Pangloss

Sure, but there's a reason why it comes pre-installed. Ask a typical consumer what operating system he wants. After you go on to explain what an operating system is, the vast majority of the time he or she will answer "Windows". They want what they happen to already know how to use, and what all their friends have. BTW, I don't like the stiffling of creativity and monopolistic practices any more than you guys do, but we have *all* (yes even those of us involved in the computer sciences) benefitted from Microsoft's successes. Personally I think the key is to continue to do what we've been doing -- keep our minds open, continue to use competitive solutions whenever we can, adopt new technologies that work even if Microsoft hasn't adopted them yet, and push hard for other people to do the same . We very much "have our cake and eat it too" in this business. There's no question things could be better, but clearly the situation could be a lot worse.

I didn't do that, Sayonara. I used her political beliefs to shine light on her description of events after the fact. I never once suggested that she wasn't SHOT, or that it was a good thing that she was.

Can you give an example of any of the numerous nuclear subs that have been lost at sea that have resulted in a problem with radioactive contamination?

No. Thresher isn't the only sub that's been lost, Ophiolite. But none were lost due to a problem with their nuclear reactors. That would be like decrying the use of jet engine technology because of the bombing of the USS Cole.

When you look at the developing nations, conservation efforts look pretty pointless. It really doesn't amount to a hill of beans if 60 million Brits (or even 250 million Americans) shave 10% off their oil-fired heating bill when you've got a billion Chinese busily upgrading from coal to electric/oil heating.

That's actually my point, the thing I've been planning to get at if nobody could answer my question: High taxes have an impact on consumption, but they don't seem to have an impact on the development of alternate forms of energy. Of course, Europe is not the United States. A high price of gas here would presumably have a different impact, given much greater land-growth area and the tradition of auto usage. But it's not like Joe Six-Pack is going to get fed up with paying $6/gal for unleaded, and suddenly leap up one day and build himself a state-of-the-art chemistry lab. Put another way, Zephram Cochran only gets to invent warp drive in his backyard in the movies. In real life he needs a massive grant from the National Science Foundation and a contract with Boeing. (grin) Anyway, it's not like anyone here was really hammering the point that high taxes should lead us to alternate fuels, but it's something that you hear in the media and around the various Internet forums from time to time, so I thought it worth discussing a bit.

I don't know, that's the problem. I just think it oddly coincidental that prison inmates so frequently convert to christianity, and that this is one of the areas where faith-based initiatives have focused.

That's not why Europeans consume less gasoline. They would consume less (even per person) even if it cost the same. The reason why is the same reason why rail works in Europe and not (so much) in the United States. Syntax has it right -- they drive less. But that doesn't mean that the "price of petrol" isn't a major factor in their economy. And perception is a major factor here -- Europeans are always *complaining* about the price of gas, at least insofar as they razz Americans about how cheap it is over here. So it matters to Europeans, and yet nothing has changed -- they're still burning the stuff. No salt-water-based miracle drive on the horizon, at a clean cost of pennies-per-parsec. So nobody seems to have answered my question yet..... Anybody else want to take a shot at it?

Here's the thing I don't understand about the notion that expensive gas will drive us to alternate fuels: If that's true, then why hasn't Europe invented *warp* drive by now? I mean the price of gas is so high there, you'd think we'd have colonized half the galaxy by now. Europeans aren't stupid -- they continue to forefront many areas of scientific discovery. So is it possible there's a flaw in the logic there?

I kinda wondered about that god-and-inmates business. There's something funky about that that I can't quite put my finger on. Maybe it's just the general impression that inmates probably don't need a whole lot of help finding god -- they seem to be pretty good at doing that on their own, even if it's only to impress the parole board. Are the christians there to give them some kind of litmus test? I dunno, maybe it's just the cynic in me, but there's some kind of correlation there that rings some kind of warning bell for me. For which side it's ringing, I'm not sure.

