Pangloss

I'm not sure I understand where exactly you guys disagree.

Thanks. What about this notion (quoted earlier) that storage is not really a major concern, since 99.9% of the radiation is gone after only 40 years?

Wups, I misread them, let me edit: So Britain, France and Japan are unable to recycle nuclear waste? Is that the IPCC-like, debate-is-over concensus?

Oh, I didn't say you were wrong to challenge Aardvark on that point.

Or if it affects the price of gas at all. I read a couple of months ago that while the price of crude had risen 70% (over an amount of time I cannot recall), the price at the pump had only risen 30%, suggesting a margin. The current decline in the price of crude might therefore have no impact on the price at the pump. But I don't know how accurate any of that really is. I suspect we will see a slight fall but that it will remain in the vicinity of $4/gallon. I'm even less of a sage than I am a rocket scientist, though.

How do France, Britain and Japan deal with that issue?

Well I agree with bascule on that. The distancing mentioned above is about not wanting to influence a important ally's democratic election, which makes sense for a whole lot of reasons. From that same article: Put another way, he's not supporting Obama for president, but he is making it clear that he wants our troops out. And that's very much his (and his people's) prerogative. Frankly if that's what the Iraqi people want, then the very best thing that can be done to preserve Iraq-American friendship and cooperation is to remove our troops, and to do so along the lines of reasoning that Obama suggests. After all, they can always invite us to establish a base there later, if they change their minds and the opinion of the Iraqi people towards us improves, which seems quite possible to me -- their notion of a secular government and an only morally Islamic nation makes them a natural ally for the US (not to mention an excellent role model for their Shi'a brethren next door). On the political front, Obama has scored a major point. McCain is now behind the 8-ball on this issue. And I think we've gone from a minor story about the administration's lack of control over al-Maliki to a major shift in the situation. One that requires the formation of new policy (departure). That having been said, it is important to make sure that this is the sincere opinion of the Iraqi people, and not just the Shi'a. It is likely, for example, that the Kurds feel differently. But if the Sunni agree on this point, that would seem to spell the end of our notion of permanent bases, at least for the present time.

Thus demonstrating the impact of speculation on the price of oil.

How come you didn't say that to Bascule when he said he'd be fine with a nuclear power plant in his back yard, iNow?

Well I don't really understand this stuff, but France, Britain, Japan and 60 Minutes seem to think that reprocessing is a form of recycling that eliminates spent nuclear fuel storage. I don't understand why that doesn't come into play into political nuclear energy discussions here at SFN. Are they just so wrong that it shouldn't even be considered, or is it just more expedient to pretend they haven't solved that problem? This Wikipedia article quote seems to suggest that the costs of recycling are higher and that storage isn't as bad as it sounds (how come I've never heard from the news that 99.9% of the radiation is gone after only 40 years, not thousands of years? grrr). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing I tell you what, less spin and more clarity is needed if we're going to move ahead on nuclear. More so than other energy types. Or so it seems to me.

Well deserved, guys.

How many people have been killed in "big explosions" by French nuclear power? All we really have to do is promote the fact that Chernobyl was a flawed design, which I think most people already know anyway. Or perhaps more importantly, the media knows it. All we REALLY have to do is get the whackier environmentalists (like Gore) to leave nuclear power alone.

McCain does not want US troops to remain in combat in Iraq for another 100 years. He was talking about is the possibility of establishing permanent bases in Iraq but only with the support of the Iraqi government. We are not a colonial power. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/14/mccain.king/

Ah, well in that case I withdraw my complaint (and most of my last post). Your "pro-recession" (at risk of sounding grudging about it) argument has made a difference in my thinking about the economy. I don't entirely agree with your assessment, but I agree on root causes and correct courses of action. We've got some stuff that needs fixing.

Apf. It's your claim, not mine: At any rate, I might be able to accept a new definition of "recession" that doesn't require an actually-receding GDP. Something that more accurately accounts for slipping employment numbers, credit crunches, worsening purchasing power and a drop in consumer coincidence.

If it's new you should definitely talk to tech support, since you've paid for it, and consider posting/reading the appropriate Dell forum for that model, which may reveal a common problem with a useful temporary workaround discovered by other users.

I'm not sure I understand why managed-code languages aren't used for at least general/casual scientific programming, but it's my understanding that that's typically the case as well. Perhaps it's just the fact that there's not all that much in the managed code libraries to make up for the stigma of using managed code.

I take it "punters" is slang for people who purchase sex? That's a new one on me.

