This is up at a lot of places now, but Obama’s comments today on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve are a Reversal from his statement less than a month ago.
Posted by WLS:
July 7, 2008, in St. Louis, the same day the price of a barrel of oil went above $145 a barrel:
“I do not believe that we should use this strategic oil reserves at this point. I have said and in fact supported a congressional resolution that said that we should suspend putting more oil into the strategic oil reserve. But the strategic oil reserve I think has to be reserved for a genuine emergency.”
In his speech this morning, with the price of a barrel of oil today dipping below $120:
“We should sell 70 million barrels of oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve for less expensive crude, which in the past has lowered gas prices within two weeks.”
Judgement?
What this really tells you is that Obama’s polling shows that he is going to get killed on this subject — especially with independents — if he didn’t show some willingness to do something to bring down the price of gas, while the GOP is having a field day over it.
This is a stunning 180 degree reversal in only 28 days, that cannot be rationalized away in any fashion. The only thing that has changed over that 28 days — other than the politics of drilling — is that the price of a barrel of oil has actually declined nearly 17%. If anything, the policy bases upon which he objected to using the SPR in early July are even stronger now.
This tells me that Obama WILL name his VP tomorrow in order to knock the legs out from under the story-line that he has flip-flopped.
But the real story is how much trouble the campaign fears its in if the issue of energy prices remains frozen where it has been the last 3 weeks.
Update: The NYT has this story up on its website, and while it acknowledges that he has changed his position, it doesn’t mention the stunning cynicism shown by the fact that he reversed himself in just 4 weeks. Nor does it even seem to inquire of the campaign the reasons for his reversal:
Senator Barack Obama altered (???) his position on Monday to call for tapping the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower gasoline prices as he outlined an energy plan … Aides to Mr. Obama said that he now favored releasing light oil from that emergency stockpile.
That’s it. That’s all the pressure you get from the NYT to explain why this shift took place.
Maybe he should encourage that congress do something, then. Hold a vote maybe? Oh, wait. He’s changed his position now that congress is no longer in session and won’t be for the next five weeks. Certainly the two are not related. Judgment! To lead!
Chris (da1e70) — 8/4/2008 @ 6:16 pmBut, since he’s already been elected President (in his own mind), all he has to do is call Congress back into session, and pass his Energy Plan in law.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 8/4/2008 @ 6:27 pmAD,
Chris (da1e70) — 8/4/2008 @ 6:33 pmGood idea. As long as he doesn’t have to vote on it himself. Or would he be allowed to vote “present”?
The Democrats’ energy policy just got thrown under the bus’ crowded undercarriage.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/4/2008 @ 6:36 pmJust need to inflate the tires. Then the undercarriage will have some more room and get better gas mileage.
Chris (da1e70) — 8/4/2008 @ 6:40 pmDon’t forget the “tuneup”, Chris.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/4/2008 @ 6:41 pmWe’re watching Obama’s campaign come apart. His poll numbers are heading for dirt as voters are getting to know something about him deeper than the bullshit Messiah meme. These are people he’s not likely to get back; its not like they’re going to go back to thinking of him as this New Age anti-pol again. Now he’s just another craven hack saying whatever he needs to say to get votes, and doing it with a particular absence of finesse. “Empty suit” is going to stick, and it’s only going to get worse.
I’ll go out on a limb here (I have no rep to lose, so who cares), but I predict that in a year from now, we’ll all wonder how Obama could ever have been seen as a threat. Jean Paul Kerry will seem like a powerhouse by comparison.
Cicero (5f6f87) — 8/4/2008 @ 6:47 pmDemocrats are on a full bore drive to destroy the country, or put it in shape to be destroyed by anyone with a small military force. No fuel, no move. Slick Willie emptied (sold) a large part of the reserve in an attempt to con the people about his budgets (and also destroyed the military prepardness to show more money in the treasury) and the process of replacing what oil he stole has not been completed, yet the democrats (Hussein O included) saw fit (voted) to stop the resupply. America is in more danger from the democrats than all the other countries in the world combined.
Scrapiron (d671ab) — 8/4/2008 @ 6:56 pmCicero is correct, I think. Hillary knew (knows) this as well. Enviromentalism is attractive to many, but only when it can be done on the cheap. Our energy woes are hitting people in the pocketbook, all the while BO proposes raising taxes and turning down the heat/AC.
And the only problem with the price of gas was the rapidity with which it got to $4. Not the fact that it is at $4. Which leads me to believe he’d be fine with $5 or $6 gas, as long as it gets there slowly, and before he’s president.
The tune-up. How the heck did I forget the tune-up?
Chris (da1e70) — 8/4/2008 @ 6:58 pmObama in 2005:
DubiousD (78c24e) — 8/4/2008 @ 7:00 pmObama threatening to release oil from the Strategic Reserve is a bit like being threatened by a fellow who threatens to hold his breath until you do what he wants.
Mike K (2cf494) — 8/4/2008 @ 7:03 pmFunny about the tin cans people are demanding we drive. Today I saw a ‘Smart’ car in the parking lot and took a look at it. First thought was that if the driver hit a deer, duck, or goose they (the driver/passenger) were dead meat. Two hours later we were cutting a man out of a Jeep Liberty that struck a dump truck pulling a low boy loaded with paving equipment. After removing the top to gain access and getting the man on the chopper I looked the Jeep over. If it had been a ‘Smart’ car we could have loaded the entire thing in a wheelbarrow people and all. Maybe the ‘Smart’ cars will save the rescue workers some work, send the entire car with passengers to the morgue and let them scrape/pour the remains out. If a fire breaks out in one of them we can sweep it up in a dust pan. Think I’ll stick with the F-150 FX4.
Scrapiron (d671ab) — 8/4/2008 @ 7:06 pmScrapiron, previous CAFE standards mandates have already killed hundreds if not thousands of people in the name of environmentalism. Why not tens of thousands more?
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/4/2008 @ 7:11 pmAccording to Ben Smith at the Politico, David Freddoso’s new book “The Case Against Barack Obama” uses facts to portray Obama as a fake reformer and a real liberal:
Freddoso argues the way to take on Obama is to show he is just another liberal politician doing business as usual:
The Politico has some illuminating excerpts from Freddoso’s book. I agree McCain needs to focus on Obama’s political record and I think he will do that more after the Democratic convention.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/4/2008 @ 7:20 pmFor the past 30 years, the Democrats have gone to dinner on the Holy Sacrament of Energy Denial, because Americans are good and thrifty people. The Earth is great; we must conserve.
But now we all realize that our suffering has had one huge, unintended consequence–the enrichment of our implacable enemies–and we know this must stop.
Obama has completely blown it.
