Pangloss

Just to add another (brief) angle to that, and submit a prediction, my guess is that we will see prices settle in the range of $40/barrel over the long haul, and that higher price will help fund production capacity that previously was unprofitable. This is not a bad thing. Just market forces at work. It doesn't mean long lines at the gas station, wells running dry, or OPEC acquiring more power. It does mean more air pollution, I suppose.

No, the issue with "peak oil" is production capacity, not reserves. It's a legitimate, long-standing concern that's been the subject of intense (if less well-known) debate almost since the oil industry began. The problem I have with doom and gloom predictions based on production capacity is that we've never actually seen a practical limit to the amount of daily production a nation can reach. I realize it's more complicated than just sticking more holes in the ground, but in the final analysis there's always been plenty of money available to invest in new infrastructure, and that's still the case today. An interesting sidebar to this is to look at the history of market forces on the price of oil, and how that price is manipulated (and why) by the oil-producing nations. To give a vast oversimplification by way of explanation, the major nation enacting downward pressure on oil prices has always been Saudi Arabia, acting on the conventional wisdom that their reserves are vast and it makes sense to keep prices low as a way to prevent development of alternative fuel. The major nations enacting upward price pressure have been Iran under the Shah, and Venezuela. They historically prefer a higher price, because the conventional wisdom is that their reserves are smaller. But that conventional wisdom has been challenged over the last decade or two, and we may be seeing the results of that change already. Saudi Arabia has recently backed off from that position, supporting higher oil prices in the short term, saying they needed to offset higher production costs. Other factors at work here include: - Iraq's still-untouched southern reserve (the second-largest in the world) - Iran and Venezuela thought they'd be out of oil by the early 1990s, but still no show signs of running out, and in fact production is double what it was when those predictions were made These factors actually suggest a downward pressure on prices. If capacity can be addressed, we might actually see prices fall again. The question is whether demand can be met.

Interesting stuff, Tiny, thanks for digging it up. That's interesting that NOAA has international scope. That information does seem to suggest that that scope is limited to the Pacific, and not the Indian. Still, it's reasonable for experts to explore this further I suppose. But in the end, surely we all know this is really about who has "deep pockets". Lawyers will try to convince laymen that NOAA had responsibility for the Indian ocean as well. The question will become whether or not it seems likely that they'll be able to convince a jury of that, and how much it will cost them if they do, and so whether or not a settlement will be better.

Sure, it's a story, I just think it gets pushed too hard because it's a politically correct story. It's too simple. It might be a problem, I'm just not convinced that it is. To that end I'm always appreciative when the news alerts me to something, but this goes way beyond that. I'd have to be a real dullard not to be aware of rising oil prices at this point. My main reason for questioning whether it might be a problem are the massive improvement in the economy since the 1973 and 1979 crises, and the failure of the price of oil to rise in accord with that improvement. Of greater interest to me is the question of supply. Anyone familiar with the history of the oil industry (I recommend Yergin's "The Prize" as critical reading) knows that for almost the entire history of oil, we've had a glut situation. For the first time, we now are approaching what analysts call "the big flop" (or similar phrases) -- the point at which demand finally (after 100+ years) begins to permanently exceed demand. If and when that actually happens, things could get interesting. But that's a fear, not a reality. In a sense it seems almost certain, given the growth of China and India (and of course we're not slacking off here in the States either). But that assumes that no new areas of production growth can be found. I don't think that's a given. It's also not a given that supplies will ever run out. If I'm not mistaken, not one single oil well in the history of oil has ever actually "run out" of oil. They generally just become non-productive. This is one of those things that calls for disciplined, non-partisan analysis. We need to face up to the fact that one of these days humanity is going to have to make some tough decisions that aren't born out of necessity. That's what makes them tough.

See the difference between you and me, Bud, is that I don't assume you're wrong. Nope. My interest here is not ideological -- it's the search for truth, regardless of political consequences.

Well really my point here was not so much about oil prices or the motivations for the Iraqi war (though I don't really mind topic digressions in general; it's cool). My point was more along the line of this: With regard to oil prices, I'm not convinced that there is a problem.

That's odd. Why would Australians they consider the Iraqi war a failure if the price of oil weren't forced below $27/barrel? Certainly wasn't a factor in my opposition to the war. But I guess to each his own....

I assume you'll include the reason given as to why their car was fired upon?

Quite right. But it's not a question of trust. It's a question of whether we need to view her statements with a modicum of skepticism. Context is relevent in the search for the truth, especially when conflicting eyewitness testimony is all we have to go by. Let's sum things up, shall we? On the American side, we have: - Well-trained Marines, with no immediate indication that these are "Abu Ghraib" type soldiers - Nothing to be gained by the act, and much to be lost - The journalist has demonstrated bias against the war - Basic wisdom: "It's a war zone; what do you expect?" - Coordination procedures were not followed by the Italians, who knew better - Some clear indications that at least some instructional procedures at the scene were not followed (based on the testimony from BOTH sides) On the Italian side, we have: - Opposing testimony - A dead body - The marines have vested interest in not being "found out" if they screwed up - She has no real way to know whether she was deliberately fired upon -- how would she know? And some intederminent factors: - What does the physical evidence say? - The Italian military and its personnel are notably silent about the incident (but they work for a pro-war gov't, so this could be a "con") Basic analysis suggests that her claim that she was *deliberately* fired upon can be more or less dismissed, unless further evidence arises. But the issue of whether or not the personnel at the guard post acted properly obviously has to be investigated further, and can't be dismissed, even though the evidence is somewhat stacked on their side at the moment.