This is what strikes me as partisan, iNow: The outcomes aren't questionable, they're real, which they know because they are the ones who achieved it, and not some "tiny percentage" --they ALL contributed. They don't want to leave Iraq because of "questionable outcomes" or because their bosses don't value them, they want to leave because there isn't any combat there. The implication that their bosses don't value them is completely unsupported, so far as I can see. And to the extent that it is demoralizing, it is so because war is demoralizing, not because the Iraq war is demoralizing.

What "truth" might that be? That the surge worked? That Al Qaeda in Iraq and the insurgency were defeated? That the Iraqi army is starting to stand on its own two feet? That Iraqis have a brighter future because of the efforts of the vast majority of our soldiers? Or do you mean the "truth" that a tiny percentage of American armed forces broke rules, committed brutal atrocities, and/or stole from the Iraqi people? Is that the "truth" of the situation as you see it, that the acts of the well-intentioned many are overshadowed and unmentionable because of the acts of a few cowards and criminals? Well I for one don't want any of our citizens thinking like that, much less our soldiers. You wanna know why I'm so harsh on ideologues and partisans, there it is in a nutshell, right there. ------- But getting back to your point, okay, they may not be straight up with the first reporter they meet, but do you have any evidence that soldiers are too "blinded by patriotism" to honestly and accurately respond to, say, an anonymous research poll? You seem to think so: This poll would suggest otherwise. It's a Zogby poll that actually seems to support your point -- it shows 72% of troops supporting a withdrawl from Iraq within the next year. That certainly seems to suggest that it is indeed possible to get "honest sincere responses out of our soldiers", wouldn't you say? I suppose that would seem to counter my earlier point that they aren't opposed to the war in Iraq, if it's an actual statement of political opposition (as Zogby seems to think), as opposed to just a non-political plea to be brought home. But it certainly supports the notion that soldiers are willing to look beyond gung-ho support for the war and President Bush. And that poll doesn't help you in the "situation on the ground" department, because guess what? That poll was taken in 2006. When the situation was nearing its lowest point, before the surge, before the defeat of the insurgency, and before the Iraqi forces began to stand on their own. This study suggests that only 17% of Iraq veterans actually experienced a mental health disorder. This in spite of the fact that as much as 86% of them actually met the enemy in combat. I'm not suggesting that it's a good thing that we've created 30 or 40 thousand mentally-unstable Americans thanks to our unwarranted and illegitimate action in Iraq. What I'm suggesting is that across-the-board condemnations coming from ideological wellsprings don't help matters, they hurt them. The quote above is unwarranted, disrespectful and damaging, and as far as I can see it seems to have been made for partisan reasons and out of a partisan predisposition for judgment.

Apf. Fed up with your lack of response to "recession" and raising the stakes, eh? Well, Rush Limbaugh calls your IndyMac and raises you a new baby boom. It's certainly not a depression just because left-wing media pundits throw straw men around. Nor is it a great economy just because right-wing media pundits throw straw men around.

Er, you do know why it was sent to committee, don't you? Rep. Conyers will hold hearings and then it will die. There's a reason Conyers left out the word "impeachment" in his announcement today. This is how Pelosi kills the impeachment bill.

iNow, the CNN story bascule linked says nothing about opposition to the war in Iraq from the troops. The story was about inexperienced troops itching for a fight, as contrasted with war-weary troops who know how awful war (in general) can be. It's a nice piece; appropriate and sobering and respectful, all at the same time. Frankly those kids sound like the emails I've been getting from my nephew, who's been in Iraq for 12 weeks. I worry about him every day, especially with that gung-ho attitude of his. I know you meant no disrespect and I'm sure there are some soldiers over there who feel as you suggest, but I've never seen any evidence that a majority of them (or even a big minority of them) are opposed to the war in Iraq, and I think it does them a disservice to suggest otherwise. Thanks.

Yah that refraction also causes the sun and moon to appear to rise before they actually do, and set after they already have, which I've always thought was really interesting. If memory serves, the refraction level is something like a minute of arc at the horizon, or about the width of the sun and moon, so when you see them touching the horizon they're actually below it.

I've read many times that 75% of air pollution is from automotive sources. That suggests to me that eliminating automotive sources alone, while certainly not solving the energy problem, would clean up the air tremendously. I mention that in this context not to suggest a course of action, but just to point out that current perceptions of what constitutes a crowded planet and an endangered environment may not be valid if the basic formula of society (esp wrt energy) is gradually adjusted to something more compatible. That's not to say that you're wrong, though -- we should be aware of population growth as an issue.