If I melt dry ice, can I swim without getting wet?
Just curious.
Hope all is well,
Dave
yes, but you might have trouble seeing where you are going
You CANNOT pull Open Thread 2 days in a row. If anyone has anything breaking about Nicollette Sheridan, please post it. In the meantime, check out my funny & quirky abortion piece at BA
HEY! I put up two posts! I'm busy here!
What do you folks think about Digitial Rights Management (DRM)? In an insane move Sony/BMG are ninja installling sodtware on your computer via their most popular CDs. Part of these DRM rootkits payload is to mask filenames from your view, now virus authors are taking advantage of that to hide their evil virus payloads.
All this so that music companies can attempt to thwart people making illegal copies? This is using a forty pound sledgehammer to kill a fly, worst of all, it does nto even work. This makes me very glad that use a Mac and their stupid DRM crap only works on a Windows machine.
Now the state of California is suing Sony over their DRM rootkits.
OK, maybe this is a bit on the ggeky side, sorry I am geek to the core. More information can be had here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/200...ony_drm_trojan/
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/
..._ny_lawsui.html
Here is a lst of CDs known to have the DRM rootkiits on them:
Trey Anastasio, Shine (Columbia)
Celine Dion, On ne Change Pas (Epic)
Neil Diamond, 12 Songs (Columbia)
Our Lady Peace, Healthy in Paranoid Times (Columbia)
Chris Botti, To Love Again (Columbia)
Van Zant, Get Right with the Man (Columbia)
Switchfoot, Nothing is Sound (Columbia)
The Coral, The Invisible Invasion (Columbia)
Acceptance, Phantoms (Columbia)
Susie Suh, Susie Suh (Epic)
Amerie, Touch (Columbia)
Life of Agony, Broken Valley (Epic)
Horace Silver Quintet, Silver's Blue (Epic Legacy)
Gerry Mulligan, Jeru (Columbia Legacy)
Dexter Gordon, Manhattan Symphonie (Columbia Legacy)
The Bad Plus, Suspicious Activity (Columbia)
The Dead 60s, The Dead 60s (Epic)
Dion, The Essential Dion (Columbia Legacy)
Natasha Bedingfield, Unwritten (Epic)
Ricky Martin, Life (Columbia)
Surely that is illegal?? Thank god I never buy software, only illegal downloads.
Q: Are dried beans like navy, pinto, or black beans ever eaten fresh?
The National Wildlife refuge which you refer to as a frozen tundra was set aside for America, its wildlife, and our people who depend on it. Of course, those interests have to be weighed against other national interests like foreign dependence on oil, gas prices, and national security. But is there anything you can point to that would show how drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would significantly alleviate these problems?
Everything I hear says that the amount of oil up there is at best a drop in the bucket, and that taking steps to find alternative fuels and more efficient technology would do far more than drilling in ANWR. I have not read anything that can directly link how drilling in ANWR would lower gas prices or by how much? Nor can I find anything that says how it will improve national security given that we'd still have to import the vast majority of our fossil fuels like we do now even when ANWR would be at peak outputs.
Again, the oil in ANWR is just a drop in the bucket, and I'm glad that our government treats it that way. Until we start widely using alternative fuels we'll remain addicted to a substance that does not exist in sufficient quantities under our own soil.
ANWR is not the answer so let's start spending our time and energy on something else that is.
The entire decision on wether or not to drill in ANWR is based on the staying power of oil at over $45 a barrel or so.
No that oil prices have begun to come back down the push to drill and build the "new refineries" will not be as great.
Either way, it looks like the Iraq thing is going to work out for us, and they have HUGE amounts of untapped oil, so we will most likley preserve our untouched areas for a few more years.
Jeff,
You're right - it's illegal. No one can put software on your PC without your express permission.
As Adobe are just finding out to their cost.
They often get away with most things because we tend not to read the EULA and SLA's these days.
However, i'm sure the geek community with be making something to locate, identify and destroy it.
Sony are running one hell of a risk with doing this - but time will tell.
The idiot who posted the 'drop in the bucket' canard is scientifically challenged, & fairly ignorant
Sony is apparently loosing millions to Celiene Dion and Niel Diamond fans illegally downloading her CD's?
I have nothing against these artists, but don't think they are in the top 1,000 of illegally downloaded music.
Even if this were the right approach, the idiots at Sony completely missed the market on this one. (Or is their library really that weak?)
Anyone who says ANRW is a drop in the bucket is lying. There is no way to know for sure. Why do you think drilling is such a gamble?
I have linked things here before where oil professionals say that indicators are that there could be TONS of oil there. But we will never know unitl we try.
Oil companies have gotten very good at drilling without leaving hardly an imprint on the environment, trust me.
Did anyone see CSI:NY last night? if so, was it a good follow on from CSI:Miami?
I'm waiting to finish downloading and it's taking forever.
(not that I'm going anything illeagal - honest)
But heres a interesting site
http://tvunderground.org.ru/index.php
The "drop in the bucket" crap has been debunked. When are you guys going to realize that the environmentalists are some of the biggest liars around. They'll say anything, and you'll apparently believe anything. How pathetic.
