jordanz

I heard Barr talk about this issue the other day. He said he considers it a State-Rights issue. So, if California voted for medical Marijuana, he wouldn't do anything at the Federal level to stop it.

I don't know what all the fuss is about. The schedule this year looks outstanding. I bought my tix last week.

Hmm - I see it there. Anyway, here it is: August Rush What an awful confection. This was the movie equivalent of a vegan pastry. It looks pretty but when eaten causes violent indigestion. Rotten Tomatoes comes to the rescue with some choice reviews: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/august_rush/ An aggressively bad movie. Cloying, annoying, and absurd. And that doesn't even include Robin Williams. Exuberantly bad and strenuously preposterous. If sentimentality were a cymbal, it'd be like having a percussionist standing right behind you and crashing every other beat. Pandering to the point of offensive. Saying August Rush is contrived is like saying that, in terms of continents, Asia is pretty big.

Congratulations Matt.

I'm glad you enjoyed it. I, however, thought it was awful. I wrote about it here (http://jordanzimmerman.livejournal.com/9473.html) after I saw it.

Sad news indeed. I remember Marshall from when I was involved with the LP 20 years ago. He's always such an "up" and gregarious person.

Pot calls kettle black. - news at 11

Yes, some facts. Thank you. However, I read that data differently. I see oil production on an upward trend. In any event, it doesn't follow that future production will match past production. There is no way to take future demand and future technology into account.

Oh yes, you provide evidence and I provide theories - how convenient for you. Well then I guess this discussion is over because all I can do is point you to what I consider educated, scientific opinions about this subject. You will of course point me to other sites with different opinions and so we have to agree to disagree. Seriously - the stuff I was pointing out are facts. A theory about what might happen in the future is not a fact.

That is a theory, not evidence. Also, it's a bad theory in my opinion.

You think oil is plentiful and cheap? I guess we need to discuss what you mean by these terms 'plentiful' and 'cheap' then. So what do you mean by plentiful then? I gave my evidence earlier in this thread for how plentiful oil is. Further, the data I showed was only the *known* technologically viable sources of oil. Technology will improve the ability to access oil in the future - assuming there's still a demand for oil. Adjusted for inflation, oil is extremely cheap compared to what it was 20 years ago. If not for government regulations and eco-religionists who prevent new refineries, gasoline would be much cheaper than the already cheap price it is today.

Every resource I can think of is plentiful and cheap. Which cheap resources are we running out of? Please provide evidence.

Why? Do you dispute the facts? If so, provide evidence.

Perfection.

The link you provided seems to have a conspiracy-bent to it that rubs me the wrong way. This seems like a bunch of nonsense. Here is the "summary" of the bill (it's frickin huge): http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?t...;bill=h109-5122 The item in question: Sounds reasonable to me.

I wish. The law requires them to have the new-style connector. CFL replacement bulbs are not compliant.

Jeez GS - you do realize this is an Objectivist forum, right? I deleted my previous post but I feel compelled to say something. You are making unsubstantiated statements. When you make an assertion that we are running out of resources you need to back it up with evidence. I've pointed to several sources of information that show why we are not running out of resources. I can give you hours of material. Now you imply above that we are running out of water. You cannot be serious about this. The earth is ~75% water. There is water everywhere. Pick any resource you like. The only reason it's a "resource" is because someone values it and there is a technology to utilize it. Please read Julian Simon's work and explain why you think it's wrong. FYI - Here's a great article by Simon

** redacted ** In reflection, my comment wasn't very nice so I retract it. Let's agree to disagree

The demand for wooden carriage wheels has gone to essentially zero. Did that increase the supply? Demand for 6502 CPUs has gone to zero. Did that increase the supply?

You need to check your facts. As I showed in a previous comment the cost of energy has indeed gone down at times. It will fluctuate over time. The direction of the fluctuation can't be known in advance. If it could, I would suggest buying energy futures ;)

Your logic is faulty. Energy is produced based on demand. If the demand goes down the amount produced will go down. Not using something doesn't produce anything. It does, however, reduce demand. BTW - that CFL you're referring to produces a different light than the incandescent. I prefer the incandescent.

A difference without a distinction. Methinks you are splitting hairs. People buy a Prius to save energy. They end up spending more money as they rarely make back the extra cost of the car in the gasoline saved. This is not splitting hairs.

That's over 20 years from now. I see no reason not to expect technology to change this equation. Further, the price system will control this. You should read Julian Simon. Your premise that the world is running out oil (or any resource) is not consistent with the facts. I don't believe it. You'll need to provide evidence if you want to convince me.

The motive makes all the difference. If your goal is to maximize/optimize how you spend your money your behavior will be very different than if your motive is to save energy.

The reason to insulate is to keep your house cool/warm and to save money. That's the only good reason to do it. To do it for the quasi-religious reason of saving energy is irrational.