Pangloss

THAT's interesting, I'd not heard that before. How quickly does it wear out? I guess with something like ReadyBoost you probably don't care much, since the stuff is cheap and you can easily yank it from the USB socket for replacement. I'd have to agree that pretty much closes the door on my iffy suggestion. (Although it does make me wonder how Vista handles failing ReadyBoost drives -- what kind of error checking it does and how it reacts to failure.)

Sure, I can help you with that. I'm going to post ONE reference, not because I only HAVE one reference, but to give you a chance to refute it spot-on. (I don't mean to abbreviate your post, by the way. It was interesting and informative, as always, and I did read it all the way through, I just quoted a portion of it so that I'm clear about what I'm responding to.) Anyway, this is an article from November 2005 about the uncapping of oil wells in California that were capped because of changing economics: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47618 And it includes this interesting quote, which I imagine you'll have an interesting response for: Clearly Dr. Corsi has an agenda of his own, with a book title like that! But then that seems to be a common thing when it comes to this subject. (Edit: I've never heard of that book, but here's its page at Amazon, where it's apparently been on sale since late 2005. Some of the comments posted by readers are pretty heated and interesting.)

Just to be clear, I'm talking about the pumps that pull the oil out of the ground, not the pumps that put gasoline in the car. I think you understood that, but I did a double-take at your mention of the per-gallon price in the same sentence, and that may cause some misunderstanding for other readers, so I wanted to make sure we're clear on that. The economics of running a filling station aren't particularly relevent here, I don't think, for either point of view. Getting back to your point, I didn't say "suddenly", I said that when oil is cheap you buy from overseas. You've just pointed out that when oil was expensive, oil was at its highest domestic production level in history. This would seem to back up my point, would it not? Hear, hear.

And they've been so effective, haven't they.

I just want to know how censoring music will stop children from being disrespectful towards women. Isn't it likely that the music mirrors the reality, rather than the other way around?

Oh he's certainly right about the perception amongst liberals that their candidates are more intelligent. Your post completely dispells the notion as a reality, though. Well put. Those generalities were pretty interesting as well.

Well you were focused on liberals, and I couldn't tell if that was because you were speaking out of experience or out of preference. Doesn't matter, really, I just wondered if nobody was going to be able to make a similar conservative template. I don't think it's necessarily a matter of irrationality, though. You may well have a point there, but I think it's also a reflection on people's motivations and preferences.

Not to change the subject, but one of my favorite stories about the life of Julius Caesar is a little tale about how one day he and Cleopatra were traveling up the Nile, and decided to stop and have a picnic at a famous spot that had been a quarry for the stone used in the pyramids. Cleo showed Gaius around for a bit, and at one point Nice-Head-of-Hair asked his honey "How did they build the darn things anyway?" "I have no idea," she replied. And she really didn't. The idea had been lost for thousands of years already. (Not that the ancient Egyptians would have stooped to telling a Greek pretender like Cleopatra anyway.) Human beings have a long freaking history.

IS there a higher level of attention to the war in Iraq? I mean literally -- is it possibly for us to pay more attention to it than we are already?

So... conservatives like their leaders stupid... liberals like their followers stupid (and dependent).... is that basically it?

Hmm, you're probably right about RAM changing too fast. But there are also times where nothing happens for a while. I used to berate fellow office workers when I'd walk by their desk while they were away, and I'd see a huge work of text open on the screen in Word with the title "Document1" at the top of the screen. Of course Word handles that problem itself now, but not many programs do that. That's an interesting alternative, but batteries of course have their own set of issues, such as requiring user maintenance and awareness. I think it would be interesting, though, if batteries were split up more often, so that you could change one while the other remained in place. Most of the time it's just one big slab. Sometimes you'll see them have a secondary battery in place of, say, the optical drive, but most people don't go for those because of the extra weight. I don't think there's any real value in my idea; there's just too much else going on in that area. Laptops automatically go into protective sleep or hibernate modes when you close the clam shell, and desktops can be set to do the same. UPSs are common, and as you say my idea would require the computer to idle for a while before it would take the time to "back up" the RAM to Flash. Any practical benefit from it would be exceedingly rare.