I'm no environmentalist, but I do believe there should be certain areas of the U.S. that we don't touch. We just leave some raw land for future generations, and they can figure out what to do with it.
I live near L.A., and I realize how idiotic this will sound to Bigdog if he reads this (he lives up where there is plenty of untouched land I believe) he will probably laugh his ass off. But still, I don't see the harm in requiring the peopleof the U.S. to just leaving some portions of our country untouched unless we have a real emergency, and $3 a gallon is not a real emergency.
Youch! I'll more readily take an environmental liar's word over a corporate liar. Seems safer.
A little off topic, but hey it's an open thread:
We all know that the media is overwhelmingly liberal, they all do their best 24/7 to help the party and people they want in power to win, not just in America, but all over the world. But rarely do you hear someone be so open as to why they show something in the news and why they don't. But one TV executive in France admits he censored much of the riots because it might help the rightwing.
A few quotes:
________________________________
One of France's leading TV news executives has admitted censoring his coverage of the riots in the country for fear of encouraging support for far-right politicians.
Jean-Claude Dassier, the director general of the rolling news service TCI, said the prominence given to the rioters on international news networks had been "excessive" and could even be fanning the flames of the violence.
Mr Dassier said his own channel, which is owned by the private broadcaster TF1, recently decided not to show footage of burning cars.
"Politics in France is heading to the right and I don't want rightwing politicians back in second, or even first place because we showed burning cars on television," Mr Dassier told an audience of broadcasters at the News Xchange conference in Amsterdam today.
"Having satellites trained on towns across France 24 hours a day showing the violence would have been wrong and totally disproportionate ... Journalism is not simply a matter of switching on the cameras and letting them roll. You have to think about what you're broadcasting," he said.
Dassier admitted his decision was partly motivated by a desire to avoid encouraging the resurgence of extreme rightwing views in France.
________________________________
You know, we all know this goes on, and especially here in the U.S. But it's still rather shocking to hear someone actually come out and ADMIT they manipulate the news to help out the Left.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/
site...1639538,00.html
Un-freakin-believable.
Because if you don't film an avalanche, it doesn't happen.
Unless you're standing in the way lol
Is anyone going to answer the question about the beans?????????????
Yes Jeff,
I have no idea 
Aren't you curious?
Jeff , what they're (the liberal media) essentially saying is:
"If we in the media show the TRUTH about what is going on in the world, we will surely LOSE at the ballot box."
That is an amazing admission. It's absolutely correct, but still, an amazingly honest admission.
P.S. I have no idea about the beans.
Perhaps I will call over to the Berkeley Public Library & ask them. That way, I can find out why they never responded to my request for them to purchase Michelle Malkin's books.
For Jill: Colin Farrell or Jake Gyllenhaal?
Jeff, just been to your site and I'm really lmao about your write up - especially the beach towel line
Something good has come out of the Jordan bombings.
Jordanians to Al-Zarqarwi "Burn in Hell"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9979747/
This is just what we need. For moderate Muslims to denounce the extremists.
Jeff, Colin Farrell for right now. I hear Jake Gyllenhaal is a major liberal, therefore in my eyes he's dumb and I don't like dumb guys. Colin may be a lefty too, but I don't know yet, so that makes him the better of the two. 
Jeff, I'm also lmao over your post. I love the married couple who could now afford Tivo with that cheap abortion they got in Sweden.
No answer on the beans thing, but I'd venture to guess " yes?" Jeff rocks at open thread.
Jeff, is that true about Barbara Boxer? Did her son really get a big fat casino contract after she railroaded a proposal for federal recognition for the tribe?
That is disgusting. These Dems get away with EVERYTHING. They are such sleazy crooks.
P.S. To Citizenkahn. You say you would trust an environmentalists word over a corporation's word. You might want to rethink that. To the corporate world, you are a valued consumer. To an environmentalist you are a human being, so basically you are the enemy.
I don't have time to find the link, but I LOVED Sony management's quote about the whole hoohah:
"Most people have never heard of a rootkit in their lives; what does it matter?"
Nice. Most people have never heard of a Gotentag, either, but does that mean I can use one with impunity?
Nicollette Sheridan Sets the Record Straight:
""There was this thing written that I had gone into a candle store, & my hair went up in flames because of all the hair spray.
"First of all, I never have hair spray in my hair, and I've never even heard of this store, and my hair has never been burned."
jeff,
If the beans are dried they aren't fresh, duh.
Citzenkan,
YOu need to understand something. Oil companies make more money when there is more of a demand for oil than supply, right? It doesn't really matter to them if where they are getting the oil. We have drilling rigs all over the world.
Drilling in the ANRW will only help AMERICA. Oil companies are only interested in it because their job is to find oil. Anywhere. See?
Since enviornmentalist only want to deter that effort and to hell with dependency, you might want to re- think your loyalties.
Well, I did find this:
Nutritious Delicious FudgeMy first question is, Why? Also, where the hell do you get fresh pinto beans?? (Sparkle, if you say "the farm", I'll backhand you)
* 1 cup cooked mashed Farm Fresh Pinto Beans, cooled
* 1 cup cocoa
* 3/4 cup butter of margarine, melted
* 1 tablespoon vanilla
* 2 one pound boxes of powdered sugar
* 2 cups chopped pecans
* extra pecans for garnish
Spoon beans into electric blender. Add cocoa, butter and vanilla. Blend until well mixed. Place powdered sugar in large mixing bowl. Add bean mixture. Beat in medium speed with electric mixer for 3 minutes. Stir in pecans. Pour into buttered 9x13x2-inch pan. Refrigerate until set.