Tiny I guess what I'm looking for here is some source citation to back all that up. If what you say is true then you might well have a point, but your implications that NOAA (or some US organization) "took over" localized warning systems, and/or made promises of providing warnings, does not make it so. Back it up, please.

Last night on ABC News, Peter Jennings claimed that Americans consume 13 billion barrels of oil per day. Yes, he actually said that. Okay, it was obviously just a mis-speak. But I think it's interesting the way the press latches on to the oil story, but only when prices are going up. For most of the last half of 2004, prices were actually coming down. Now that they're on the rise again, it's the hottest story in news. So it ends up going something like this: Headline / Price of Oil per Barrel "Oil hits a new all-time high!" / $48 "Biggest one-day increase in decades!" / $46 "Oil gains huge amidst fears of terrorism!" / $44 "Production shortage drives price of oil upwards!" / $42 Obviously in-between these headlines are days, weeks or months of decreasing prices, which aren't reported by the media, or get buried deep in section D or something. I'm not trying to suggest any sort of collusive or agendized behavior here -- it may be nothing more than the usual drive for sensationalism. But it never ceases to amaze me how shallow these people in the news media are, and how well this stuff sells on the street.

So let's hear more about that.

Saya, she has a long history of reporting anti-American "news" to her paper, which is called "Il Manifesto" for crying out loud. Gimme a little credit. (grin)

That's the first I've heard about Sri Lanka paying NOAA. Do you guys have a source on that? It certainly is an intriguing piece of information, if it's true.

Actually at the moment I'm just using the freebie 76" screen that came with it, which I just raise into its shell when I want a larger image. The wall behind it is (conveniently) painted a matte white color, so it works out pretty well. I'm eyeing a Carada Criterion 1.85 at 96" or 104" in Brilliant White. The tough part is getting the wife to agree to the $750+ price tag.

I kinda waited a bit because I didn't want to start a shooting match over this. Not that anyone here is really inclined toward such, but it couldn't hurt to let the dust settle a bit and see if any more info came out, and give people a chance to think about it a bit. It even has a bit of a "science" link, in terms of the real-world issue of guard post procedures in occupied lands. So I'm curious what you guys thought of that mess. I guess my own feeling is that we need to see if any investigation produces any evidence of wrongdoing by the troops (coming from someone other than the journalist). Barring any major revelations, however, it seems to me that the onus is on the Italians to prove wrongdoing here. Lacking evidence to the contrary, this appears to be nothing more than a tragic accident. I was surprised to learn this week that the woman in question actually works for the Italian communist-oriented newspaper, which is a (if not "the") major force behind Italian opposition to the war in Iraq. This is a big political deal over there, with the government firmly supporting the war (with troops on the ground in Iraq). So I'm sympathetic with the woman for being a hostage and all that, but her allegation that they were *deliberately* shot at seems shallow when you consider her politics, and frankly just doesn't pass the stink test. But at the same time, I do hope the military is seriously reviewing and carefully considering its guard post procedures.

Yeah I guess every nation has a little karma. In a sense, my personal feeling about this lawsuit is that the story more or less ends with the filing of the suit. It's baseless and irrelevent in the overall scheme of things, and it's something most reasonable people would agree on. (Not to be dismissive of my own thread, mind you. It's still interesting to discuss.) TT has some interesting points above.

We all knew this was coming, right? http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1000639&tw=wn_wire_story This is a great example of how "litigiousness" is not solely an American trait. You want to talk about chasing the entity with the deepest pockets....

By the way, I was just poking around a news site and was reading about Sony Corp's appointment of Howard Stringer as their new CEO (pending stockholder confirmation). Stringer is also properly addressed as "Sir", unlike Bill Gates. Apparently this is because he was born in the UK, even though he's a US citizen. Go figure. http://www.sony.com/SCA/press/050306.shtml

Ah, but that's the great thing about Home Theater -- you can build your own!

That's usually due to a mismatch in refresh rates. NTSC video is about 60 fields per second, and monitors generally refresh at 75+. It's like watching the spinning propeller of an airplane through a spinning ventilation fan. BTW, DLP is an interesting alternative technology to plasma. It doesn't look quite as good at the high end, but it's only a fraction of the price. As Goalfinder points out, nothing can compete with plasma, but DLP comes closer than most casual viewers can detect with normal programming (DVD, standard TV, and maybe even HDTV). FWIW, I'm a huge home theater buff. I have an Infocus 4805 DLP-based projector, blasting the wall at 100+ inches with a very high quality image. Sound from a Yamaha and Klipsch arrangement that I'm pretty happy with. I've sunk thousands into it, and if you come over to my house and watch Lord of the Rings you'll think you're in the theater. It's not *quite* what plasma can do. But I've got a six-foot image on the wall that looks as good as plasma to 99% of viewers, vs a 42" plasma screen that would have cost as much as all my components combined. (grin)

Then what's the problem? You've clearly filled in all the blanks yourself, so what further revelations (from the government) are necessary? (chuckle)

The question is not whether a nation's leadership keeps secrets, but whether or not it acts responsibly. I certainly don't need to know what my neighbor's tax return said, or the identities of American undercover operatives in Baghdad. And I see no particular reason why new technology has to be developed directly under the public eye just because much of the world is paranoid about American leadership, especially when that paranoia derives more from fiction than reality.

I am the leader of the free world. I hereby appoint Phi for All as Minister of Income Tax Collection. Give him everything. Thank you, that is all.

hahaha