jordanz

*snip*

But, perhaps you are not convinced. Repeat Steps 1 - 3, above.

Then, please explain why the 2008 Summer Seminar is equivalent to past seminars. And while you are doing that, please give YOUR answers to the questions in number 2, above.

I've gone every year since 2000. If you don't like the program, don't go. I think it looks great and am looking forward to it. I also renewed my Sponsorship of TAS.

I am more concerned about Barr's views on the "war on Drugs". He strongly opposed medical Marjaunia in DC which had been strongly supported in a refrurdrum.

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.

It seems to me that most posters here are allowing their philosophical/political beliefs to sway their judgment in this matter. Just because you have chosen the name 'objectivism' does not assure objectivity. I really think many do not understand the difference between world reserves and world production.

Pot calls kettle black. - news at 11

Seriously these are facts right NOW.

See http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php

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.

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

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.

And what about the evidence that world wide production of oil will peak in the near future? Do you understand what that means?

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

Every resource I can think of is plentiful and cheap.

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.

OK, let me clarify my position. I agree that it was rather vague to say we are running out of resources. What I mean is we are running out of easily obtainable, ie. cheap resources. It is going to be expensive to develop alternative energy sources, like bio-diesel, for example, so why not try to make the best use of existing resources as we make the transition to new technology? I see conservation as a strategy for survival, not as some political agenda.

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

You call that a great article? It didn't do anything for me.

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

Here's my comment:

TheOnion Video on Paranoia

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:

Revises federal provisions allowing the President to utilize the Armed Forces in connection with interference with federal and state law to allow the President to employ the Armed Forces and National Guard in federal service to restore public order in cases of natural disaster, epidemic or other public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or domestic violence. Requires the President to notify Congress within 14 days of the exercise of such authority. Authorizes the President, when exercising such authority, to direct the Secretary to provide supplies, services, and equipment to persons affected by the situation.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Can't you just use the new ugly light bulbs, have them inspected, then screw in Edison bulbs? Or, build to code then electrically renovate the crap out?

The good news is California is going to become an island and float up to Alaska while we in Arizona get prime beachfront property.

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

Now you are complaining about water conservation too?? Do you think natural resources are limitless or what? The reason the government has to take action is because we are running out of these resources.

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

Decrease in demand is equivalent to an increase in supply.

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?

That depends entirely on the price of gas, which could very well double or triple in the near future. The cost of energy can do nothing but rise over time, I don't see how you cannot see this. To develop the tar sands in Alberta it had to wait until the price of oil got high enough and the same with solar and wind power. But the price of energy will never go down, the days of cheap fossil fuels are gone.

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 ;)

Hmm... let's see. If I take this 100 watt bulb out and put in this 23 watt bulb that gives off the same amount of light, I have just produced 77 watts of energy. That was easy! Incandescent bulbs should be called "heat" bulbs not "light" bulbs.

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.

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.

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.

Are you familiar with the concept of peak oil production? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

Estimates for peak oil production worldwide range from right now to 2030. After that, production will start to decrease. We will reach this peak soon, count on it.

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.

...the largest untapped energy sources is conservation, believe it or not.

I don't believe it. You'll need to provide evidence if you want to convince me.

Money, energy, what's the difference? Energy costs money so save energy = save money.

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.