Do they not have farm markets in freakin frisco????
jandrew,
You reminded me of a funny story when I was right out of college. My roommate had moved to LA and had a roommate there who had never lived anywhere else. She came to visit in Texas (and we drove to Lousiana) and she was SHOCKED at the hours and hours we drove with nothing but undeveloped land as far as the eye could see. She honestly thought that the U.S. was populated everywhere like it was in LA.
It was like she had landed on another planet. She kept saying "I had no idea."
Heh.
Have you EVER seen fresh (unhulled) pinto beans in any market? Have you?
RWS, you'll find the people who agonize over overpopulation are the liberals who live in the big crowded cities. You won't see the people in the open plains all worried about it.
I don't entirely blame oil companies for the fact that we aren't doing this, but if we could harness even a fraction of the renewable energy produced by the Earth every day, we would be set forever.
That's the one good thing about high gas prices, that alternative sources of energy become more attractive, and quickly profitable because of the technology investment. Speaking of investment, this is of one of the more deserved criticisms of the oil industry, that they do not invest in new refining facilities with their profits very much.
They are in a unique position of being a money-making business where nearly every other business depends on them to be affordable. When they have massively increased profits, it means that tens of thousands of other businesses are losing profits. It does not mean they should be taxed to death. It does mean that they need to be watched closely.
I have friends in Idaho and Minnesota that are big hunters, and they don't understand the endagered species act, but regardless of the amount availabe, there should be some limits on the the amount of land we are going to allow to be used by this Generation.
Here in Orange County California, we just approved development of the largest remaining open space in the County.
I realize the problem isn't like this everywhere, but on an idealogical level, I just don't want to cash in all the chips before my grandkids get a chance to sit down at the table.
I'm not even that opposed to ANWR as long as an equivalent amount of untouched land is taken into Government control.
I really hope my grandkids don't grow up worrying about oil, there's probably plenty still in the earth for them, but in the next 60-70 years we as a race should be smart enough to come up with a bettter alternative.
RWS:
My college roommate grew up in a farming community in Central California. We drove through L.A. from the North to get to Long Beach (Which took about 1 1/2 hours in traffic) and he just sat there asking "This is still L.A. every 10 minutes.
This is what college was really about for me. The classes and stuff were fine, but the number of people with completely different life experiences than mine was the part I enjoyed most.
"First of all, I never have hair spray in my hair, and I've never even heard of this store, and my hair has never been burned."
Wow. That's good... unfortunately, I can honestly say that mine has.
Horrible welding accident. A drop of cooling steel actually hopped over my head, past my face-helmet, and landed on the nape of my neck... or actually, in the hair (feathers?) that was below-shoulder-length at the time.
The next thing I knew, my neck and head felt hot, something smelled REALLY bad, and I was hit by the spray from a fire extinguisher (the scene shop supervisor was standing nearby and saw what was happening; thankfully, he was right next to the extinguisher).
...and I had below-shoulder length red hair on one side, and really really short black stubble on the other side. And a small crater where the metal bit into my neck.
Ever since, I've worn a baseball cap backwards under my helmet... and the brim has quite a few burn marks on it.
Medieval England had a deforestation crisis, due to the tragedy of the commons. There is no such problem in America. And the known shale oil reserves are 70 times the known petroleum reserves. There will be new technologies long before mankind makes a dent in that.
Here is SF, however, one usually encounters scientically bereft liberals who drive cars with NO WAR FOR OIL bumperstickers, oppose any new drilling even in an Arctic wasteland, oppose nuclear, oppose new refineries (a MAJOR problem in America), & whose great contribution to the debate is saying we need to switch to a hydrogen based fuel economy.
When you tell them there IS no such technology, they tell you Exxon is supressing it. Then you get up & walk away
There is also more forestland in New England now than there was in the 18th Century according to some of the research I've seen.
As long as we commit some land (not wasteland, but a small portion of each type of land) and protect it regardless of possible profits, then I'm all good.
Looks like the public land sale got table today (wow, this budget negotiating is a brutal process for the corporations).
Mazda to Unveil Hydrogen Fueled RX8 RE next spring
As an OPEC leader once said, Just as the Stone Age ended not for want of a stone, the Age of Oil will end not for any lack of oil.
True, jam, New England is jammed (ha!) with shrubby forest that was clear-cut and pasture 100 years ago.
And now bears and moose and fishercats and puma are movin' back in.
Keep your cats to home.
I heard that the ANWAR oil was pre-sold to Japan.
Anyone know?
And what's the problem with sitting on it and waiting until it reaches $100 a barrel?
Besides, moderate Repubs just ended the debate, in a rush to stay away from the kryptonite POTUS.
Watch for the back-stabbing frenzy.
