Pangloss

Cool article. This quote was particularly interesting: Didn't know that.

No!

Sure it would matter even if you're plugged in -- you're drawing less power from the grid. I get that you're shining a realistic light on some of these ideas, but we've already got people standing in line to buy hybrid versions of cars that won't pay for their price differences over the regular models for 5-6 years -- even a $4/gallon. I think if we get these ideas on the street, these shortcomings will be working out by engineers and gradually improved over time.

What is it you want to know?

It's funny how the mind can build on coincidences. Do you want it to be about "bioelectricity", or do you just want to enjoy a running joke with your friends? Because if it's the latter I'm afraid that ultimately if you push it and ignore rational logic you're just going to be faced with a lot of strange looks, and they won't be about your "bioelectric field". And the running joke is going to turn into something less savory. Sorry.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=5369090 President Bush will lift the executive branch's ban on drilling on the outer continental shelf this afternoon. But congress has its own ban so drilling can't begin without that being lifted as well. However, given Congress' nine percent approval rating and the overwhelming popular opinion on high gas prices, it could be difficult for them to say no. Plus they can approve it while keeping ANWR secure, which gives them something to placate environmentalists. Given the apparent safety of offshore drilling, and the need for interim solutions while we adopt alternative energy sources, I think this makes sense, even if it's only a trickle and/or a long way off. One of the reasons we're at that 70% dependency mark is our refusal over the years to develop domestic sources. The time has come.

Lame effort to restart the thread incoming (you've been warned!): What did the nuclear physicist have for dinner? Fission chips!

That's a good point -- he would certainly bring a lot more attention to that role than it's generally received in the past couple of decades.

Finally, a benefit to leaving your car out in the hot sun all day! Oh no honey, you didn't park my car in the covered parking again, did you???

I accept the challenge!

Well, it may not be THE bottleneck, but I think it will be a relevant issue regarding the acceptance of electrical automobiles (how much we have to adapt in order to use them). In fact I suspect there will be other acceptability and adaptability issues that we haven't even thought of yet. It's a good question. I've read that if every single driver were placed on the grid tomorrow, the system would be able to handle the load assuming overnight recharge. But I've never seen any analysis of additional load requirements at various percentages of daytime recharging. We all know how that would go in the real world, right? You'd get a massive spike in daytime energy demand due to 10-20% of the drivers working odd hours, taking the day off, whatever.

I don't hate statistics, and I agree with your opinion that they are important for some moral decisions. But when you put the needs of the many that far ahead of the needs of the few, the only good that comes of it is a lot of geeks crying and a vulcan mumbling "remember!" I don't like your "greater good" utopia, Lance. Signing up for my allocation of government regulated, safe and approved entertainment, food, employment, transportation and medical care? Save the last handgun for me, please! Then you can pry my HDTV, my hamburgers, my job, my car keys and my insurance card out of my cold, dead fingers. And I ain't got a single statistic to prove it.

I've got "This Week" tivo'd but it may be a couple days before I get to it. I'll definitely watch for the drilling comments, thanks. It was interesting week before last when he came to Florida and met with Charlie Crist, and they issued very different statements. I wondered if Ahnold felt undermined by that event, but he's probably gotten used to being undermined by Republicans by now.

Some chatter today about the possibility of Schwarzenegger accepting a cabinet post as energy secretary -- in the Obama administration! http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11714.html The chatter was entirely Schwarzenegger's, not coming from the Obama camp, but I think it's an interesting idea, and I'd love to see a Republican, especially one of Schwarzenegger's variety, in the Obama cabinet. I think he bring excellent balance and even some useful realpolitik experience to a challenging arena. One down side is that he's not a scientist or engineer, and it would be nice to see Bush's appointment of Samuel Bodman (who has a PhD in Chemical Engineering from MIT) become a trend for that post, which has traditionally gone to career politicians. What do you all think?

At risk of misleading people with the subject line, this isn't so much about whether the economy isn't as bad as people think it is, as it is about recognizing that we've kinda had it easy before now, thanks to low energy prices, a strong dollar, and deficit spending. I didn't post anything on the Phil Gramm comments last week for the same reason I didn't post anything on Wesley Clarke's McCain comments, and was proud of the board for not falling for that stuff. But the larger question raised by this particular comment seems worth discussing. The ABC News piece linked below is worth a read (or watch the 3-minute video). Kate Snow spoke with a business professor and consumer psychologist about the subject. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5365939&page=1 One of the more interesting points she made: But her main point seemed to be that we've become used to large growth rates. I would agree with that point with the addition of the empowerment we've enjoyed under low energy prices and deficit spending. We're used to a certain level of "wallet power" (entirely my phrase) that may not really match the realities of the 21st century. I think the media also contributes to the problem, making mountains of of molehills, but of course we've talked about that many times before and it seems redundant to go into it here (unless somebody wants to). The thing I liked about this perspective is that it doesn't suggest that the pressures and concerns people are having aren't real. I think they may be a bit over the top sometimes, and abused by ideologues, but can there really be any question that people are feeling pinched these days, even if for some it only means cut-backs on trips to the movies and Disney World? Cut-backs are cut-backs, and for some it means a lot more than that. What do you all think? Time for society to "man up"?

