. /../The definitive oil thread./ 1234
the bestest ever
written by Medeivalstargazer on Jun 05, 2008 21:19
Geekofdeath said:
Lightning4 said:
Raptorjedi said:
Outside of fiction? Slim to none

Chances are the world would just collapse, and we'd be living like people did a hundred years ago, only worse, because they didn't have automatic weapons and missiles a hundred years ago
Of course those only last as long as the supply does. The missiles would probably run out real fast, and automatic weapons would probably be abandoned in favor of something less wasteful. Sure, they're great at killing people and all, but at 1000 bullets a minute, you're going to run empty real fast.

And with the deterioration and collapse of transport and economy, getting more ammo is gonna be tough.

Before long we'll be shooting arrows and swinging swords again. Well, okay. I don't think pistols will go anywhere. It'll probably be more like the early 18th century again.
So Einstein was wrong, World War III will be fought with sticks and stones.
Well, no, he was right. It will be fought with the weapons we have stockpiled as of now =]. What is that? http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab19.asp Lots and lots of nukes =]
written by Monty on Jun 06, 2008 08:17
They missed out India, Pakistan and Israel.

By the way, someone said they went to a public school ... Is that 'public school' as in private or as in state? Got to love this confusing language.

edit:
My mistake, they do mention those countries down the bottom.
hello there
written by Duskesko on Jun 06, 2008 08:46
Monty said:
Is that 'public school' as in private...
I lolled hard.
rawr
written by Raptorjedi on Jun 06, 2008 08:47
In the US, public schools are funded by the state, and private schools aren't. That's the easiest way to tell the difference. So if someone said they go to a public school, it likely means state funded. I understand things are different across the ocean in Limeyland, which is just one of those things that makes Limeyland so crazy

To better define it, a public school in the US is the same as a state school in Limeyland and Australia.


Edit: I'm lawling at Duskesko, because he doesn't understand Limeyland talk (even if they are crazy ).
written by Ouch on Jun 06, 2008 17:39
well technically, public schools in the US are defined by being state funded, yes. But they are also run by a bunch of morons and rejects that couldn't get in to a higher paying job like those offered at private schools.

at least that's how it was back when I went to school...
krush kill 'n destroy
written by Geekofdeath on Jun 07, 2008 16:14
Raptorjedi said:
In the US, public schools are funded by the state, and private schools aren't. That's the easiest way to tell the difference. So if someone said they go to a public school, it likely means state funded. I understand things are different across the ocean in Limeyland, which is just one of those things that makes Limeyland so crazy

To better define it, a public school in the US is the same as a state school in Limeyland and Australia.


Edit: I'm lawling at Duskesko, because he doesn't understand Limeyland talk (even if they are crazy ).
I believe all schools are funded by the state, but private ones don't get as much money...

EDIT:
Oh... there is a public school, a charter school and then the private school.

Public schools are funded and controlled by the state government. Charter schools are also funded by the government, but are allowed to operate for the most part on their own as long as they produce certain results. Private schools are entirely paid for by the students' parents, no government funding at all.

However, the only reason why private schools get no government funding is because most of them are religious (i.e., Catholic) schools. The separation of Church and State prevents this from happening. Theoretically, a secular private school could get funding, but they generally don't because funding comes with regulation.

EDIT2:

Duskesko said:
Monty said:
Is that 'public school' as in private...
I lolled hard.
Actually, it seems that in the U.S., all public schools are funded by the state. In the U.K., they are private secondary schools. The U.S. public school is the U.K. state school. For the U.K. public school, its probably best to refer it to an independent school to remove some ambiguity. I'm not British and I've never been to the U.K. (Wikipedia ftw!), so you can correct me if you live there.

/yawn. That's bureaucracy for you.
└> last changed by Geekofdeath on June 07, 2008 at 16:31
hello there
written by Duskesko on Jun 07, 2008 20:04
The definitive oil thread.

the bestest ever
written by Medeivalstargazer on Jun 07, 2008 23:21
Duskesko said:
The definitive oil thread.