And I think you'll find, RWS, that if a big quake hits SF that people don't shoot each other; they will come together and help their neighbors. I hear 30,000 were rescued in N.O. by ordinary joes and joans with fishing boats, who just launched and kept at it until the job was done.
Wow, beautifulatrocities (Jeff?), you saved me a post. Thanks for correcting yourself.
Did you notice how the "liberal" media stuck it in as a one liner at the bottom of the article, and of course Mazda has opted to go with the "lease" model again, which will doom the commercial success of the vehicle so that they can prove there is no demand.
Drilling in ANWR won't hurt the environment. I really wish people would reserch the technology.
We also need to build more refineries, get rid of all these crazy formulas for gasoline, and focus on the real problem: government's greed for taxes. All of these factors contribute to the high cost of gasoline and it is unnecessary. The shortage of refineries lead to reduction of the gasoline supply. All those crazy formulas lead to a reduction of supply and increased costs for distribution. Of course the government doesn't mind because the higher the price the more they make in taxes.
The oil industry is one of the most over-regulated industries and because of the politicians' weakness toward environmental wackos we pay higher prices for gas.
There are those that may argue the oil industry is regulated because it has a history of collusion and illegal practices (Standard Oil), a disproportionate effect on the National economy when compared to other goods sold on the open market, and has quite a high "hidden public cost" in the pollution which could be created in not only the refining process, but also in the use of the product.
But those people are just a bunch of commies who hate the "free market." There is obviously a demand for this regulation or the free market would put it out of existence, no?
Thank God the politicians are as pure as the white driven snow, right jandrew? You've blown it WAAAAAAAY out of proportion. Examples can be found in all industries.
I resnt how the oil indutry is used by the government to increase tax revenue. That's all it is.
The oil industry, like the defense industry, is an industry that has been villified by politicians for their own personal gain. Since this is Sparkle's blog I'll just say the politicians can go to hell. I'd like to say more ...
Two questions:
1) Could someone tell me who is going to produce all this hydrogen fuel we should switch to, and how it's going to be produced, and when they're going to start producing it?
2) Does anybody have any reliable figures on how much of the oil we use goes into the making of plastics, not energy production?
RWS,
My gripe with the oil companies is when they conspire to constrain refining capacity in order to increase profitability - and then claim that they have no control.
CK, Where is your proof that oil companies have conspired to constrain refining capacity? My understanding is that evironmentalists have successfully prevented refineries from being built. Have you considered this possibility?
Jill,
I think Enron, Wal-Mart, the tobacco companies, the insurance industry, big pharma, mining companies, etc. look at us not as valued customers, but as valued profit contributors. They don't give a crap about us if we're not buying.
Environmentalists at least worry about the air we breath.
I provided the link, but have read nothing that would make me believe a hydrogen economy is imminent or feasible at this time
jandrew informs us why: IT'S A CONSPIRACY
They don't give a crap about us if we're not buying. uh, that's because they're RETAILERS
close italics!
GE: (I thought you weren't speaking to me anymore?)
Sept 7, 2005, The Foundation for Consumer & Taxpayer Rights reported that internal oil company memos from the mid-1990s have recently come to light. The constraining efforts, coupled with rising demand & the impact of hurricanes has led to nearly a 3-fold increase in the amount refiners earn on each gallon of gas over the past year. In Sept 2004, refiners collected an average of $.28 per gallon, but now the are collecting nearly $1.00
(And then there's all those taxpayer giveaways that energy companies get on top of all the profits. Unseemly.)
yes, more coastal refineries please, this will solve our problems. I mean Katrina only spilled 6 million gallons of oil, and the refinery storage tanked in New Orleans' suburb of Meraux only leaked about 657,000 gallons of oil. Those tree huggers are depriving us of our basic right to more refineries along our disaster prone coasts. fill her up
well, you can't have it both ways wom, either we depend on foreign oil or we don't.
It's up to us.
wom, I can't tell if your complaining about building more refineries near the coast or just more refineries. Either way, by your logic we should get rid of cars because think of all the lives it would save. Get rid of bathtubs so people won't drown. And so on. Let's all live in caves and refuse any technologies.
Accidents happen. A refinery hasn't been built in 30 years thanks to extremist environmentalists. Less refineries means less supply and higher prices regardless of any conspiracy ideas. Once again you lefties are misled by the media.
CK, didn't you used to go by the name citizenkane? It was citizenkane who supported dumonde when he asked me if my mother was raped by a Democrat. I wasn't 100% sure it was you but now I am.
Funny blog about the Sony DRM rootkits...
http://webreakstuff.com/blog/200...oad-your-music/
Because new technologies never ever ever emerge, since no one cares about making bizillions of dollars off them. Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics should be a prerequisite for commenting
GE
I've never gone by the name citizenkane
By the way, Goldeneagle, did you hear that the Dover, PA school board members that put ID into schools were all voted out of office? Best news I heard from the election, aside from the VA governor's race. Looks like this issue won't be pulling us back to the scientific dark ages after all.
I'm not sure which one of my plethora of conspiracy theories I should be defending on this one, but if the people at Mazda belive their is enough hydrogen fuel available to the consumer to introduce a car to the market then I'm betting it exists.
It may not be as currently convenient as buying "gas", but that was not so convenient 80 years ago either. It didn't kill the automobile market then.
