. "Billions", I assumed -- after all, they fly at Mach 25 for two weeks, surely a massive number, right? But then I got to thinking -- they don't exactly fly all that often, do they? Most of the time they're just sitting on the ground. So I looked around a bit and found this information in the Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Transportation_System Columbia: 125,204,911 miles (1981-2003) (22 years) Challenger: 25,803,940 miles (1983-1986) (3 years) Discovery: 115,140,673 miles (1984-Present) (24 years) Atlantis: 89,533,755 miles (1985-Present) (23 years) Endeavor: 90,347,054 miles (1992-Present) (16 years) Still quite large numbers, of course. But I thought it would be interesting to compare those values with those of typical commercial airliners, which of course fly a lot slower, but they fly on a daily basis for 20 years or more. Unfortunately I couldn't find a great source for this, but I did find one promising piece of information: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Aviation-Flying-1651/shelf-life-aircraft.htm Working with that "51,000 flight hours" figure seems the most convenient. If we assume a speed of 600 mph (taking a high figure to get an outside value) we get 30,600,000 miles. Comparing against the shuttles with >20 years in service we see that the shuttles come out well ahead (especially Columbia -- wow!). Now some airliners do fly for 30+ years, and could presumably produce much larger figures, but of course they're not always moving at 600mph -- takeoffs and landings, holding patterns, etc, all take place at much lower speeds. So I think it's clear that the advantage goes to the STS here. And by the time the shuttle program ends we're going to see at least 26 years (on Discovery) and possibly more. (Looks like Discovery could break Columbia's record, doesn't it?)

Yup, yup, those are problems alright. And a nuclear plant can melt down and contaminate an entire metropolitan area for thousands of years, existing coal-fired plants are nasty, and existing fuel plants blow up and kill hundreds of people all the time. Scary stuff, huh? So here's a thought -- how 'bout we make our decisions based on pragmatism and compromise (neither of you advocates going back to living in trees and caves) instead of fear and potential for disaster, ignoring our ability to fix things with science and technology. I think that's bascule's point here, and it's a good one. I think Obama is going to reflect that in his energy policy, and I think you'd better resign yourself to that fact. Compromise will build our future, bolstered by the promise of science and technology.

Cute -- a thread that automatically Godwin's itself!

Sometimes I think these studies get a little obsessed with minutiae. I'm just not seeing a big reason to worry about emissions during the construction of a nuclear power plant that could last for, what, a century or more? Oh well. I agree with bascule's point about ignorance but I think this is the proverbial "bed" that we've "made" with this election, and I guess sometimes you have have to accept the bad with the good. I'd be okay with "no" or "limited" on the issue of nuclear power if we were willing to take a less panicky and more realistic view on okay-it's-almost-clean coal and offshore drilling. I'm still not really seeing a problem with clean coal on a technology front. You make a mess, but you clean it up -- how is that different from anything else we do these days? If it's off in some areas, you fix it. We know how to fix things -- this isn't the 19th century. Some of those extremists won't be happy until the entire world runs on wind and solar, and if that's not enough power, well too bad -- no hospitals for you! But I do agree with them that wind and solar need vast expansion in this country. It irks me to think about all those empty office building rooftops going completely to waste.

I for one welcome our artificial overlords! Just kidding. It's always fun to speculate about AI possibilities. One thing that intrigued me about your post was the idea of "free from bias" -- is that necessarily the case? I suspect that any sentient creature must automatically be capable of forming bias. Of course I can't prove this, not knowing any non-human sentient creatures (well, at least none that I am allowed to talk about). But if sentience is a direct function of biology then it logically follows. What do you think?

Oh that's right -- good memory. From what I understand they plan to include multitouch in Windows 7 (due out next year, which as everyone knows is the year 2014), so I guess they're planning ahead.