Pangloss

I've not posted countering evidence, I've posted an opinion. It is a different opinion from Peak Oil Man's. I fully intend to keep challenging his opinion, and if he's the intelligent advocate I think he is, then he should welcome that continuance. And so should you. I've never said peak oil can't happen, so what evidence am I supposed to produce? You can't prove a negative -- the evidence is incumbent upon the hypothesizer, not the hypothesizee. But more to the point, I have no problem with the evidence as presented! I simply draw a different opinion from it than Peak Oil Man does. The problem here is that a couple of people aren't recognizing that that's an opinion. Thankfully most of us see very clearly what this is. Are we going to respect differing points of view here, or are we going to declare one point of view to be correct and deny others the right to state their opinions if they differ from what's accepted? Choose wisely.

The reason ReadyBoost (in Vista) works is due to the rapid seek time of the Flash drive compared with a hard drive. The kind of data we're talking about here tends to be relatively short bursts from relatively numerous locations. So the overall effect is one of improvement, even though in theory the drive should be slower than an SATA HDD. Note that Microsoft got the idea from drive manufacturers, who are now beginning to incorporate Flash memory directly onto controller cards. They already have RAM buffers, so clearly they're also getting another kind of improvement from this approach.

Wouldn't that be a case of "judicial activism", ParanoiA? I can understand that sentiment, but we have the rule of law here, so we ought to rule by those laws, wouldn't you agree? Using this as a "final solution" to the problem of sex offenders smacks of vigilante justice. If we're going to deliberately put sex offenders under a bridge as part of their punishment, then I think we should have a vote on that and make that decision. Bear in mind that these offenders include, in theory, young men who happen to pick up slightly underage women with false ID in a bar. They can end up under the bridge just as easily as the "predators". You have to remember that the reason THESE sex offenders are under the bridge is economic, not criminal. Other sex offenders, including some whose crimes were far more serious, are sitting at home watching TV. Shouldn't they have to rot under the bridge too, if we're going to be fair about this "law"?

That's an interesting question about prisons. I don't know the answer, from a legal perspective, but I can tell you that there are sex offenders in prisons within 2500 feet of schools and parks. There's one right down the street from me. It's more of a work facility (at the local landfill) for non-violent offenders. That would seem to actually be more of a threat to a community in terms of sex offenders, but they have a staff there to look after the convicts. They don't have the usual fences and walls, just dormitories and guards. I haven't changed my mind about punishing sex offenders, but two wrongs never make a right. I'm just not sure what can really be done about it. I've been thinking about talking to my dean about getting a security guard to spend a little time there each evening. Unfortunately I don't know if they will want to get in the middle of something that might be unpopular with the parents (who, of course, pay the tuition). According to my wife, who has her ear to the ground in the latino community, some patrol officers in local law enforcement have been going out of their way to keep an eye on the area informally.

Whoa, that's bizarre, I don't think I've ever heard of that. Is it a very common problem for smokers?

It's literally sleeping bags under the bridge. A state officer comes by each evening to check and make sure they're where they're supposed to be, but then he leaves. They have no security of any kind, and everyone in South Florida knows exactly where they are between 10pm and 6am every single day. I'm surprised none of them have been mugged or attacked by some irate parent of an abused child.

POM, I appreciate the effort you are making above, so I'll leave it at that. The only complaint I have about the last few posts is that I wish you would be more respectful of other people's opinions and less demanding about acceptance of your interpretation of the what the evidence means. Statements like "the facts speak for themselves" and "other people just don't recognize the truth" absolutely ruin egalitarian debate (and are against board policy for that reason). If you can turn it around and work with folks in a more fair and cooperative manner, there's no reason why you can't continue talking about this.

I've never attempted to pick apart PeakOilMan's numbers -- I've always accepted them. And I don't think I've ever once simply made a flat denial as an argument. It's just his interpretation that I disagree with. Even PeakOilMan gives me more credit than that, guy. Be fair.