Uncle Melvin,
where the heck did you hear that? I don't think so. The first day they could some ordinary folk tried to go rescue people and had to be stopped because people were shooting at them. Looters wanting to make sure they wouldn't be evacuated away from their loot.
Remember even the air national guard was shot at?
I am glad you have such an optimistic view. But there are too many bad people in society I am afraid.
The good ones will do what you said, but the bad ones will not. Such is a need for the good ones to have guns to protect themselves.
I thought you did CK.
Erik, you won't want to read the latest Scientific American. I guess they will have to change their name. LOL!
If Dover PA wants to behave like Luddites that's their choice. To ignore possible scientific phenomena because it coincides with religion reminds me of book burning.
What makes ID not scientific? Are you saying it's impossible for a more intelligent species to use artificial selection to create human beings? Is it impossible that a more intelligent species exists? Or some other scientific phenomenon?
These are all rhetorical questions for you to ponder. I don't want to turn this into another ID discussion.
All we are asking for is something testable. Still waiting for it... There was a very good article by a well-known conservative on salon.com (Kristol? I forget which it was), that did a very good article on it. Saying something is possible doesn't mean it should get taught, even as a theory. It's possible that there is a planet made of green cheese somewhere in the universe. We can't prove or disprove it. You're comparing them to Luddites because they don't want supposition taught as science? Interesting. Nobody is persecuting you for believing it, by the way. Just don't expect people to suddenly think it's a good idea to teach something in science that no experiment exists to prove or debunk even the smallest component of it (unlike evolution, where many natural selection, mutation, and heredity can all be studied empirically).
Something else you said a few weeks ago also struck me goldeneagle, about how you said you went "back to religion" because science didn't have the answers you wanted. Science isn't there to give people a sense of place in the world, or simplicity, or to make up stories to fit what you see. It is there for searching for empirical truth, and if the pace of that search isn't fast enough and you need your vision of the world wrapped up in a bow right now, then by all means decide that ID is the way to go. Just don't ask the rest of us to want our kids learning it in science class.
RWS-
I read it in National Review, latest issue.
Yes, a right-wing mag.
The Coast Guard rescued 24K, another 30K or so by folks in boats. This while all attention was on bloviating and blaming. It all happened in the first few days, came from the surrounding community, and explains why the 50-60K dead estimates never came about.
The shooting and violence is reported in every disaster, and nearly always turns out to be overblown. When you try to research the stories, like the shooting at copters, they don't turn out to be much after all.
People helped each other, and declined a place on the boats until more needy ones were safe.
Maybe they were all Liberals.
Erik, if you're asking for something testable to be science then you're asking for a good chunk of cosmology to be considered unscientific.
Comparing ID to green cheese just shows your disrespect and lack of intellectual curiosity because ID coincides with religion. By ignoring scientific possiblities is similar to what the Luddites did by destroying technologies.
Only micro changes can be explained by evolution, not macro changes. Evolution's huge gaps and failure to explain macro changes as well as the use of artificial selection shows that it is possible that the creation of macro life forms could be the result of artificial selection. Some theories in cosmology have been based on far less evidence. For example, multiverses; would you say that multi-verses is not science? To ignore the ID possiblity is just an irrational fear of religion.
I wasn't looking for a sense of place in the world through science. Geez, how arrogant. I just finally realized that religion might be right. The scientific community is noble but it is still replete with politics.
Uncle Melvin,
Well, I hadn't heard that. And it is lovely indeed. But the military copter WAS shot at. That is a fact. As were many boaters.
We saw the looting ourselves on TV. Like I said, sure there are many many great people. But there are still bad ones as well.
I've read many personal stories of people trapped who felt terrified at the mayhem around them.
Sorry, I'll keep my gun.
more refineries, more drilling on both coasts, and screw the strategic caribou reserve.
That's right, Dave in TX.
Given the CO2 increase due to human impact, and the changes coming when all that frozen methane is released from the rapidly melting tundra, those caribou are toast anyway.
Uncle Melvin,
You said: "Given the CO2 increase due to human impact, and the changes coming when all that frozen methane is released from the rapidly melting tundra, those caribou are toast anyway."
Really? One of Global Warming's most prominent proponents, James Hansen, said the following: "What constitutes dangerous anthropogenic interference with climate? Nobody knows for sure."
What is it that you know that not even prominent Global Warming supporters don't know?
right UM, hell with em.
By the way Sparkle, UM is right about the vastly overblown stories from New Orleans regarding acts of violence. You can find a number of articles in the LATimes and NO Picayune in late Sept. that track back on reports of murder and shootings. The MSM embarrassed themselves by reporting fiction and nonsense. Also right about the rescues, largely done in small boats by police, Coast Guard, Fish and Wildlife guys, and local Joes.
Now, I'm all in favor of being armed and defending yourself, and I'm not offering this up as an argument for gun control. I am a big fan of the 2nd Amendment.
Yes, lots and lots of looting. And if it's my house someone wants to loot, well, that looter would be making a very bad decision, and is going to have a very bad day.