The rate of discovery is affected by economic issues that have nothing to do with running out of easy access oil. Oil's cheap. We got big reserves. Why spend all that money during a recession looking for... more reserves? You don't do that -- you wait for boom times. You want for times like the ones we're coming into right now. THEN you start spending money on stuff like that. This is why I don't like it when you repeat yourself. It ignores the arguments made against your points in earlier repetitions. You're setting yourself up for a situation in the future when I'm not around and miss a particular repetition, leaving you holding the field with a dogmatic opinion, presented as if it were a fact. That is unacceptable to me, and that is why I keep challenging you on a personal level. The debate should be on the merits, not whomever happens to get the last word in.

This is not a valid response for this thread. Hubbard is not a valid source for that piece of information -- you have to quote HIS source, not his opinion, please. And lay off the cursing, please. If you make a comment like that first line again I'm going to issue you an infraction. Thanks.

Just to clarify, was this intended as a response to my question? It sounds like it is, because that's a number we've looked at before. My response to this number before was that I agree to its accuracy, and I interpret its meaning in a different way. You believe it means that they capacity to increase that number does not exist. I believe it to mean that the capacity to increase that number exists just fine. (In other words, wells are shut down/capped/stored for future use because the price of oil doesn't support its tappage at present.) So let's see if we can go another level deeper with the evidence trail at that point, instead of just leaving it to my opinion versus yours: Is there a specific piece of evidence that you can present here that would show that these numbers cannot be raised under any circumstances?

Is it really that hard to find anything nice to say about conservative philosophy/ideology? Really? If so that's a sign of the times, not a reflection on the value of conservatism. A sign that people aren't paying attention, and they're finding it easier to sink further into standing memes of ideology rather than wake up and smell the coffee. A few years ago, during the runup to the 2000 election, I stumbled into a social situation in which a female friend of ours who was (and still is) rabidly anti-Bush was at the same party as, well, me. I was swinging Republican again at the time, and had decided to vote for Bush, and when she heard this she went ballistic, arms, legs, everything swinging (she wore no bra, obviously, so there was a lot of stuff swinging). (I can say that because they really are good friends, and she'd have said it even sooner, so please don't get me wrong!) She's always like that too, when you talk to her. Goes to war protest rallies, listens to Air American, all that jazz. It's her... thing. "Hippie", we call her. But after some time had passed I asked her about a completely different political subject -- something having to do with some local news event, as I dimly recall. The practical upshot of it was that she came down on a very CONSERVATIVE side of that particular issue, which involved children and school bus safety or some such. This continued over time, and, in short, any time an issue came up involving children, she would consistently come down on the conservative side of that issue. The point being not that she was a closet conservative, but that she had some values that were consistent with conservatives in many areas. She didn't LIKE it, but she was conservative -- at least on those issues. I belive that she accurately reflects the majority of the country in that respect. My signature says it best. People are not all one thing. They like to think they are, but in reality they just never are. Too bad they vote like they are. 80% of 'em, anyway.

That's one of the problems of peak oil right there -- areas that have been geologically "written off" in the past end up producing oil. (Maybe we should debate more specific details here, just as a thought.) Fair enough. You posted some specifics earlier and I disputed them in a very general way. Let me suggest that you take one of those (or another one) -- some specific peak oil prediction that you believe came true -- and post it here, and I'll respond to that specific point, and we'll see where it goes from there. Just one, for the moment, so we can focus on it. (I won't take that to mean that you don't have others available.) I don't know, Peak Oil Man, maybe I have some room to learn here. I like to think I have an open mind.

I think we're on to something here! So what we need to do now is organized all the conferences and journals into a league system, with centralized administration and judging (and statistics-keeping). We can also have a farm system at the high school level. And each year we can end the "science season" with a round of playoffs ending with a trip to the "Science Bowl". Every four years each country can send its best thinkers to a world competition held in some country based on a bidding system. The participants will stay in the "Aesthete's Village", and during their off time they can impress each other with their... mental prowess in the dormitories. Anybody want to join my Fantasy Science league?