Loud shirts really DO speak for themselves.

I can't remember if I posted this before, but the story's been updated so it's a good chance to refresh it and/or post it for the first time. (It's Friday the 13th, so I figure I'll cover both my bases to be sure!) This is just one honkin' bizarre story, and one of those crazy things that usually gets a "Florida" tag on FARK (probably did -- I haven't been by there in ages). Stories like this just seem to bake and simmer in the hot Florida sun, what can I say. Anyway, not too many months ago a new law was passed in Miami that increased the buffer distance (2500 ft) that convicted sex offenders have to maintain between their place of residence and any schools, parks, or other facilities where children are in attendance. It seemed like a good idea to most folks at the time, but the law of unintended consequences reared its ugly head. The distance was so great, and the number of "protected" sites so numerous, that all the sites overlapped each other, effectively locking up the entire county except for a few small "open" areas, most of which had no available housing to speak of. Most convicted sex offenders simply leave (which was probably the idea -- NIMBY at its ugliest). Those who choose to stay, for the most part, worked something out. But a very small number of men (I believe there are three of them currently) who had limited or no resources got caught in a rather bizarre loophole when they got out on parole. You see, there is actually a facility for paroled felons to go to. A halfway house that helps them get back on their feet. Unfortunately the facility is located within the new restriction limit, and the funds aren't available yet to move the facility. So they can't go there. So the city ordered them to live -- now get this -- underneath a highway overpass. No, really. See, they're parolees -- they're stuck here, unable to leave the area lest they be in violation of their parole. But there's literally no place else the state can put them because of the new law. Bizarre, isn't it? Can't you just hear Joseph Heller rolling in his grave? They actually live outdoors, but under the cover of the Julia Tuttle Causeway, which is one of the bridges connecting downtown Miami to the Miami Beach area. They had to actually set up a special ordinance to "allow" these parolees to live outside -- they're the only parolees in the state who are "allowed" to live outside. Now to be fair, we have had a really wonderful, mild, pleasant winter! But holy cow, doesn't that just seem a little bit ridiculous? And to make matters worse, some of the men don't even speak English, so they're really having a hard time figuring out what their options might be. Well the story was "refreshed" this week when one of the parolees came before a judge. Apparently what happened was some folks in the community came forward to try and help out these men and see if there was a better place to put them. So a lot of time and effort was expended talking to the men, working their way through the judicial system and finally coming before a judge. Who promptly ordered the men right back under the bridge! I'm afraid that's where the story sits at the moment, but I just had to pass it on. Here's a link to a local write-up of this bizarre story: http://www.local10.com/news/11826349/detail.html

Slander and misrepresentation wasn't what I had in mind, and a post has been removed. Thread closed, discussion over.

I read over the article. Interesting stuff. I'd heard of the temple before, but I've never read a whole lot about it. It's really a shame that it's in such a difficult to reach place. Ancient Rome is a hobby of mine, by the way, and I've read many of the ancient authors (Plutarch is a particular interest). The questions raised in the last couple of pages of the article are really interesting to me. What's so interesting about this is not just the questions regarding their construction methods, but the lack of documentation for those reasons. By the time that temple was built the Romans had a long tradition of historical documentation. Of course, by that time they had also enveloped a new tradition: Manipulating history for political purposes. I couldn't help but wonder if one reason for the lack of information about Baalbek in ancient sources is political in nature.

The Wikipedia also has a pretty good writeup on the temple here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baalbek

That is one of the points raised by PNAC critics over the years, that they advocate global domination. It's certainly a point of view. What conclusions one draws from their positions are matters of opinion. I've always felt that their position was a reasonable one, if disagreeable, and stopped short of what their critics claimed. This is mainstream policy-making, not conspiracy territory. But I can understand why people have such high emotion over it. Their policy statements have, at times, been somewhat brazen compared with those of other conservative movements. The Wikipedia has a summary and numerous articles about PNAC here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC And PNAC's web site is here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/ I notice in looking at it just now that the Wikipedia article states that PNAC's role has been reduced by the failure in Iraq and is in decline, apparently with only one employee now. I hadn't heard that before.