By the way, best example we can point back to about what would happen in SF is the 1989 quake that hit - a friend of mine was stuck in the city for 9 days (he was at the World Series game). Six of the major bridges into the city were badly damaged. Althugh his experience is anecdotal, he recalls very little violence reported, and many people and businesses stepping up and helping one another out.
Here's an anecdote, GE. I assume it's goldeneagle, not goldenagle.
I bought my home in 1991, and started keeping a gardening journal, as the place was a farm and has lotsa plants.
In every single year since I bought, the first frost date has been later than the year before.
Every single year.
This year it was 10 Nov.
In 1991 it was 6 Sept.
And it doesn't take a scientist to assume that the burning of fossil fuels, with the concommitant release of CO2, will at some point be a noticeable effect. It's geometry, not algebra.
I notice, too, that only Exxon/Mobil is still funding studies that combat the thrust that every other reputable study leans toward. Texaco, BP, all other petrocompanies have given up and begun dealing with the obvious reality.
The Arctic ice cap is melting.
Ocean temps are approaching levels not seen in a million years.
Even the Pentagon is funding studies on how to wage war in light of climate change.
Since you asked politely.
goldenagle: "wom, I can't tell if your complaining about building more refineries near the coast or just more refineries."
Refineries have to be on the coasts because that's where the oil is found and imported. As we all know the Gulf Coast refineries are not safe. Imagine your insurance premiums for a new refinery! But doesn't the lack of new refineries have more to do with the (sarc) powerful extremist environmentalists strangling the poor, helpless oil industry?
Internal memos show that this thin refinery sector that spikes pump prices at a whim is Due to the Oil Companies Own Strategies . For years, environmental lobbyists have taken too much credit/blame.
Refineries, like any other big business, have simply streamlined their operations while squeezing out the little guy. According to the Energy Information Agency:
"While some refineries have closed, and no new refineries have been built in nearly 30 years, existing refineries have expanded their capacities per operating refinery [by] 28% over the 1990 to 1998 period." They've done this to maximize effiencies across the board but also to seize supply controls and make sure supply never exceeds demand thus securing the highest possible profit. Blame us tree huggers all you want (I'm sure we'd love the attention) but the thin refining sector is due to Oil & Gas strategy.
Uncle Melvin,
First of all, I'm glad you called your account anecdotal.
My point about Global Warming (GW) is that the earth may be warming up due to some other reason besides humans. Do humans contribute to the warming? Yes, but is it neglible or does it contribute in some significant way? No one knows.
I can't criticize the oil companies for their position because it hasn't been proven that humans contribute substantially to warming. They are only taking the opposite side of argument mostly because it's in their best interest, but also because we just don't know. Other oil companies not defending this could be what some companies do when faced with frivolous lawsuits: settle it and move on.
Since you responded politely.
wom,
I 'm the wrong person to debate when it comes to environmentalists in Louisiana or Texas. I listened to my father complain about the environmentalists when he was trying to build bridges. The environmentalists are a very powerful organization in those areas. Can you say, "levies"?
Since environmentalists have fought the building of any new refinery for decades, why don't they stop fighting the building of refineries to see if those memos are really true? How convenient that those "memos" were left laying around.
Oh, OK. Your daddy said so, then you must be right then. Forgive me. Good point. I see you have won this debate afterall. huh?
What exactly do you dispute? The memo's authenticity? The fact that Oil & Gas are bettered by fewer refineries? The fact that environmentalists don't always get what they want, and rarely do with W in office? (i.e. Kyoto, to which Bush Sr. already had agreed)
If all you're going to do is scrape the surface and blame greenies then sure, tell me your daddy said so. But if you're going to have a debate then at least try to debunk the economics behind refinery shutdowns that are implicated by Oil & Gas here.
wom,
I'm speaking from second hand experience. I've seen what the environmentalists have done. Have you?
The memos are very convenient. Too convenient. So convenient that I question them.
The environmentalists have gotten what they want even with George W in office. Spare me.
Don't talk to me about me about scraping the surface. I heard all the arguments first hand. BTW, my father's life was threatened. So, go ahead, make of fun of me and my family, but the environmentalists are extremely dangerous and should not be taken likely.
I hope you enjoyed yourself, what's next?
ge, I had no idea your family was personally threatened (that came out of nowhere btw) so I'm guessing ya'll carry protection. Even still, sparkle quotes this as the first thing you read on her site "I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live."-Dr. Martin Luther King I have no idea what your dad was involved in to get himself endangered by tree huggers but your blanket statement that environmentalists are extremely dangerous is unfair to the granola and science base of the group. Sounds like you've had a bad experience and it's tainted your view of the rest.
What have we gotten with W in office? Global warming is the single greatest environmental threat and W could not keep his campaign promise to sign Kyoto. Now if he listened to his daddy which it sounds like you do, then we'd be trading and reducing carbon emission like ALL of the other civilized and industrialized nations in the world.
No, wom, I have experience with environmentalists unlike you. Thanks for making a joke out of it, dumbass.
Do you even know what you are talking about when you talk about George W and the environment? Have you even bothered to research this? Obviously not.
So global warming only started when George W was in office? Sheesh. Just like terrorism and every other problem on the face of the planet? Unbelievable.
Kyoto is a joke. Check out the Asia-Pacific Climate Plan on Tech Central Station. Even Blair, Kyoto's biggest proponent, gave up.