Patricia (f56a97) — 8/4/2008 @ 7:30 pmDRJ – I hope at some point, McCain will point out that Baracky claims to be some post-racial unique individual, yet employs the same identity/racial politics of the past. He claims to unite and bring people together, yet has no actual record of reaching out beyond the Left. He claims to have superior judgment, but has yet to demonstrate same. He claims to lead, but votes present, or not at all on tough votes.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/4/2008 @ 7:37 pmJD,
Do you have something against flexibility? The One is simply demonstrating His ability to be all men to all people all the time. Just because something is difficult for mortals to achieve doesn’t mean that He is unable to accomplish it. Don’t lose your tingle by focusing on the mundane – keep your eye upon the truly transcendant. (And keep your hand on your wallet.)
Rick Ballard (0a8990) — 8/4/2008 @ 7:47 pmJD – At this point, there are so many reasons I disagree with Obama I can’t even remember them all.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/4/2008 @ 7:53 pmRick – Obama is truly the Rubber Band Man – So much rhythm, grace and debonair in one man…
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/4/2008 @ 8:20 pmENERGY IS THE ELECTION
1. Republicans are doing the right thing and advocating ALL energies – clean, solar, oil, wind, methane, nuclear, natural gas, oil, oil, dams, geothermic, oil, ethanol, nuclear, electric cars, hydrogen cars, LNG cars, freaking everything, and oil.
2. Barack Obama’s soundbite of the people inflating their tires as an energy plan is devastating. He may lose solely on that STUPID comment.
3. Republicans such as myself love nature. The coast, Yosemite, Borega Bay, the California Deserts, the upper Mokelumne River, and all that. dailykos and moveon have a great racket going, but it is not truth.
Wesson (f6c982) — 8/4/2008 @ 8:41 pmI usually vote democrat, but this guy Barack Obama is absolutely ridiculous. I still can’t believe he beat out Hilary. How can anyone vote for someone when you don’t know what he stands for? About the only thing left going for him is supreme court nominees…but he’ll probably change his mind on those too. guh!
Stu (9ec768) — 8/4/2008 @ 10:23 pmThe USA consumes 20.7 million barrels of oil per day, so it is not very clear how selling 70 million barrels (at what price and to whom?) will have much impact on prices.
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 8/4/2008 @ 10:59 pma stunning 180 degree reversal in only 28 days, that cannot be rationalized away in any fashion.
wls, you can’t be serious. Rationalizing Obama’s gaffes away is the only way to continue supporting him. It’s a mental survival technique for the left. It is the sole explanation for Obama defeating Hillary. As DRJ points out, Obama has had so many gaffes and reversals at this point that it’s becoming difficult to keep track of them all. Many of those came to fruition before the nomination was decided, and still supporters just wished the bad news into the cornfield.
Apogee (366e8b) — 8/4/2008 @ 11:03 pmWind and solar deal only with our power issues and it will be a long time if ever for even hybrid plugins to make a mark.
Drawdown of the SPR is a band aid to get them through the election without the crowd going wild.
Long term oil exploration here and abroad as joint ventures outside of OPEC are the answer.
The Law of the Sea Treaty could impact our access to some areas for oil under the sea more than most realize.
Clean coal, nuclear, oil shale conversion all should be done in a balanced and diversified approach.
Ocean Power has massive potential.
Test fields of ocean power are already underway for life cycle cost and durability testing.
They can bring power ashore right where the dense population centers are and take the load off the inter zone grid.
They can also do desalinization to supplement local water supply issues.
The stuff is out there, we just have to get the politicians to work for the country and not their junk science issues.
daytrader (ea6549) — 8/4/2008 @ 11:58 pmdaytrader, thanks for keeping the LOST treaty ratification in this discussion. Lost along with the Global TAX BS from BO is nothing more than a coupe for the Left to give the UN the power to regulate all of our energy as well as water systems…IOWs the whole country!
Moultrie (0c2c01) — 8/5/2008 @ 5:39 amIf Obama came out and said that he now believes his previous comments to be wrong, I think people would accept it. Especially if he gave reasons for why he changed his mind. But for him to act as though he was always right – that is simply unacceptable.
He forces people to consider the options – he has no reason for the change, he has no idea what he says from day to day, he thinks that nobody will notice or care, or he really thinks that he is always right. His continued silence reinforces the perception that he has only contempt for those who are not already his disciples.
Note that none of this has anything to do with the issue – he has transcended issues with his arrogance.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 8/5/2008 @ 6:32 amThe Democrats are desperate. They are wrong and the public aren’t going to let them implement their socialist agenda because of the increasing gas prices, and the public seeing the Democrat obstructionism to developing energy is going to hurt the public personally. The Democrats are doomed, and they know it.
PCD (5c49b0) — 8/5/2008 @ 7:02 amThere was a time I would have easily agreed with you, PCD…
But I have since learned to never under estimate the colective stupidity of people.
Remember: None of us are as stupid as all of us…
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 8/5/2008 @ 7:04 amScott,
Yeah, I heard Bob Beckel on Hannity yesterday. He represents the “stupid core” of the Democrat party. The part that sees nothing wrong in blackmailing the Electors of the (AAHHHHH!!! Brain Fart)… you know the group that actually elects a President, or stuffing the ballot box to win the election.
PCD (5c49b0) — 8/5/2008 @ 7:55 amDude, that isn’t even the stupid branch…
It people who independantly think “I don’t know why he won, no one I know voted for him” that make up the ranks of the Moron Caucus…
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 8/5/2008 @ 7:58 amOn Obama’s site they’ve posted his energy policy statement. In it Obama claims to be in favor of reasonable development of nuclear power. His idea of reasonable:
– More safeguards designed into the plants
– A delay in building nuclear plants until the waste disposal issue is resolved
– Yucca Mtn is NOT an acceptable disposal site
That shouldn’t delay nuclear power plant construction more than another 30 or forty years…
He expects that voters and MSM will swoon at the mention of the fact that he has an energy plan without any of them actually reading the thing. Sadly, for the most part he is right when he believes that.
Genius, sheer genius.
in_awe (bc82df) — 8/5/2008 @ 8:07 amBut for him to act as though he was always right – that is simply unacceptable.
You obviously haven’t caught on. BO is always right. Just ask him. Or his followers.
Chris (da1e70) — 8/5/2008 @ 8:33 amThis is not the Baracky energy plan that Baracky thought he knew.
Racists
JD (5f0e11) — 8/5/2008 @ 8:38 amWhat do you call a BHO policy wonk???
A Whirling Dervish!
I think I’ll have some popcorn, right after I take this handful of sedatives.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 8/5/2008 @ 8:56 amWhere’s Peter, Peter, blumpkin eater?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:11 amAnother non-story, I’m afraid. But I don’t blame WLS. Poor guy has his work cut out for him providing you malnourished carnivores with your daily pound of Obama hate flesh.