This is why many people (and the state of Florida) draw the line at whether the motorcycle rider has insurance that covers them if they're not wearing a helmet. If they do, it's legal. If they don't, it's not. Insurance is still a shared burden. But other insurance policy holders can then make a choice about whether they want to share in that culpability or not (i.e. take their business elsewhere). Unfortunately it's almost impossible to tell if the motorcycle driving by has that kind of insurance. So they never get pulled over, which means they still get into accidents regardless of their insurance status, which is why I keep footing their bill.

Well put. What's interesting about China is that their plan involves both increased production and a comprehensive effort to curtail consumption (as well as pollution). Given the problem they're facing (bringing that many people into the 21st century), I think it's a pretty bold idea. Whether it'll work, of course, is another question. Interesting article on the subject: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2007-04/11/content_848392.htm

Does he know what happened to the six who were laid off? Did they go back to school? Did they get better jobs? Or did they end up worse off? IMO, the picture is too incomplete to draw the conclusion that the automation was a bad idea.

Not yet we haven't. And you've agreed with me on this point in the past. No, that's another educated guess that's been proven incorrect several times in the past. And you've agreed with me on this point in the past. Incorrect. And you've agreed with me on this point in the past. Incorrect. And you've agreed with me on this point in the past. Good, because it's a straw man. Reserves and production are double what they were 40 years ago. I agree with declining trends, but the reason for that has been cheap oil, not some sort of magical maximum. The proof is in the pudding. Your people predicted global economic collapse when oil prices doubled. But in fact they quadrupled, and the economy is doing just fine. Your theory isn't perfected truth that nobody can deny. It needs a lot of work. More guesswork, not fact. In fact recent trends suggest the opposite, as we've discussed in the past. You've agreed with me on this point in the past, in fact, and countered with the supposition that it won't matter because there's a magical maximum production capacity. (Which you can't prove, you can only point to plateaus that have other explanations. But you declare it to be fact just the same.) No, we do not know this. That is your theory. But you're entitled to your opinion, and more power to you.

Just as a personal observation, I think the IPCC actions (this one and the previous one) are some of the most dramatic moments we've witnessed in all of science history. Regardless of what one might think of their conclusions, the fact that this many intelligent, objective, analytical human beings got together and came to such a monumental level of agreement, in one of the most contentious and debate-prone of all human endeavors (research science), is utterly astounding. One simply cannot look objectively at this information and come to the conclusion that the facts have not been looked at, the all opinions have not been weighed, or that insufficient critical thinking has been done. Put three scientists in a bistro and you will rarely get them to agree on what portion of the check is theirs. And yet here they are, agreeing to an astounding degree and to an undeniable level of depth and detail. One way or another, we are witnesses to one heck of an interesting piece of history.

That is a straw man. I don't dispute your figures on oil reserves. I dispute your conclusion that oil reserves cannot grow any further.

Oh pick me pick me! you wish, Pangloss - ecoli Edit: I am pwnd.

You mean just in terms of the logistics of it? I see your point -- kinda hard to track who's wearing their helmets (or not), whereas drugs can be taxed at the point of purchase.

I'll give everyone a chance to post one final thought. Please take this opportunity to recover gracefully and say something pleasant to your opponents.

Well they can sue for slander, right? (Unless, of course, they're actually prostitutes -- wouldn't THAT be an interesting story development....)

Not to change the subject, but here's a tangential but interestingly related query: Should motorcycle riders be allowed to ride without helmets? Last year my state spent a small fortune on medical care for helmet-less motorcycle riders with no insurance. Allstate and State Farm also declared increases in insurance rates for all customers due to helmet-less motorcycle accidents.