BTW, when did Bush promise to sign the Kyoto treaty? Please provide source.
Again, thank you so much for taking light of my family's well being.
assume for the moment CO2 emissions are causing global warming.
why are you blaming oil companies?
blame the consumer.
kinda like Kyoto does.
Blair was right boys - no nation with an expanding economy, not one, is going to put the brakes on their economic growth by cutting energy consumption.
not one.
so if you're going to blame the US, you need to start blaming China, and Russia and India and Great Britain. Let's hear it.
otherwise your arguments amount to "I hate America".
and none of us care.
Program on the emergence of civilization.
"14 species of large animals capable of domesitcation in the history of mankind.
13 from Europe, Asia and northern Africa.
None from the sub-Saharan African continent. "
Favor.
And disfavor.
They point out Africans’ failed attempts to domesticate the elephant and zebra, the latter being an animal they illustrate that had utmost importance for it's applicability in transformation from a hunting/gathering to agrarian-based civilization.
The roots of racism are not of this earth.
Austrailia, aboriginals:::No domesticable animals.
The North American continent had none. Now 99% of that population is gone.
AIDS in Africa.
Organizational Heirarchy
Heirarchical order, from top to bottom:
1. MUCK - perhaps have experienced multiple universal contractions (have seen multiple big bangs), creator of the artificial intelligence humans ignorantly refer to as "god"
2. Perhaps some mid-level alien management
3. Evil/disfavored aliens - runs day-to-day operations here and perhaps elsewhere
Terrestrial management:
4. Chinese/egyptians - this may be separated into the eastern and western worlds
5. Romans - they answer to the egyptians
6. Mafia - the real-world interface that constantly turns over generationally so as to reinforce the widely-held notion of mortality
7. Jews, corporation, women, politician - Evidence exisits to suggest mafia management over all these groups.
Movies foreshadowing catastrophy
1985 James Bond View to a Kill 1989 San Francisco Loma Prieta earthquake.
Many Muslims are being used like the Germans and Japanese of WWII::being used to hurt others and envoke condemnation upon their people.
They can affect the weather and Hurricane Katrina was accomplished for many reasons and involves many interests, as anything this historical is::
1. Take heat off Sheenhan/Iraq, protecting profitable war machine/private war contracts
2. Gentrification. New Orleans median home price of $84k is among the lowest in major American cities, certainly among desirable cities.
Our society gives clues to the system in place. We all have heard the saying "He has more money than god." There is also an episode of the Simpsons where god meets Homer and says "I'm too old and rich for this."
This is the system on earth because this is the system everywhere.
god is evil because of money.
I don't want to suggest the upper eschelons are evil and good is the fringe.
But they have made it abundantly clear that doing business with evil (disfavored) won't help people. They say only good would have the ear, since evil is struggling for survival, and therefore only the favored could help me.
The clues are there which companies are favored and which are disfavored, market domination being one clue, but they conceal it very hard because it is so crucial.
I offer an example of historical proportions:::
People point to Walmart and cry "anti-union".
Unions enable disfavored people to live satisfactorly without addressing their disfavor. This way their family's problems are never resolved. Without the union they would have to accept the heirarchy, their own inferiority.
Unions serve to empower.
Walmart is anti-union because they are good. They try to help people address and resolve their problems by creating an enviornment where there are fewer hurdles.
Media ridicule and lawsuits are creations to reinforce people's belief that Walmart is evil.
Low-cost disfavored Chinese labor is utilized by corporate america to maximize margins. They all do it. Only WalMart gets fingered because they are the ones who help, and those who seek to create confusion in the marketplace want to eliminate the vast middle class who have a real chance and instead stick with a lower classes who may not work otherwise. So they dirty him up while allowing the others to appear clean.
The middle class is being deceived. They are being misled into the unfavored, and subsequently will have no assistance from their purchases with corporate america.
I believe the coining of the term "Uncle Sam" was a clue alluding to just this::Sam Walton and WalMart is one of few saviors of the peasant class.
Amercia is a country of castoffs, rejects. Italy sent its criminals. Malcontents.
Between the thrones, the klans and kindred, they "decided" who they didn't want and acted, creating discontent and/or starvation.
The u.s. is full of disfavored rejects. It is the reason for the myriad of problems not found in European countries. As far as the Rockafellers and other industrialists of the 19th century go, I suspect these aren't their real names. I suspect they were chosen to go and head this new empire.
Royalty is the right way to organize a society. Dictatorships and monarchies are a reflection of the antient's hierarchical organization.
Positions go to those who have favor with the rulers, as opposed to being elected.
Elections bring a false sense of how the world is. Democracy misleads people.
Which is why the disfavored rejects were sent to the shores of America::To keep them on the wrong path.
Jesus Christ is a religious figure of evil. These seperatist churches formed so they could still capture the rest of the white people, keeping them worshipping the wrong god.
And now they do it to people of color, Latinos and Asians, after centuries of preying upon them.
Since Buddism doesn't recongnize a god, the calls are never heard, and Chinese representation is instead selected by the thrones.
It was set up this way. Perhaps dyanstic thrones had a say, but maybe not.