All I see here is another wedge non-issue being pried away from the jaws of the progressively more and more foolish Grandpappy McCramp-in-my-neck camp.
Remember:
“You don’t bring a knife to a gunfight. They put one of yours in the hospital, you put one of theirs in the morgue.”
This is going to be fun. Stay tuned.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:40 amFirst off, you killed two of the best quotes from The Untouchables…
Second, how about you actually refute WLS’s position, as opposed to just acting like a doofus?
Come on, I dare you.
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:42 amThe choice is between a guy who’s going to continue the countries addiction to oil and a further raping and pillaging of American wallets, or a guy who’s going to take us away from oil dependence and going to actually invest and give tax breaks and incentives and rewards to individuals who take us away from that model.
But McCrampy, like most Repub candidates Bush the first has to play for the gut response. The visceral non-issue that’s an insult to American’s.
And I think those days are over. The empirical data is too overwhelming to deny. The RNC dominance of the Congress since the mid-90s has been a disaster. The George W. Bush administration has been a disaster in every area except dealing with AIDS in Africa (to give credit where credit is due). Time for some serious change in Washington.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:48 amPeter,
What a load of manure you dumped here! Where’s your EPA permit? You just created another Superfund cleanup site.
PCD (5c49b0) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:54 amYou’ve been challenged, Peter. I dare you to accept, you coward.
Same rules as DRJ and Levi had, with loser getting banned.
Put up or shut up, Peter.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:54 amCigar that man.
It’s based on a weak presumption. The man’s looked at the data and sees that McCain is scoring points on an empty gut issue he has no real policy point for other than the unrealistic DRILL! DRILL!! Everywhere, which it’s known won’t provide oil for a decade, and then have a minimal impact of a few cents a gallon and all at the cost of some the country’s most treasured natural areas. Now, be honest is that really wise?
[Aside: You want to live in China? Most of the athletes playing in the Olympic games are only going in for their events and then leaving because the air is so atrocious and dangerous to their health and conditioning. It might be the most important lesson that the world learns from these events taking place in that human right-free zone.]
So a non-solution gut issue from McCrampy is being neutralized with another gut, non-solution.
Done and done.
Good bye non-solution gut issue.
Ta ta.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:59 amI figured Peter would have sobered up since last night.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/5/2008 @ 10:03 amWhat’s that buzz buzz buzzing sound I hear? Hmmm…I think it the Fucker-of-his-mother fruit fly? Otherwise known as the Drosophila fuckerofhismotherTROLL.
Someone get some bug spray.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/5/2008 @ 10:03 amAnd he’s off and running (away) again! After dodging the question, lying through his teeth, and distorting an issue he clearly doesn’t understand, he’s going to pretend that he’s the only person in the room.
Pete, you’re a coward. But we already knew that.
However, running away isn’t going to help you hide. It just means you will be that much more tired when I finally expose you for the troll you are.
You have been challenged. You don’t dare take me up on it, and we both know – hell, EVERYBODY knows – precisely why.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 10:05 amWhat is this McCrampy BS? Do you plan on mocking the lack of range of motion in his arms too?
JD (75f5c3) — 8/5/2008 @ 10:06 amIs that what you have been huffing? It doesn’t excuse your behavior, nor your lies.
Time to stand up, sitzpinkler. You have been challenged.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 10:07 amI think the biggest problem with Obama’s energy plan isn’t that it won’t work, but the voting populace don’t really understand what it will do in the process. People don’t understand how limited renewable energy is, even if you go “microgeneration” there are still many issues there. But his “support” of nuclear energy is just pure crap and ignorance. Obama won’t be able to follow through on his energy policy, as it will lead to riots and disorder.
G (722480) — 8/5/2008 @ 10:20 amYou think the O-bots care about him actually following through on anything he says? It’s all about the Hopey Changitude!
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 10:21 amAs someone who has the benefit of age to provide perspective, I can say that BHO’s energy pronouncements are no different than what Liberal Democrats have been spewing for 30-some years.
Since the Santa Barbara Channel oil-spill, and then the two oil-shocks of the 70’s, politicians have been saying that they can move America off of its’ dependence on oil – particularly, foreign oil – through the promotion of conservation and the developement of alternative forms of energy, particularly renewables (whatever they really are).
What has happened in those 30+ years?
Absolutely Nothing!
When OPEC doubled the price of oil in reaction to our support of Israel during the Yom Kipper War, from $2.80/bbl to $5.60/bbl, we imported about 40% of our needs from overseas suppliers. Today, with the price of oil fluctuating on the spot-market with daily swings in excess of that $5.60/bbl, we import upwards of 75% of our needs.
Thankfully, the two nations who supply us the most are Canada and Mexico; third on the list IIRC is Venezuela, and then Nigeria – Saudi Arabia is only the leading supplier from the ME.
For all of those 30+ years we have been told that we cannot drill our way out of this problem; all the while, the problem has gotten worse.
Since what we have done has not worked, it’s time to try what we haven’t done:
DRILLING and REFINING!
The fact that a very large component of our current energy imports is refined gasoline is, if not a crime, at least terribly embarrassing.
As the good Gen. Honore was so noted of saying,
Another Drew (a28ef4) — 8/5/2008 @ 10:37 amLet’s not be stuck on stupid, people!
This is, in fact, false. A number of sites could be producing within 6 months, as they WERE active sites until congress banned drilling there. A number of other sites would be online within a year an a half’s time, the largest portion of that being the time needed to get a rig in place. Exporitory holes can be drilled, sites located, and derricks brought in quite quickly.
I really don’t know where this “10 year” time frame came from, but it quite ficticious.
Considering the changes in price from Bush’s statement that he would lift the Exec. Ban on drilling (which left the Congressional ban in place) that have occured (Light sweet Crude is under $120 a barrel in less than 4 weeks), I think the change of ACTUALLY drilling in sites KNOWN to have oil would be quite dramatic. Gas is down about 30 cents here in central IL, and there’s actually been no supply increase. How much do you think it would drop if Supply actually went up?
As for “spoiling the land”, Alaska has been drilling for a long, long time and they have become masters of minimal footprint drilling. There are pictures of wildlife within a mile of active drills, and the surrounding land appears quite un-spoiled. How is that a ruining of nature?
Also, there is the argument of “You think Russia will be kinder as they drill?” This country has maybe the best record of environmentally friendly drilling methods (because oil companies spend the money to make sure it’s possible). Would you rather put it in the hands of the Russians or the Chinese? You refer to China’s poor air quality as a point to why who shouldn’t drill, but I submit that it is the exact reason why we should. To start with our oil is of better quality, which makes a better brand of gas, which burns cleaner. We mandate things like Catalytic Converters (I’m unsure if such things are on Chinese cars, I doubt they are) and emmission standards. Our air is cleaner, and it will remain cleaner. To suggest we would look like China is to suggest that all the measures currently in place would cease to exist and that our population would double overnight.