Oh, nothing to apologize for. We hashed it out and figured out we were more or less on the same page. Not as exciting as a flame war, perhaps, but I'm sure we'll find other things to debate. (g)

You're a proponent of political correctness? That's interesting, I haven't seen one of those in a while. We might be getting a little off track here, but I'm curious on what basis you defend it. I'm familiar with the "making everyone think the same way exposes prejudice and malice" argument (which I disagree with), but if you have a different position I'm all ears. I believe there is. Political correctness is an attempt to promote "right thinking" and denounce and remove what politically correct people believe is "wrong thinking". It stiffles creativity, ostracizes independent thinking, and attemps to create a race of robotic followers just as surely as anything your nemesis Bush and his evil evangelicals could ever do. Don't get me wrong -- I don't believe that political correctness is the dominent force in our society, any more than I believe that Christianity is. It's simply another ill that has to be fought on a regular basis. The price of freedom, etc. That is, of course, just my opinion. But the fact that I'm allowed to have that opinion stands in stark contrast to political correctness, and I'm able to state it only because society has stood up and said that political correctness is wrong. Just exactly as with dominent religions, our society has decided that forcing people to a specific non-religious point of view isn't acceptable either. Free speech means FREE speech, not politically acceptable speech. The ACLU knows this, by the way. There was a case I saw on 20/20 not long ago about how the ACLU defended a christian evangelical who was basically a sidewalk preacher on the Las Vegas strip. He wanted to pass out his materials in a public place, and the city kept packing him off to jail as a loiterer. The ALCU sued on his behalf and won him the right to do what he should have been allowed to do in the first place. (Actions like this are one of the reasons I still support that organization, even though I frequently disagree with it.) Semantics. Exchange my point above about "secularism" for "atheism", then if you prefer. The absence of religion does not automatically breed tolerance of other points of view. The absence of religion does not guarantee freedom of belief. The absence of religion does not maintain a right to choose. The absence of religion is a point of view. If it is pushed and promoted as "better" than a religious point of view, then that is no different from pushing a specific religion. Mind you, I'm not suggesting that the PRESENCE of religion does any of those things either. I'm simply pointing out that the ABSENCE of religion doesn't make those things happen, it doesn't produce an environment that encourages independent thinking, or anything else along those lines. What produces tolerance, freedom, right of choice, etc, is dedicated, vigilant, socratic, critical analysis. On a regular basis. If Timmy learns that the universe is billions of years old because the science tells us so, and here is why (example example example), then that's great -- I'm all for that. If, on the other hand, Timmy is instructed that he must believe that the universe is billions of years old because his teacher says so, that's not good at all. That's no different from Timmy being told that the universe is 6,000 years old because his priest says so. Good. And I would hope you'd find it obnoxious in the classroom as well. I think we probably agree on a great deal, really. I imagine that much of our disagreement is really just a question of semantics and definitions. (shrug)

She came from Planet Coquina....? (hehe)

But programs using public funds can be corrupt whether they're faith-based or not.

ROFL! I must have been laughing so hard I forgot to include the link. (hehe) http://www.pmla.org/altsource.html

No, but you did say: So I think it's a reasonable question on my part. Are you interested in examining the pros and cons of faith-based initiatives, or are you interested in finding more reasons to hate Bush? I don't mean to single you out, I'm just pointing out that this happens a lot in these discussions, and I think it's a bunch of politically-correct garbage that has to be waded through in order to get at the truth. Whether or not you feel that way is another matter (for all I know you were just being sardonic -- I appreciate a good sense of humor!), and so I don't mean that as an attack. I disagree that the United States is a secular nation, and in fact statistics show that most of this country would disagree with you as well. I agree with you about government neutrality, and the separation of church and state. But whether you call it "secularism" or something else, pushing an agenda over another one is still pushing an agenda over another one. Promoting a specific point of view as being better than another specific point of view is still promoting a specific point of view. Was not the point of the Constitution to guarantee the rights of individuals to be protected from having to follow a specific point of view? What is the difference between little Johnny being told that Jesus died for our sins, and little Johnny being told that God is dead? Are not both concepts equally dangerous? Are they not equally frightening in their potential for abuse? Yes. And why is that the case? I'm curious what you believe is the reason why that clause exists in the Constitution, if it is not for the reasons I've described above. When they teach both it's a good thing, yes. But just because a program is secular does not guarantee that abstinence will be taught as a good idea. It often is not, and sometimes the reason why it is not is because the people who run the program don't believe in abstinence, they don't think it's a good idea, and it doesn't fit their agenda. Isn't that proselytizing? Nope, I think it's a very GOOD thing. I'm a secular humanist myself. What I dislike is deception and political correctness substituting for wisdom and intelligence. My motto: Challenge everything. Leave no stone unturned. If something is a good idea, it will withstand a little inspection.

