Indeed, all energy sources are of finite supply, but its a question of scale. There's a finite amount of fossil fuels, the sun only puts on a finite amount of light and the lifetime of the Sun is limited, and there is a finite amount of trapped heat inside of the Earth. In fact, there is a finite amount of hydrogen available in the universe with which to form stars. But we as a species are trying to maintain our style/standard of living out as far as possible - currently, our efforts are at extending our society beyond the availability of fossil fuels. One day, hopefully, we will be trying to extend our society beyond the life of the Sun. The issue now, is how do we get beyond fossil fuels?

The ultimate energy source, for which we all hope, is to master controlled fusion. We're not there yet. So we look to other sources to fill the need as fossil fuel supply dwindles. Together, solar, wind and geothermal may be able to bridge the gap. If, as some suggest, fusion will forever be illusive, then I'm afraid we're already screwed.

As to your question, IIRC, at current consumption rates, we would barely make a dent into the stored heat inside the Earth; however, you are correct, if we continue to grow consumption and suck heat out indefinitely, it will eventually make a difference, but that is hopefully far enough out into the future that it permits us to perfect fusion.

Really? We're citing Jon Stewart as an authoritative source, now?

I hate to double post, but I just found this map. It explains why so little electricity is produced in the Southeast. Its a map of the available annual wind power for the US.

West Virginia is typically considered the second poorest state in the union, yet we've managed to erect lots of windmills. This is probably because we have an existing transmission infrastructure due to our history of being significant electricity producer.

Unfortunately, there is a growing movement against the windmills here. They're erected on our ridge tops and, apparently, the tourists don't appreciate their photo-ops being "marred" by dozens of windmills.

The curious thing about all of this is that the general sentiment is:
Civil Suit vs. BP = We Need Punatives!!
Civil Suit vs. individual pirates = Punatives are unfair!!!

No, its just that that particular post got rather specific.

That's the point of establishing a evidentiary foundation. You testify under oath as to: 1) Here's the process by how I acquired it; and 2) the printout is a fair and accurate representation of the data contained in my GPS log. While it may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, that's the basic gist of it. Most judges I've appeared before were rather lax with evidentiary issues.

If the cop wants to challenge the validity of it, he can certainly do that on cross examination - or even voir dire before the logs are admitted as evidence. I would be amazed though, if the cop knew enough law to be able to effectively challenge its admission.

Unfortunately, and this goes back to the earlier post about videoing police during official stops, the old school judges seem to have a presumption in favor of police, so its an uphill battle regardless. Your closing argument would have to be along the lines of: a) I like cops; b) they're good for society; c) they would never intentionally lie and mistakes are rare, BUT THEY DO HAPPEN; etc...

The above, while it is general legal information, does not constitute legal advice. No one should rely upon the above statements and no attorney-client relationship has been established thereby. If you have been charged with a crime, you should immediately consult a local attorney.

Perhaps the cities would fall, sure. Fortunately, all those redneck skills/traits for which we hillbillies are typically mocked will certainly slow down any would be invader once they reach the Appalachians.

Um, that's how this trading game works. I make money. Someone else has to lose it. I want to buy a certain stock at $5/share because I think the price is going up. You want to sell that same stock at $5/share because you think it is going down. I buy the stock and it goes up to $5.10 five minutes after my purchase and I immediately sell it. It means you made a bad decision by not waiting five more minutes to sell. I made a good decision. You lost money. I made money. Rinse and repeat. Who ever makes the most good decisions wins. It is gambling - but slightly less gambling than poker and significantly less gambling than an entirely random game of chance.

Traders like trading stock. They add their money to the pool. More money in the pool distributed across the market increases the market value of companies in which they invest. The higher market value enables those companies to borrow on better terms or otherwise raise additional capital. That additional capital helps the company grow creating real return for actual investors. Some traders win. Some traders lose. But long term investors are better off either way. QED.

My initial reaction while watching that live was that true market forces nearly instantaneously corrected any glitch by returning the stocks to their perceived market value.

Of course, the counter to this is that the instability of the markets discourages investment which lowers the overall market cap. Eh, who knows...

Also consider the current backlash against the uber-wealthy (definitely in America, presumably around the world). You have movie stars and rock stars earning millions upon millions of dollars for performances not always considered worthy of the pay and a population who is apparently much less concerned about the well to do of the well-to-do.

For the music industry, a sustainable business model is to freely distribute recordings and charge higher for live performances. The availability of recordings acts as promotion for the live performances.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a comparable business model for the movie industry - unless they all want to go back to live performances.

What is this social interaction of which you speak? And do I want it?

The issue for me is that games are now too long for me to finish before I get interrupted by other responsibilities. Fallout 3 and Dragon Age were both interrupted and I failed to return back to them to finish, but have finished Halo 3 twice. I was probably 30+ hours into FO3 and DA:O, and got bored/distracted by other things in my life. The story line for Halo 3 takes about a leisurely weekend to get through.

That's my problem. I have momentary breaks in my life where I'll have a slow weekend or week that I can really get some gaming in. But if it takes more than a week or two to get through a story line, other responsibilities/interests arise, I get distracted, and by the time I have another break for gaming, I'm no longer interested.

Can a democrat accurately describe the fundamental ideology of members of the Republican party? Or does he or she assume that the most outlandish of Republicans represent the norm?

The Republican party I know is comprised of several distinct groups, not all necessarily mutually exclusive. One group believes in small government, less regulation, lower taxes. The Reagan Republicans, if you will. One group believes in laissez faire capitalism: the Randian Republicans. Another group believes in bigger government for the purposes of national defense and international manipulation. We'll call them the Bush Republicans. One other group believes in totalitarian government: the religious right.

Some members of the Republican party, myself included, despises the religious right and everything for which it stands. I also dislike the Bush Republicans.

As I've recently convinced my wife, both the religious right's stance and the Bush Republican stance is inconsistent with the fundamental basis of traditional Republican values. Fundamentally, we believe in less government involvement in everything - from business to individuals to international affairs. But without these other groups, we'd never win an election.

And now we see why Republicans are f$cked. In order to have any political clout, we sold our souls to the war machine and to God. We cannot abandon them (despite the Tea Party's now twisted goals) because without them, we're massively outnumbered by people who believe that governments should always be doing something.

So I've essentially given up. I believe that the government that governs least governs best. But I'm in the vast minority on that one. So I just have to suck it up and pay my taxes and grumble. Like this post.