I'm not going to hand a loaded gun (literally) to an individual medically diagnosed to be at risk of suicide, no. And I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over that compromise, either. It ain't a perfect world.

Yeah the Microsoft Press books can be weak on advanced step-by-step methods (but make good references in general). I'm a big fan of the Wrox books from Wiley (publishers). Those are the ones with the red covers with pics of the author(s) on the front. Specifically, their C# books have been excellent. They generally split their books into two editions -- "Beginning" and "Professional". In some cases both are worth having, but if you're already familiar with the basics you can probably just get the Professional one. They're good references and semi-decent for step-by-step learning as well (good examples). I've not yet read the ones on 3.5, but they were great at the 2.0 level and I assume the new ones will be up to par. http://www.wrox.com I'm somewhat familiar with various Microsoft-related programming books because I teach the subject at a university (mostly focused on ASP), so I run through titles from several different publishers on a fairly regular basis. In my experience the Thomson and Course Technologies offerings are weak (but sometimes useful). The Murach books have good examples but are also kinda weak overall. But of course it's a huge field with many publishers. I was a big fan of the O'Reilly books (the white ones with the wood-cut animal carvings on the covers) for a long time, but haven't used them of late. I do know that Jesse Liberty's introductory book on C# is very highly thought-of in the field. http://www.amazon.com/Programming-C-Building-NET-Applications/dp/0596006993/ref=cm_lmf_tit_3_rdsssl0

Like I said, statistics-driven decision-making. If you want to say you're more accurate than they are when they talk about global warming, that's fine, but that doesn't endear your cause to me as a voter, for the reasons stated above.

So you feel they made a social statement, but not one intended to motivate change in policy? (Did I interpret that right?) If that's true then why do people deny that there is a social statement being made? I think the answer to that question is clear -- some react negatively to what they perceive to be overreaction by people they ideologically disagree with. Others just don't care and don't want their entertainment marred by such a discussion (fine, don't read it). But your point seems to make clear that it's normal to note an underlying message. And I agree with you. And that leads directly to a more important question: If we look back at historical examples like the one you cite about women, and react to them negatively today, why are we basically saying that it's okay to react to them today, but it was not okay to react to them at the time, because that would have interrupted people's entertainment, or brought inappropriate attention to a settled issue, etc? Isn't that kinda backwards? Shouldn't we be shortening that reaction time, in order to progress society? Put another way, I don't think it's an overreaction to observe these things and comment on them, especially (in this case) if the intention is constructive criticism and recognition of the positive aspects of the work (which are many). Censorship is another issue entirely, for example, or even demonstration or outrage. Commenting and observing are normal human exercises, not ideological over-reactions.

This is the sort of thing that really bugs me about statistics-driven moral decision-making. I'm all for saving people from their own stupidity, but when it boils down to simply reducing certain numbers, at a direct cost to my freedom of choice, and it also becomes clear that people aren't stupid, they know the danger and want to take the risk anyway, I lose interest real fast. Maybe handgun widespread availability increases the suicide rate, maybe it doesn't. But I've read every post in this thread and I simply do not see a case here for why that matters to the extent that I need to put a stop to it at the expense of my loss of choice. I'm actually a supporter of gun control and licensing. But not for this reason.

I agree with all of that except the last couple of sentences, which just strike me as another example of the same thing. It's also odd that you're basically saying "it's just a movie", followed immediately by criticism that people who don't like the film's message are "thickheadedly dismissing... evidence". Which is it, mere entertainment or deliberate social commentary? I agree with the point that movies shouldn't be taken too seriously, but that doesn't mean "only take seriously the politically correct messages, because those are scientifically evidenced (in spite of the fact that they may well be refuted or disproven later); instead just sit there and eat your morality meal like a good little automaton."

I may be out of my league here, but I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Doesn't matter have the same gravitic pull regardless of whether or not it is condensed into a large body?

The Wall Street Journal had an interesting piece today about how much things have changed regarding off-shore drilling. Editor Andrew Cline of the New Hampshire Union Leader makes the claim that drilling is largely safe, and supports this with some numbers, and also an interesting turnaround by an anti-offshore drilling environmental group that now supports drilling off the coast of California. The numbers he brings up are intruiging. This next bit is really a sidebar, since it doesn't in itself say anything about the safety of such drilling, I was just stunned by sheer size of these pollution numbers, which the author was misleadingly using to justify offshore drilling (though I thought his other points were valid). Holy cow. Maybe we SHOULD be taking a look at international shipping, which is notoriously difficult to regulate. Yeesh. Link to the article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121581714417147413.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

Flatterer!

Well I agree that these memes are of minor import. Conservative film fans have to ignore them most of the time, or they'd never have a good time at the theater, so you're certainly in good company. We'll see how the film is viewed 20 or 30 years from now. That will be the most revealing barometer.