It displays an disturbing lack of knowledge to suggest that increasing supply would have no effect on price, and it ignores factors such as “70% of our oil comes from others” and “demand is constantly growing”. If nothing else, we must increase supply to maintain current price equilibrium – if supply remains constant but demand increase, price increases.
But that isn’t even the issue of this post, really. the issue is that when a barrel of Sweet Crude was over $140, Obama was dead set against tapping the SPR. Less than 4 weeks later, when that same barrel was under $120, Obama is in favor of releasing 70 million barrels from the SPR. Why he would be against it when price was high, and for it when price is low, is a twist of logic I can not possibly follow. Ignoring the actual purpose of the SPR, Obama’s 180 on the SPR – utter refusal to consider it to ‘yes, let us use it’ – when the situation has rendered it a redundant, rather empty gesture is telling and troubling.
I’ll say it again: He was against it when it might have had some very minor affect on price for a very short period of time, but is now for it when it is un-needed. Prices continue to drop in anticipation of the Congressional ban expiring.
That drop due to anticipation, by the way, is thanks partly to speculators. The same ones who “caused” the high price to begin with.
Finally, using phrases like “McCrampy” really is quite childish, and is telling on many levels.
Yes, I’m aware people speak mockingly of Sen Obama, using “cute” little nicknames, but frankly I don’t think much of those people when the do it, as I know several of them to be far better than that.
I try very hard, despite my utter dislike for the man, to call him “Sen. Obama”. He is a Senator from my state, and while I certainly did not vote for him he was elected. He is a sitting Senator. He is entitled to, and should recieve, at a minimum the respect I would expect to recieve if I were (God forbid) elected to that position.
If you wish to enter the conversation at the level occupied by malcontents and the needlessly billigerant (such as Drumwaster), then by all means. it is a free country, and as long as Patterico is content to allow it, you may act like as big an ass as you wish.
But do note that Commentors like Leviticus and Aphrael don’t act like that, and are respected for it. the read responses, and attempt to answer them in kind. I don’t often agree with them, but I enjoy reading their posts now.
Thank about that the next time you post, and perhaps you will see a change in the way people respond to you.
Well, not from Drumwaster, but there’s little surprise in that.
And for the record, “McCrampy” is kinda funny. It just isn’t the best way to make your argument…
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 8/5/2008 @ 10:47 amAlso, I would like to point out that, even if it is true that drilling now will not yield oil for ten years, the energy plans proposed by people like Speaker Pelosi and Sen Obama won’t see any increase in energy for at LEAST that long, and even then that is a hopefull guess. They are counting on non-existing technologies to appear from the ether.
Oil, at least, has the benifit of being something we know for a fact will work.
As General Patton once said “a good plan today is better than a perfect plan at some unknown point in teh future”.
Should we get off oil? Hell yes we should. I would love that very, very much. The problem is that we can’t right now, and we won’t be able to for at least a decade. It is better to solve the problem that exists now FOR now, and in that space such a temporary fix provides work towards a perminate solution.
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 8/5/2008 @ 10:51 am[Aside: You want to live in China? Most of the athletes playing in the Olympic games are only going in for their events and then leaving because the air is so atrocious and dangerous to their health and conditioning. It might be the most important lesson that the world learns from these events taking place in that human right-free zone.]
Peter did you really write that? Why do you think China is going nuclear in a big way?
G (722480) — 8/5/2008 @ 10:56 amHe might be surprised, if he can just stop himself from lying through his teeth with almost every comment. (You would, too, but that’s a different story.)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 10:58 am“Judgement?”
Of course this is a political move by Sen. Obama, (no *S* sherlock).
Oiram (983921) — 8/5/2008 @ 11:04 amBut if you don’t think this is a “Genuine Emergency” as Sen. Obama said on July 7th then I don’t know what hope there is for you.
It wasn’t an emergency when the prices were $20/bbl more than they are today. Explain why, after the prices actually drop, that he suddenly realizes that there is an emergency?
Especially when he said that he wasn’t so much concerned with the price increase per se, but how quickly it happened.
(I guess he understands about suddenly dropping frogs into boiling water better than he understands Supply and Demand.)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 11:09 amThis is a genuine emergency, on par with Katrina, Oiram?
JD (75f5c3) — 8/5/2008 @ 11:09 amHow exactly is it an emergency when Sen. Obama’s position was that the prices rose too quickly, not that they were too high?
JD (75f5c3) — 8/5/2008 @ 11:10 amIf you look at what high gas prices and our current economic situation as it has changed over the last few weeks and what impact that will have on our future? Yes it is on par with Katrina.
Oiram (983921) — 8/5/2008 @ 11:11 amOiram, please explain this “Genuine Emergency” and how it is a good idea.
Considering the future possibilities or conflict with Iran, I’d say that could be a “Genuine Emergency.”
And seeing the oil prices keep dropping, thats a really, really fucking stupid time to release the material from the SPR. Furthermore, we need long term planning, which includes drilling as well as more efficient cars/vehicles/transporation. I’m ALL in favor of getting us off of oil, but it can’t be done without development of huge energy sources like nuclear power or geothermal power.
G (722480) — 8/5/2008 @ 11:12 amIndeed.
Then how can it be that it was not a National Emergency when a Barrel cost $147, but now that it is under $120 (and still dropping) it is an emergency?
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 8/5/2008 @ 11:13 amI would hope that you all would approach all flippity flops with the same type of vigor…… but alas you don’t.
I at least am recognizing a flipper here.
Gas prices are going down, that’s a beautiful thing. But are we really sure that they will go down to $2 levels? I mean at the rate they’ve gone down in the last 3 weeks, we will be paying $0 per gallon by sometime next year. Take another toke if you believe that.
Oiram (983921) — 8/5/2008 @ 11:17 amI think gas prices will go back up, perhaps not past $5, but back up. Hope I’m wrong mind you.
But if I’m right, using our reserves as has been done in the past by other presidents to lower gas doesn’t sound too bad.
Flipity or no flipity.
You fail to answer the question. With prices dropping, why is it an emergency now, but not when they were almost $30 higher and climbing?
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 8/5/2008 @ 11:18 amThat seems to assume that America is not going to need oil in the short to mid term future. Do you believe that it is possible for America to be oil free within the next 50 to 75 years, Peter? And are you addicted to oil? How about water?
Pablo (99243e) — 8/5/2008 @ 11:22 amIt’s an “addiction to oil” like hunger is an “addiction to food”.