Quite right. I've been looking for a statistic on that, by the way (what percentage of total oil consumption is from vehicles), if you happen to know one. (I make it sound like I'm writing a paper or something, but I'm just curious.) Incidentally, only about 40% of total energy usage comes from oil. Not a very politically correct statistic, is it? Not that coal and gas are very rational alternatives, I suppose, but it's a fun stat to throw out at parties, especially if you don't want to be invited back. (chuckle)

Very funny stuff a friend of mine sent me. Basically a method for citing unusual sources, like bathroom walls and Magic 8-Balls.

How many power trips do they get? Also, is it like a per diem thing, or more of a monthly "trip" stipend?

Yes you would, and the SUV and small truck popularity statistics suggest exactly the opposite. Which is proof positive that gas is undervalued in this economy. Here's one way to look at our options: We basically have a choice. We can offer incentives, or we can tax gas at a higher level. The former option boosts the economy by pumping taxpayer money directly back into it. The latter option takes more out of your pocket and causes massive inflation, harming the economy. Which would you all prefer?

Would you feel that way if it were a Clinton program? He favored faith-based initiatives too, you know. So does his wife, the current senator from New York. By the way, why do people feel that taxpayer-funded programs that are based around secular organizations are automatically not violations of the separation of church and state? What is the difference between pushing a secular agenda and pushing a religious one? Isn't politically-correct secularism just another form of religion? And if that's the case, then why should taxpayer money go to a program that pushes a secularist agenda? Do you want your kids in a taxpayer-funded program that tells them its okay to have casual sex so long as they use a condom, or do you want your kids in a program that tells them abstinence is a good idea?

rofl, you guys crack me up =)

Cool. I actually ordered HDTV service from Tivo, to be installed tomorrow, in part in order to try and catch the last three eps of Enterprise in HD before Trek goes off the air. Enterprise has been a disappointment in general, but the overall run from 1987 to present has been a lot of fun, and it'll be sad to see it all go away. Next year we'll be celebrating the 40th anniversary of Star Trek. I have a lot of hope that we'll see the franchise revived in some form before the 50th anniversary.

Grats on "A Post Odyssey" (2001), Bud. My personal feeling is that more incentives are in order. IMO generally tax dollars should go to incentives that help society grow and prosper, not entitlements that weigh it down.

Just to clarify (you're not wrong, I just want to flesh that out a little), OPEC and its member nations don't actually set the price of oil. It's a commodity, so "the price of oil" is based on the negotiated exchange markets played off against the speculation of investors through the futures markets (like NYMEX). What OPEC and the member nations control is production. What's happened recently is that demand has reached the level of production (for the first time in history), coincidentally happening at about the same time as the Iraqi war. This lead, of course, to a "perfect storm" in the markets, and essentially a doubling of the price. The logical thing for the oil-producing nations to do, of course, would be to step up production, which one would assume they would love to do, because it means more income. But there's a catch -- they were already producing at max capacity. Every single one of them... except Saudi Arabia. They were holding back a tiny (~1 million b/d) production reserve in case of emergencies, as part of an old OPEC understanding between the Sauds and the Shah (or rather an accomodation to the Shah, if memory serves). If I'm not mistaken, they put those wells into production last year, so that, as they say, is that. There is no more available production capacity anywhere on the planet. So for production to increase beyond current levels (~76m bpd), new development is required. That means 3-5 years of infrastructure investment. (BTW, I haven't mentioned anything here about the US situation, which is a little more complex because of the refinery issue.) This is where the science, IMO, gets a little dubious. You're absolutely right in your reporting of the issue, but the "givens" being used by the various people involved are awfully presumptive. They assume such things as: - No more oil awaits discovery anywhere in the world, therefore increased capacity can only come from "proven resources" (this isn't directly bearing, but see the next point) - Increasing the number of wells that draw upon an existing source decreases the productivity of other wells pulling from the same underground source (this assumption is based on early oil-industry science and is frequently disproven today; in fact if it were the case then Saudi Arabia would not be producing anything like its current level of output) They could be right. But the history of the oil industry has demonstrated such claims to be wrong every single time, for decade after decade after decade. Simple logic suggests that sooner or later they HAVE to be right -- the Earth is only so large, after all, and there has to be something else beneath our feet besides oil. (grin) But the science just isn't able to give us sufficient accuracy just yet.