Thank you. They were derailing xP
written by Deanfrz on Jun 07, 2008 23:44
Oddly enough, catholic schools are the one place where you aren't likely to ever have to worry about your children being exposed to Intelligent Design and creationism. Catholic's are by and large still embarrassed about torturing Galileo and threatening to burn him at the stake, and so rarely dispute science these days and have grown quiet fond of the phrase "The Lord moves in mysterious ways" whenever asked to explain some inconsistency between scripture and reality.
Almost as fond as they are of saying "keep your science away from my religion and I'll keep my religion away from your science. Please dont associate us with protestants, whatever they choose to call themselves."

Of course, they're dismissal of birthcontrol in any variety can easily be misinterpreted as being anti-science, when in fact it embraces the well know principle of not using condoms makes more catholics.

This is due to a little known theory that the afterlife might be run democratically.

But I digress.


All told, the American invasion of Iraq is likely a geopolitical effort to seize the oil fields and prevent the money from flowing only to American friendly hands. It's the last major unexploited reserve outside of North America(Nevada fields, if they exist, are presumably the world's largest, though much deeper than reserves in the middle east. The fact that the USGS has never surveyed Nevada for oil and the single most productive oil well in the world is in Nevada will likely save the United States from economic obscurity once all known oil reserves are tapped.)

That said, if anyone thinks the tussle we are in right is a major war, I'd be afraid to share with you my predictions for the next 365 days.
written by Monty on Jun 11, 2008 00:14
Deanfrz said:
"the American invasion of Iraq is likely a geopolitical effort to seize the oil fields and prevent the money from flowing only to American friendly hands"

Do you actually mean to "to prevent"? Seems counter productive for America.

I've never been convinced by the oil theory of the invasion, but then all other theories (Like WMDs! Oh, how we all didn't laugh) are equally unconvincing.

I recently read somewhere - couldn't say where - that the reason Britain went into the war was because someone in the American administration was threatening Blair with blackmail to do with something. Unfortunately probably not true, otherwise we would be able to blame America and feel smug.

A more convicing theory is that almost all the WMD info came from a single, unreliable ex pat Iraqi source in Germany; the Germans passed it on to the MI6; the MI6 shared it with the CIA before they both passed it on bearing a post-it note saying "work of a nutter" to Rumsfelt; the post-it apparently fell off in the post; and then we went to war.
written by Monty on Jun 11, 2008 00:20
And yes, public does mean private occassionally in English "Limeyland talk". Logic's a wonderful thing, keep up you colonials.
/ducks and runs for cover
written by Deanfrz on Jun 11, 2008 01:03
Eh... It was a mistake... They want to make sure the money flows only into US friendy hands. or at least put US friendly hands around the neck of the oil representing cartoon
absent more than alex
written by Shadowlord on Jun 20, 2008 20:18
Medeivalstargazer said:
Any input? I'd like to find out just how much it does cost to drill, ship, and market oil here; per barrel. See how much of a profit they are turning, and how long we may have.
I have a few thoughts.

As much as the skyrocketing oil prices are squeezing everyone else, the big oil companies are reaping windfall profits from them. And: If you're collecting oil, and burning it for fuel, and you own the means of transporting it, you can't really go broke transporting it to market because you're just using some of it in the process. You could only go broke if the economy collapses as a result of everyone else being unable or unwilling to buy it anymore. (Or if you run out of oil entirely)

Nuclear power: It takes decades to construct a safe nuclear plant and bring it online, and it has to be in a safe location - and safe locations are changing due to climate change (sea level rise, changes in winds, heat, affecting hurricanes, tornadoes, etc).

Drilling for more oil or making more coal plants is a Bad Idea unless we start taking CO2 out of the atmosphere and transforming it into solid stuff (and accelerate the process rapidly - we need a net reduction in atmospheric CO2 levels per year to try to reverse the damage we're doing). And we need to be doing that even if we aren't burning more oil and coal.

What I think is funny is that I haven't heard any Republicans (or anyone at all) voice this thought yet : Maybe the Republicans were right all along - Maybe they really DIDN'T need to put a cost on carbon. Maybe the market IS dealing with climate change on its own, just like they said it would. What is driving the rising cost of oil? Adam Smith's Invisible Hand. (Concern over climate change making oil more and more expensive to discourage its use and encourage the use and development of alternative energy sources which were previously more expensive than oil)
reading this thread
no members are reading this thread
. /../The definitive oil thread./ 1234
39674, 11 queries, 0.098 s.this frame is part of the AnyNowhere network