We can no more give up controllable energy than we could give up food, and we would last just about as long – massive infrastructure breakdown and death within weeks.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 11:24 amKatrina created a temporary shortage of supply and it was possible to relieve that pressure by releasing oil from the SPR in order to bridge the gap. We don’t have those sort of conditions now and a release from the SPR would have a very temporary, limited effect on both supply and prices. In this market, such an action would be a pointless gimmick that compromises the SPR.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/5/2008 @ 11:29 amThe rest of the nation needs to be more like California with higher taxes, more government controls and less energy usage, even if it may be impacted by people leaving the state. The great Senator for Illnois, Obama once again calls for a 15% reduction in energy usage. What’s the big deal? Just institute rolling blackouts (oops, is that un-pc and racist?) for four hours each day and problem solved. Whatever happened to that bright idea to have home thermostats remotely controlled by the state? I think it was Joe Klein who recently said that we should eschew AC as it bugs him and he doesn’t even use it. I know the great former AG, Janet Reno has no AC in her Miami area home, except in computer room. Come on people, suck it up. Did your ancestors gripe about no AC, no internal combustion engines, etc.? Put on that sweater, use that hand fan, rake, hand push mower, tire guage, bicycle, skate board and so on. Show the great algore that you truly care about the planet. Lower YOUR carbon footprint. Praise allah and messiah.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/5/2008 @ 11:37 amPablo – pointless gimmicks is all they have got !
JD (75f5c3) — 8/5/2008 @ 11:39 amGas prices are going down, that’s a beautiful thing. But are we really sure that they will go down to $2 levels? I mean at the rate they’ve gone down in the last 3 weeks, we will be paying $0 per gallon by sometime next year. Take another toke if you believe that.
I think gas prices will go back up, perhaps not past $5, but back up. Hope I’m wrong mind you.
But if I’m right, using our reserves as has been done in the past by other presidents to lower gas doesn’t sound too bad.
Flipity or no flipity.
So, Lets see, you are basically advocating a release of the SPR, which can only last temporary. We need more drilling, that is how we can meet the ever increasing supply demand and lessen dependency on non-domestic sources. Furthermore, price of oil drops, our country will be better for it. But unless we find some unlimited supply of energy, we need more drilling, refineries, and efficient cars.
Until then, prices will continue to rise and fall, and this recent high in oil prices is only a taste of what may come. But to advocate releasing the SPR is stupid at this time.
It wouldn’t be stupid if there was some natural disaster, or conflict with Iran escalates, or if our drilling projects come online (whereas you can release it as steady supply would be available to fill the SPR again).
G (722480) — 8/5/2008 @ 12:37 pmAnswer to #62 (all I have time for right now)
Have you been paying attention to the federal bank bail outs, foreclosures, weakness of the dollar, lay offs across the boards, inflation, etc. and etc. that have been going on in just the last month?
If you don’t agree that the price of oil over and above $100 a barrel has anything to do with that, I suggest economics 101.
Why wasn’t it an Emergency when gas was $30 more per barrel? Ask President Bush why he thought the economy was right on track only a few months ago…….when we were paying $30 less per barrel.
Oiram (983921) — 8/5/2008 @ 12:49 pmWhy not answer the question, Mario? Your “look over there!” answers that don’t answer anything aren’t working.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 12:52 pmActually, you have it backwards…
Oil costs so much because of the weak dollar, not the other way around. You see, oil is globally priced by USD (it’s about the only thing that is).
The Dollar is the standard for Oil Pricing, thus a weak dollar causes an increase in price.
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 8/5/2008 @ 12:54 pmAnd we aren’t talking about Bush. Check the topic again. We are discusiing Obama’s radical reversal in position.
Obama said he would not support tapping the SPR unless there was a national emergency “like a terrorist attack”.
Is a drop in oil price by nearly 30 dollars a terrorist attack? If so, may we have more please?
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 8/5/2008 @ 12:56 pmI have checked the topic #72. I wonder if you are? Because I don’t see above Obama saying, and I’m quoting you here: “Obama said he would not support tapping the SPR unless there was a national emergency “like a terrorist attack”.”
The reason I brought up Bush off topic was to illustrate what Sen. Obama had to work off of. He is our commander in chief. And he did tell us all was well with the Economy. You of all people know what it means to listen to your president Scott.
Oiram (983921) — 8/5/2008 @ 1:38 pmObama apparently had been listening to our president on July 07. Thus No emergency……apparently. We know there is an Emergency now. I know there is, and Obama does too. Everyone here might not realize it until Bush or McCain tells them so.
You keep avoiding the question.
Why is there an “Emergency” now, and not one before the price dropped almost $30/bbl?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 1:42 pmOh, so it’s Bush’s fault that Obama was against releasing the SPR a month ago?
Wow, talk about a disconnect with reality.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 1:44 pmBut there was not an emergency when oil was $30 a barrel more expensive?
Look, Baracky said that he would not do something like this unless there was an emergency, like Katrina. There is no such emergency. He is pandering, blatantly and obviously.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/5/2008 @ 1:46 pmAfter all the statements about how drilling for oil Won’t help, we now get the ultimate in superficial proposals that will only help for a few weeks, at most.
Neo (cba5df) — 8/5/2008 @ 2:25 pm#74 “You keep avoiding the question.”
Drum, your commenting on my comment without reading my thread with Scott. I’ve done that too before.
If you look at my comment #69 replying to Scott on comment #62, you will have my answer.
If your too busy looking at right wing drible and drable for you facts, to follow up here I will understand. I will really understand.
Oiram (983921) — 8/5/2008 @ 2:27 pmOiram – #69 is a series of non-sequiters and BDS. It most certainly does not support your assertion that there is an emergency now.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/5/2008 @ 2:32 pmYou also missed #75, in which I address the whole object of your alleged “answer” – blaming Obama’s flipping on the issue on some claim that Obama was listening to Bush on this single issue and it was only his laser-like acuity that he brought to bear on the issue later (apparently he missed the preceding twenty months of price increases, but his “Emergency” only comes after the prices have started to decrease – and that also ignores the fact that he admitted that he didn’t have a problem with the fact that the prices are so high, just that the increase happened over such a short period) that caused him to change his mind.
And how is that an “energy policy”? That is, at the very best, a very short-term fix to a long-term problem. Like a band-aid over a spreading cancer.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 2:38 pmOiram, do you just really like to keep changing the topic? Even your 69 doesn’t answer 62. Anyway, I think a lot of people understand that the oil issue is important and an emergency that needs to be addressed. In fact, I think that there are some republican congressmen up in D.C. waiting to do just that. You know, start the process to get more domestic sources of oil. (which would lessen the price of a barrel of oil, for you know, the entire planet…)
G (722480) — 8/5/2008 @ 2:41 pmOiram suggesting “Economics 101” is pretty hilarious when he’s defending a candidate who does not know “Economics 101”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/5/2008 @ 5:14 pmMore stupidity, Obama’s idiotic “energy policy” calls for 1 million plug-in electric cars by 2015.