Budda was the Asian's Jesus Christ::: bad for the people. "They came up at the same time for a reason."
Simpson's foreshadowing::Helloween IV special, Flanders is Satan. "Last one you ever suspect."
"You'll see lots of nuns where you're goi
Kyoto: Blair is obviously in favor of it, they're doing it, and Blair is one of the biggest Kyoto proponents. The Kyoto trading system places incentives on CO2 producers, generally companies (Kyoto does NOT blame end product consumers). UK's innovative scheme uses both Cap&Trade as well as Baseline&Credit approaches unlike most other participating countries which choose just one of those approaches. Also, the UK is already a worldwide Trading Centre for credits issued under Kyoto. So yeah, Blair is on board.
Through these regulations and innovative technology the UK has decreased CO2 emissions by 20% over the past 30 years while their GDP has doubled, proving to the world that a civilized nation's overall economy is not stunted by Kyoto.
In the U.S., however, our green house gas emissions increase every year and account for more than 25% of all CO2 released into the atmospehere by all countries combined. You have been duped into thinking that our overall economy would suffer from Kyoto when really it is just a small sector of our economy that always enjoys high profits which would simply have to adapt to new global business trends.
As for Bush Going BACK On his Word about emissions reductions...
Bush promised that he would require all power plants to "reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." The promise was repeated in Bush's campaign energy policy proposal, in which he labeled carbon dioxide one of the "four main pollutants." Then he backed away from Kyoto and his promises.
wom,
Take a look at this 9/16/05 article: Blair pulls plug on Kyoto.
Also, Bush refused to ok Kyoto because it was economically damaging and let some countries off the hook. Bush put together a more realistic climate plan together: the Asia-Pacific Climate Plan. See this 8/5/05 article: Game, Set and Match.
ge, your two tech central articles inject way to much opinion into the facts. The Blair article especially. Blair has always said that Kyoto is right for now, but it is not enough (that is what he said on 9/16/05), and that it is do-able for the U.S. despite our inability to buck up.
Here's an exercise they teach in some writing programs that shows you how much they've changed the real story: Go through each article and just read the facts (data and quotes). You'll come away with an entirely different view from that which your tech central guys intended.
I guess we'll disgree on the factual nature of TCS articles. You have to say that since it blows away wom's comments. Funny how lefties find nothing but facts in their left wing sources.
ge, I never said that all leftwing sources are entirely fact based. I don't know why you would think I did either. I just don't try to prove my point by solely using opinion pieces that stretch the facts/truth.
Either way, the rest of the civilized world will continue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while increasing their GDPs thereby growing the emissions trading market which US companies will be prohibited from taking advantage of, thus exacerbating the greenhouse effect and further distancing us from our allies.
Bush refused to ok Kyoto because it was economically damaging and let some countries off the hook
and that was after the US Senate voted not to ratify the treaty, unanimously with 2 abstentions, during Clinton's second term.
Kyoto was DOA when it reached the Senate. And good riddance to it.
Dave in texas, economically damaging is whose perspective? Which US corporations/industries stood to lose the most from Kyoto? Now think again about whether they can afford the losses, whether they should get with the time, and whether they could end up gaining by participating in the global emissions trading program.
The argument that we should not join because it did not force all nations to join had been debunked for some time. First, we emit more than a quarter of all greenhouse gases in the world. Our participation was important and many countries wold not join unless WE did. Second, just because someone else won't take precautions doesn't mean we shouldn't. The Bush administration has failed to even have a dialogue about this. When pressed for a reason why not to treat the greenhouse effect as a threat they doctored science reports, removed chapters, and said there was no credible evidence of a real threat. When repeatedly pressed for what they meant by "real threat" they have refused to repond. In addition, they have refused to spend any more money researching into any of this. They simply want to turn the other way and pretend it's not happening because it hurts their sponsors too much. Just another substance abuser (oilaholic) in office.
it appears that although hopeful, and quite possibly forlorn, someone has forgotten that I don't respond to their nonsense. they aren't worth the time.
I can't help but notice that wom ignores the Asia-Pacific Climate Plan.
The Kyoto plan was a death-nail to the American economy as well as other economies. What ignorance.
dave in texas, you responded to me on:
11.14.05 - 10:05 pm,
11.14.05 - 1:15 pm,
11.13.05 - 2:27 pm,
11.11.05 - 9:11 pm,
Now that you're telling me that I'm not "worth the time" you have got us all confused. I regret not thanking you for gracing me with your attention on each of those occassions, perhaps this was all my fault. I am sorry.
Yes, I see, I was talking to ge above about refineries while wishing you would butt in and respond with him and then you did. But I did not thank you. You put up with me, despite my ungrateful attitude, and responded to me several times again. Now, when it is probably too late anyway, I thank you.
While I cannot rightfully ask you to respond now, or to grace me with your time again in the near future after all the "nonsense" I have forced you to read, I still hope that maybe someday, when time has hopefully healed your wounds, that you will decide to again spend a moment of your precious time by joining in on someone else's dialogue with me. I look forward to it.
ge, I'll respond about the A/P "plan" a little later. I have spent my available time today making sure dave in texas is alright.
Commenting by HaloScan
