As a budding evil genius I can definitely see a use for this. Screens to monitor my growing army of robotic servants. Screens to monitor my outside and inside security. A good view from the robotic fly I sent to investigate my enemies business. Beside the fact that this has a really high evil genius coolness factor of being the center of an electronic universe just like I am the center of the real universe. Borderline Narcissist. I'll show you just how borderline my Narcissism is my dear therapist.

The problem with nationalizing a company - any company - by the US government is that is pretty much opens a door that is very hard to close. Further, once that door is open just a tiny little bit it makes it pretty obvious to anyone with sizable assets and either potential or actual large-scale liabilities that the same thing might happen to them. Suddenly, the US is a very bad place to have any assets because they might get seized.

The Ixtoc 1 spill of 1979 was nothing like this. It was in relatively shallow water and most of the oil stayed on the surface of the water. A significant portion of this oil spill is sitting below the water, perhaps aided by the use of dispersant chemicals, causing damage in ways we can't calculate yet.

I have heard this argument over and over. It would be a valid argument IF the oil was going to mix with the water until it makes a homogeneous mixture. It is not. The issue that people who make this assumption completely ignore is the fact that oil and water don't mix. The danger of the oil completely mixing with the oceans and creating some giant slushy of oil and water is unlikely considering the size of the ocean but the overall volume of the ocean isn't the issue. The surface area is. How much oil would it take to cover enough of the surface of the ocean to cause catastrophic results.

If the oil was going to be distributed completely through the volume of the ocean you would be correct. However, the oil won't be a homogeneous mix but will instead float on top.

Global cooling was never a serious contender. Outside of a few scenarios the only places where the coming ice age was even considered as a possibility was in magazines like Time. If you actually look at the papers published during this time period you can see the lack of scientific backing for the idea.

I cannot help but ponder how many of the people calling for open access to the information would scream about intellectual property rights if someone asked them to do the same.

No, its a waste of resources to those of us who know that we can't solve our problems by leaving. We will just be carrying our problems with us by pretending the solution is out there somewhere. This insane and continuous focus on other there instead of in here. Moving into space will not alleviate greed, it will not alleviate over-population. It will not alleviate the wasting of resources or the pollution of our living spaces. It will simply allow us to go somewhere else and do the same thing to some other place.

The difficulty with your argument is that you have not factored other areas which are affected by oil supplies. We have relatively cheap agriculture because it runs on oil or coal based fertilizers. When the price of oil goes up the price of fertilizer goes up. Farms use a wide range of petroleum powered machines which factor into the cost of your food. Added to the cost of your food is the packaging which it comes in which are almost exclusively created from petroleum products. When the cost of oil goes up then the price of the food goes up. The real source of the problem is that most people don't realize how ubiquitous petroleum products have become in our lives. It is not simply about the cost of driving your car or driving the truck which delivers the products.

Greetings and Felicitations, "Darwin was a Monk and prayed every day" I don't know where you got this piece of information from but it is incorrect. Darwin was not a monk. I think perhaps you are confusing the life of Gregor Mendel with Darwin. Sincerely Yours, C. David Neely