Where is all this electricity capacity going to come from? California for instance is still just on the edge of brownouts as it is.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/5/2008 @ 6:52 pm#63 <
Not at all. Please read that carefully. I wrote: a guy who’s going to take us away from oil dependence and going to actually invest and give tax breaks and incentives and rewards to individuals who take us away from that model.
It is a given that this whole world runs on a Hydrocarbon (Oil, Coal, Natural Gas) infrastructer. It’s not going to go away completely for at least a century, if even that.
What I’m saying is that it’s necessary to begin a very real move away from that model, that makes use of all the alternatives and technologies presently availabel and begins to build on them and I just don’t see that happening with a McCain presidency. His only answer to high gas prices seems to be centered on “drilling for more oil.” I don’t think he’s got the vision for it or the capacity to deal with something like that. By his own admission, he barely understands the internet or has a good grasp of high technology and it’s effects on the economy.
Saying “drill for oil” as an end unto itself, fails to see the larger problem, which is huge in scale and goes deeper than simply drilling. It’s that Big Oil is a dysfunctional industry that has no incentive to become more efficient or productive. It’s a monopoly on the distribution of oil and gas in this country and around the world and it does it in the guise of a “free market high performer” (and it’s interesting the way a free market treats a monopoly so), The big five oil companies have been devoting less and less of their profits to capital expenditures which includes R&D, new technology, new equipment, refineries and even drilling on lands that they already own since the 80s.
Source.
Instead the top five oil Co’s are more concerned with buying back stock and not finding oil or lowering the price or helping the American consumer in any way. Seems like a few weeks ago, every time the price of oil went down the stock of these big companies lost value which seems counter-intuitive to a long term solution to say the least.
No, I think we need some serious vision and some leadership and a challenge to industry and government and the universities and the American people to develop new technologies and cut back drastically on the use of oil. Even more widespread hybrid battery technology, cheap and efficient would have a significant and beneficial effect. But we need a President who can think big and inspire people to try and do great things. And the government has to lay out the money to make that happen. It would be an investment that would do a great deal of good and create good new jobs, lower pollution levels and raise the standard of living. There’s really no choice in this. Either the U.S.A leads in this effort or the Germans, French, Chinese or Indians will do it and the big Oil Co’s and their lobbyists and the politicians they control (on both sides of the aisle) lead us to becoming a second rate power yet still needing some other nation to provide for its energy needs.
A good example is the internet. Look at the trillions of dollars in profit and wealth it has produced. The internet was developed by the government through a military R&D lab called DARPA. A military advanced technologies group and initially, it was to help universities and colleges share information and as a fall back communications grid in a national emergency (i.e., Nuclear attack). The government and the American people have gotten back their money, many times over.
Anyhow, time grows tight. Offshore drilling is at best a short term solution, to a long term problem that needs real attention now.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/5/2008 @ 7:49 pmPeter, amusingly your knowledge of the internet is as thin and superficial as your knowledge of energy policy.
DARPA did not develop the internet as we know it. DARPA funded the creation of a very primitive network which slowly expanded among educational institutions and a handful of technology companies. And in fact, it was nearly strangled by government control which for many years forbade commercial uses. The real creation of the internet that we see today happened in untold thousands of little creative corners of the world when capitalism was allowed to work upon it. The key tools, that of the web server and browser were not DARPA projects.
Likewise, we’ve seen government funded energy projects for decades that continually fail to deliver any real progress in energy.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/5/2008 @ 7:58 pmGotten over your cowardice yet, petey?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 8:04 pmThere is a fascinating “oral history” of the development of the internet in the issue of Vanity Fair with Angelina Jolie on the cover.
I think the actual “World Wide Web” as we know it was the creation of a French gov’t entity, but the technology that created the WWW was the product of DARPA work in the late 1960s, and it really evolved from the desire of scientist to be able to use one terminal to exchange information with other teminals at multiple institutions. As it was, only two terminals could communicate back and forth so it was necessary for each institution to have as many computer terminals as there were other institutions that they wanted to exchange data with. Thus the “network” was born.
WLS (26b1e5) — 8/5/2008 @ 8:06 pm“I think the actual “World Wide Web” as we know it was the creation of a French gov’t entity,”
The http protocol was first used by a contractor at CERN, which is pan-european, and located in Switzerland, but close to France.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee#Inventing_the_World_Wide_Web
afall (ef3b4a) — 8/5/2008 @ 8:18 pmWLS: the technology that created the WWW was the product of DARPA work
Tim Berners-Lee of CERN a pure research agency (in keeping with the development of the internet by pure research agencies and universities) created the protocols and standards of the WWW in 1990.
The first web server was developed by the Standford Linear Accelerator Center in 1991.
The first popular browser was developed by, yet another non free market entity, the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) at the University of Illinois who released it’s mosaic browser in 1993 of which it’s direct descendent is Netscape.
So, SPQR. You’re wrong.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/5/2008 @ 8:32 pmPeter, no, I’m not. This is hilarious because it is yet another arena in which you are out of your league. I was actually in the software and networking business in the ’80’s and early ’90’s. I was actually working with and in some cases actually writing the tools you are talking about. I know the actual TCP/IP protocol stack used in modern networking. I know how much of it was developed with DARPA funds and how much wasn’t.
By the way, you seem to have forgotten, if you ever knew it, that Netscape was a private enterprise.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/5/2008 @ 8:45 pmLying again, eh, Petey? SPQR is NOT wrong, and you should know better, after you Googled those names.
You should try Googling the word ARPANET, just so you can understand why I’m laughing at you again.
Coward.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 8:47 pmFor christ’s sake, I had friends writing code for Bolt, Berenak and Newman in the late ’70’s you silly twit.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/5/2008 @ 8:49 pmIf you haven’t read the story in VF, you should. It got all its information in the form of quotes from all the earliest pioneers — even the actual guy who came up with the data packets idea upon which the internet is based.
If I recall correctly, it was a $3 million contract given by DARPA to Bolt,Berenak, and Newman that launched the development of the first “network server” if you want to call it that. I think Raytheon was the losing company in a two company contest.
WLS (26b1e5) — 8/5/2008 @ 8:55 pmHere’s the story.
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/07/internet200807
As a non-tech guy, I was absolutely fascinated reading this very abridged version of a historical marvel.