If you were reading closely between the lines this week then you may have noticed a very subtle but powerful shiv slipping between the ideological ribs of the Democratic party. In the wake of the Don Imus scandal, the media absolutely CEMENTED itself to the slam-fest against hip-hop music this week, with virtually no effort made to give the other side its say. Free speech advocates were as rare as unarmed bodyguards at a hip hop awards show. One of the most interesting things about it was just the sheer number of ostensibly liberal/left/free-speech organizations that immediately launched full salvos against rap. Even the National Organization of Women, which normally falls all over itself to take liberal positions on issues having nothing to do with feminism, made noises about breaking ideological ranks, sounding like it was ready to team up with African American leadership to protest at rap music concerts. Ironically the same organization speaks out consistently for free speech in the area of abortion rights. Barrack Obama made a non-commital statement in support of changing the rap industry, but he actually came off looking a bit hypocritical, because we all know that music mogul David Geffen is one of his biggest supports. Looks like that bru-ha-ha with Geffen and the Clintons turned out to have a down side after all. So now even Obama can't stand up for free speech without looking like a hypocrit. But most of these Democrats are falling all over themselves to see how quickly they can get behind censorship of the recording industry. As I've remarked here before, this is an area that Democrats (especially presidential candidates) have identified as a common ground for woo'ing red state voters. Watch: Video games will be next.

Dissent as a form of encouragement... that's an intriguing idea, waitforufo. Can you expand on it a bit?

I'm still curious about the OP. It's be a really bad idea to use Flash memory as RAM for several reasons, but I can't help but wonder if there might be SOME use for it. But right now you can't do that even with Vista. I'm sure the reasoning is that there's already a system in place that assists the user in memory-full situations. We're interplacing Flash in between RAM and HDD now which will improve that system. In theory that would be exactly the same thing as "using Flash as RAM". But in practice it's something else, because VM is an OS system and it has its own overhead, background tasks, and various limitations. You know what might be possible would be to do this at the hardware level, with extensive changes to the motherboard chipset and BIOS/CMOS. The goal would be to have some slots on the motherboard where you could shove in some slotted Flash chips (obviously chucking the USB ports, because I believe Flash is able to go considerably faster than USB 2.0 speed), and then you'd add that "memory" to the main pool. But I'm guessing that the vast difference in speed between the "real" RAM and the Flash "RAM" would be so great that you would run into some paging and channeling issues. So you'd need something at the hardware level to stand in the way and gate-keep the swappage. Probably some programming in the Southbridge chip. But look at the cool tricks you'd get out of the final product. For example, you could probably set up a "RAM Mirror", which would simply copy the contents of the RAM into Flash memory whenever the system was idle for a moment. That way if the power was cut, voila, you're right back where you were, without having to hibernate. Sleep mode would become obsolete since you'd essentially have Hibernate capability built into the RAM itself (i.e. you could remove the battery of a laptop equipped in this manner without having to hibernate or shut down). And of course your hibernation time would just fly by. All very interesting, but probably not useful enough for mass production. Although I believe one of the Sony ultra-portables uses some kind of trick where there's no hard drive, just a large pool of Flash memory instead. Not quite the same thing.