WLS (26b1e5) — 8/5/2008 @ 8:58 pmWLS, haven’t seen it. Were they describing ALOHA net? It was actually a radio transmission technique that was copied by Xerox PARC to the basic ethernet idea by using it on a cable instead of an antenna.
It might make more sense to ascribe all of modern computing ideas to Xerox than DARPA … at least it would not be any less accurate than Peter.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:02 pmSo, I’ll settle this argument with this from a guy named Larry Roberts:
Larry Roberts: There were two competing bids that were particularly close, BBN and Raytheon. And I chose between them based on the team structure and the people. I just felt that the BBN team was less structured. There wouldn’t be as many middle managers and so on.
Bob Kahn: Larry Roberts was an engineer. In fact, Larry probably could have built the Arpanet himself, would be my guess, except there would have been nobody at arpa to run the program who was capable. When Larry contracted with us at BBN to do it, you know, in some sense he kept his fingers in the pie right through that whole period.
On an eight-month deadline, the BBN team delivered their prototype I.M.P. to U.C.L.A. on August 30, 1969.
Leonard Kleinrock: September 2, 1969, is when the first I.M.P. was connected to the first host, and that happened at U.C.L.A. We didn’t even have a camera or a tape recorder or a written record of that event. I mean, who noticed? Nobody did. Nineteen sixty-nine was quite a year. Man on the moon. Woodstock. Mets won the World Series. Charles Manson starts killing these people here in Los Angeles. And the Internet was born. Well, the first four everybody knew about. Nobody knew about the Internet.
So the switch arrives. Nobody notices. However, a month later, Stanford Research Institute gets their I.M.P., and they connect their host to their switch. Think of a square box, our computer, connected to a circle, which is the I.M.P., 5, 10 feet away. There’s another I.M.P. 400 miles north of us in Menlo Park, basically at Stanford Research Institute. And there’s a high-speed line connecting those two. We are now prepared to connect two hosts together over this fledgling network.
So on October 29, 1969, at 10:30 in the evening, you will find in a log, a notebook log that I have in my office at U.C.L.A., an entry which says, “Talked to SRI host to host.” If you want to be, shall I say, poetic about it, the September event was when the infant Internet took its first breath.
WLS (26b1e5) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:02 pmThe problem being that the people investing the most money towards alternatives and increased efficency are the same people Obama wants to take all the money from…
The Oil Companies…
A million cars in 10 years? That’s less than 1%, and where are you getting the power from? With Wind, Solar, and biofuels being less far less efficient than oil, how are you going to create the power to run those cars?
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:04 pmWLS, that describes the lower levels of the communications protocols that the modern Internet depends upon. The lower levels of communication that exchange packets. But DARPA’s version of networking is used for little more than exchanging email among educational institutions and exchanging porn among computer science students.
But the real reason that the Internet we know of exists, is later in the story when Mosaic is commercialized by Netscape.
Well, that and the invention of the network file system ( NFS ) but that’s another story.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:10 pmWLS, this is the standard way to model networking protocols, notice that what Roberts and Kahn are talking about are pieces of the bottom layers, like 1 through 4. The protocols on the top, like “http” are application specific and they are what the web we understand today are built on.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:13 pmWLS can you send me your email address. Thx
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:14 pmSo SPQR were the developers of the Web Server, the WWW protocol and standards and the Web browser. Private companies or research labs or Universities?
Answer the question.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:21 pmYeah, Peter’s sneaking around behind the scenes trying to get me banned, rather than facing me like a man.
He’s a coward and a liar.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:21 pmWLS, I skimmed through the Vanity Fair piece. It has some good anecdotes, but I think it jumps around a bit so you don’t get a good sense of chronology.
I like this from Andreesen who kinda establishes more of my point – talking about creating Mosaic:
“Mosaic was a side project that one of my colleagues and I started in our spare time, for several reasons: One, we didn’t think the real project we were working on at the time was going to go anywhere. And, two, all this interesting stuff was happening on the Internet. And so we basically said to ourselves, you know, if a lot of people are going to connect to the Internet, if only because of e-mail, and if all the P.C.’s are going to be going graphical, then you’ve got this whole new world where you’re going to have a lot of graphical P.C.’s on the Internet. Somebody should build a program that lets you access any of these Internet services from a single graphical program.”
So he admits that while he was working on a project that was government funded – the foundation of the browser was not really a government project – but his work on his spare time.
And Andreesen cofounds a private company to really develop it – Netscape.
This is why Peter’s understanding is so superficial.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:24 pmDrumwaster: A Troll with an unhealthy affection for his mother.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:24 pmPeter, I’m getting more than a little tired of how often you spout off with your superficial “expertise”.
The foundations of the internet were rooted in DARPA and some other academic work. ( CERN was a European physics lab as an example ).
But the Internet we know today exists because private enterprise was finally ( after many years of being banned from DARPA networks ) allowed to take the primitive tools and run with them.
The original DARPA researchers saw the internet as having simple text based tools to be used to browse through databases of research papers and libraries. Nothing more. It took Netscape to expand those horizons many many orders of magnitude.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:27 pmPeter, did I omit mentioning your filthy little mouth alongside your superficial knowledge?
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:28 pmHate to be the one to point it out, but it doesn’t matter what he was doing in his spare time. The Browser was an extension of work he was doing thanks to government funds and access to there data and knowledge base and infrastructure. Any technology developed by a research scientist working under contract to a lab is owned by that lab, or research entity.
This is standard practice and I honestly do not need any schooling from you about Xerox’s ground breaking work on interfaces.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:31 pmPeter, you evidently need a lot of schooling. Not all technology developed by a research scientist is always owned by the lab or “research entity”. That depends on the actual terms of the contracts.
Go back to teaching your grandmother to suck eggs.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:34 pmYou have yet to admit that the first browsers were clunky affairs used by researchers and that the Mosaic is the the first true popular browser and it was developed at the University of Chicago that really used the strenghts of the WWW standards developed by Tim Berner-Lee at CERN.
I’m sorry the facts are so inconvenient to your fragile ego, but I’m not the one who stuck his foot in his mouth all because he needed to provide a little humiliation in support of his troll friend with the mother fixation. Chump.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:36 pmAnd pray tell what ass backwards research entity wouldn’t make a researcher or a scientist or even a technician or the clerical staff a Non Competition/non-disclosure agreement?
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:39 pmPeter, you’re a coward and a liar. Why is that?
You assert statements that have been proven false and you are incapable of growing the ‘nads to debate me honestly with good faith, choosing instead to lie, dodge questions, spout further nonsense and attempt to insult. Why is that?
You pretend to knowledge in fields you have only the most superficial of knowledge, then ignore those who clearly know better. Why is that?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:41 pmPeter, you need to quit copying so blatantly from your google searches and pretending that you understand what you are copying. You don’t understand any “facts”. Mosaic was the code base that became Netscape Navigator. Previous tools used on DARPA were things like gopher.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:41 pmCorrection: Mosaic was developed not at the University of Chicago, but the University of Illinois.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:42 pmPeter,
You are clueless. Neither a “non competition” agreement nor a “non disclosure” agreement transfers ownership or authorship of intellectual property.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:42 pmAh, memories…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:46 pmPeter, you really are out of your league. I practice intellectual property law. And before going to law school, I spent 15 years writing software and one of my expertises was in addressing network protocols like X.400 and LDAP.
I was working at the time with the tools you are busy searching the internet for explanations of. I was even coding some of them.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:48 pmIt’s no worse than Drum’s….
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:49 pmI’m hurt. I’ve been practically saint-like for the past weeks. I haven’t even insulted YOU more than once or twice… 😉
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:51 pmScott, well yeah but Drum’s not called me a “chump” yet – those are fighting words.
Drum, heck, I go back so far, I saw the original “kremvax” April Fool’s day hoax.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:52 pmCorrect. That requires an Assignment of Patent…
And I don’t believe such a thing is possible if the Asignee is the Government. They can, however, make you agree to not commercially produce the thing you made with their funds for a specified amount of time…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:54 pmThen why do I need to argue the basic fact that the Mosaic browser engine was developed by the NCSA at Univ. Of Illinios and it became the platform for Netscape, which is now the platform for Firefox, which has gone completely open sourse and been improved upon by thousands of programmers, designers, coders and UI and HCI specialists?
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:54 pmBut he’s called other worse…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:54 pmWhat if the Asignee is a lab (CERN or NCSA) or a University?
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:56 pmPeter, why are you still plagiarizing? You don’t even know what that sentence you copied means. You are not “arguing” anything, you are cut and pasting.
I was the one who first pointed out that Mosaic was the base for Netscape, a private venture, not you.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:58 pmI think its pretty funny to see Peter use terms he does not even know the meaning of.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:59 pmSheesh, Peter, I was forging email headers by typing SMTP commands with my bare hands before your parents even met each other.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/5/2008 @ 10:03 pmOnly if they really deserve it…
(Bonus points for anyone who can get that reference.)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 10:04 pmThis is your problem SPQR. You’re no where near as smart as you think you are. You really think you have a lock on that sort of knowledge? If you’ll remember I was the one who brought up Mosaic first, you thought you could slyly pretend it never happened and Netscape was the first browser, and it was for profit. So you were wrong then and you’re wrong now.
Next time maybe you should learn not to think you’re going to get away with acting like an arrogant pig.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/5/2008 @ 10:04 pmThe last time I tried any programming was using QBASIC. But I remember the Altair…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 10:05 pmPeter, actually I do get away with it. What you don’t get away with, is your habit of opining in areas you are ignorant of.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/5/2008 @ 10:06 pmOh, and Peter, I actually am as smart as I think I am. Got tests to prove it.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/5/2008 @ 10:07 pmWell, you’ve both (DW, SPQR) managed to kill what was an interesting thred about energy and all for the selfish reason that you both feel a need to humiliate me and insult me. And honestly I don’t really give a flying f—. But maybe you should apologize to WLS for being disrespectful to his Post and going off topic to act like a couple of Troll thugs.
Pffftt……
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/5/2008 @ 10:08 pmIn an earlier Ctrl-C+Ctrl-V, but you didn’t bring it up, you just copied the text first on the page.
Did you bother Googling ARPANET, or was it just more cut and paste?
In fact, give me a few minutes and I’ll bet I can find the exact page you plagiarized* your entire argument from.
Care to wager?
* – “Plagiarize” is when you both lie and steal.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 10:09 pmMore apathy for facts. Wow. Simply shocking.
Whah is everbuddy alluz pickin’ on meee? (He’s a clown…)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 10:11 pmYour original attempt at a point, Peter, was about how wonderful government funded research in energy was going to be, and you tried to make an analogy to DARPA.
But as I said, government funded energy research is not the panacea you think. We’ve sunk a lot of money into government funded “alternative” energy sources and gotten little for it.
And energy “plans” like Obama’s that depend on nonexistant technologies are silly fantasies.
As I think Hewitt said recently, the Democrats’ energy policy today is Marie Antoinette, “let them eat cake”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/5/2008 @ 10:14 pmChris: Yea, we can live with you again even though you are a dangerous retard!
Icy Truth (4beca1) — 8/5/2008 @ 10:21 pmPeter: Chris, don’t say retard. we preffer to be called ‘little people’ because there is nothing wrong with being mentally challenged. In fact, i’ve learned we are superior, above all you dumb brainy smarties , and one day you will beg us for mercy…and we will consider it.
When I read Petey’s C&Ps, I have this mental image of a Pakled: “We are smart. We look for things. Things to make us go.”
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 10:27 pmOne logical error in Obama’s thinking is his statement that any new projects we start today will take 5 to 10 years to show results. Okay, but what on earth is his plan to give us energy 5 to 10 years from now? The MSM is lame for letting him get away with that.
Wesson (f6c982) — 8/5/2008 @ 10:37 pmIt isn’t just Obama. Pelosi plies the same pile of piffle. They don’t care if the people they rely on for votes suffer. Nine percent approval rating and she congratulates herself for what the House achieved during this session? And now, slavishly following Obama’s lead, she’s written a memoir of becoming the first female Speaker, titled “Know Your Power” (it is all about power, ya know).
Icy Truth (4beca1) — 8/5/2008 @ 11:03 pmSaying “drill for oil” as an end unto itself, fails to see the larger problem, which is huge in scale and goes deeper than simply drilling. It’s that Big Oil is a dysfunctional industry that has no incentive to become more efficient or productive. It’s a monopoly on the distribution of oil and gas in this country and around the world and it does it in the guise of a “free market high performer” (and it’s interesting the way a free market treats a monopoly so), The big five oil companies have been devoting less and less of their profits to capital expenditures which includes R&D, new technology, new equipment, refineries and even drilling on lands that they already own since the 80s.
Source.
Instead the top five oil Co’s are more concerned with buying back stock and not finding oil or lowering the price or helping the American consumer in any way. Seems like a few weeks ago, every time the price of oil went down the stock of these big companies lost value which seems counter-intuitive to a long term solution to say the least.
Peter – The crap you spew above is one big pile of distortions, lies and ignorance. Your understanding of business and the stock market seems as minimal as tour understanding of the military. The actions of the U.S. oil industry and the stock market in response should be readily understandable to anybody with a modicum of understanding of economics who actually took the time to THINK through the environment in which they operate. It’s blatantly obvious that you have not, cupcake.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/6/2008 @ 7:41 am