I know that peak oil doesn't say there won't be any more major oil discoveries. I didn't say that it said that, and you've missed my point. When a discovery comes from an area previously thought to be not a valid area for discovery, this changes the formula for calculating "peak oil". This has happened several times, causing the formula to be recalculated several times over the decades. Why assume it won't happen again? That's one of the reasons I believe Peak Oil Man's prediction is just that -- one prediction. Out of many possible outcomes. No it doesn't. It states that when all other factors are equal, the simplest answer is usually the correct one. It is an interpretive tool. I don't know what relevence this has here. Scientists don't make factual determinations based on Occam's Razor. If you're asking me if Occam's Razor SUGGESTS that Peak Oil Man is correct, I would answer "perhaps". It's a reasonable thing to suggest, and I certainly have no problem with people forming their opinions on that basis. I'm glad you brought this up, because it raises another issue I still want to talk about. I keep hearing that peak oil has predicted all of the plateaus in oil production over the years. I have a real problem with this, because the idea behind peak oil is that production cannot be increased beyond a certain capacity, which is a theoretical maximum. So what happens is that a plateau is reached, the peak oil fans cheer, and then nothing happens for a while, and then -- production grows again at a later time. How is that an "accurate prediction"? It's like a prognosticator standing on a street corner shouting "Come and do business with me, because I've accurately predicted the end of the world every single time it's happened!" It makes no sense at all. And then there is the problem of WHY production halted or slowed. Peak oil says it stopped because production hit its theoretical maximum. But that has never been the case -- not once. Oil production has never capped out, one not single time in history. That is the fundamental tenet of peak oil theory, and it has never happened. Production has always stopped because of market factors, like temporary lack of demand. That's been the case every single time, including right now. What does lack of demand have to do with running out of accessible oil or reaching a maximum capacity? (grin) Okay.

It'd be interesting if this actually lead to some industry self-policing on rap music lyrics. The music industry's always been pretty good at closing the doors on empty barns.

You mean like Microsoft Bob, or Clippy, the Office Paper Clip?

I'll answer that, but I think you have to acknowledge that I (and several other members here who have agreed with me and disagreed with you) have one, and that it's allowed for it to differ from yours. Let me be forthright with you, since we're on the subject: I've been asked to review some of my old posts on the subject, and I agree with you that I have been, at times, a bit abrassive and overbearing in opposing your opinion. I can understand your frustration, and it's lead to some back-and-forth that I regret. There's also been some well-reasoned debate in the midst of battle on both our parts, and I want to recognize that value as well. What I'm getting at is that I get a little huffy sometimes, but I regret casting aspersions on your honest opinion, and I'm not asking (nor have I ever asked) for your departure. I believe you're fully capable of bringing value to the board and I'd like to see that continue in a positive vein. This is one of the most interesting subjects we discuss here, and I'd like to keep it open and honest, and continuing forward. You're provocative, but you're also resourceful and intelligent, and you bring new information and perspective to the table. All I'm asking is that you respect other points of view. The main thing that makes me unhappy is when one person or another dominates a subject, making it difficult for others to voice their opinions. I have no problem with you having that opinion. As others have pointed out, it's a good argument, and a valid opinion. There are also other possibilities. We've seen this before, and it's not a matter of evidence, but it IS a matter of valid differences of opinion. I don't have to produce evidence that the world won't collapse tomorrow. I can simply point to the size of the Earth, the accepted set of assumptions by your "geologist friends" that in fact is constantly changing and mutable, and so forth. For example, when I point out that a new "deep strike" has been made, that's not an argument that one strike is going to save us all (as you once responded, inappropriately IMO). That's pointing out that strikes can come from areas not currently accepted by geologists. It's perfectly reasonable for you to respond to that by saying something along the lines of "I don't believe that will be sufficient, and these scientists don't believe it either". Great, more power to you. Post that, and we won't have a problem. 20 years ago, every Nobel Prize-winning economist in the country was convinced that the mathematics and science of the Savings & Loan Crisis was going to lead to economic catastrophe. They had mounds of evidence just like yours -- charts and graphs, opinions from brilliant minds, empirical data, the whole nine yards. But it never happened. The crisis was averted with a relative minimum of fuss. And history is full of similar examples. Don't get me wrong, I'm not simply saying "well aliens could land tomorrow and hand us a bunch of matter replicators". I'm being logical and responsive about this, and I believe I've answered your question (and am willing to answer it further). I agree that a response like that (replicators) would be too silly to discuss. But I (and others) have outlined specific areas and technologies where, in our opinion, the answers will come from, including changes in energy policy, greater geological understanding, more attention from the public, and improved technology. I believe you should respect that opinion and respond to it on a professional level. If you can do that, then perhaps we can bury the proverbial hatchet and move on.

It's all that Cardassian technology, you know.