"I have no idea why those people haven't killed each other off yet, they had two chances during the two World Wars. Such nasty people."

And some of these nasty people dare call Americans arrogant? Now, where could they ever get such an idea?

"The Oil Conglomerate's reaction that Gore is somehow inconsistent for flying around the world delivering his message -- given the CO2 his travels produce -- deserves a more substantial rebuttal. I mean, what is he supposed to do -- sit alone in his house with the lights off and only speak about the issue to his friends and family?"

And furthermore, if the oil industry's TV advertisement criticizes Gore for producing more carbon emissions than the average person, then the industry must be implicitly agreeing with Gore that carbon emissions are harmful, no?

"... I don't think its time to give up on our [America's] potential to help in Iraq."

Now, that is rich.

"These are not the characteristics of a police state. They are the characteristics of a liberal democracy under attack, protecting itself in a war of attrition against an enemy that uses suicide bombers against civilian targets as its weapon of choice."

While the state under attack is, of course, the innocent victim of these completely unmotivated attacks. After treating the Palestinians with fairness and justice for half a century.

Please note that I am not suggesting that killing civilians by suicide bombs is any more justified than taking away other civilians' land, herding them into ghettos, bulldozing their houses, firing rockets into their mosques, and shooting their children.

It's interesting to see that according to that PDF document, the U.S. was still trading with a country called "Germany, East" in 1994 and 2002.

Then there are the mysterious countries called "Transshipments", "Neutral Zone", and "Special Category Exports". And what in the world is "South Asia, n.e.s."?

Another great article, Andrew. And I'm not just saying that because I'm a Finn.

By the way, is your open-source book available in physical form? (I prefer to read longer works on paper.)

There are refineries outside the US, too. The US already imports a lot of refined fuel, since its demand is higher than its current refining capacity. Even if American companies don't want to invest in new refining capacity for one reason or another, the price signal still works for the rest of the world.

http://www.fuelforamerica.org/facts/qa.asp tells us: "Although 95% of total refined petroleum product demand is produced domestically, approximately 65% of the crude oil refined in the U.S. is imported from other nations."

Anderson's future is provocative because it twists the world we know now into something different, but is at the same time extraordinary for how deeply rooted that future is in a present that is all too familiar.

That sounds like a definition of the best sort of science fiction. Thanks for the tip.

The Bush administration apparently is contemplating an attack on Iran:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

I think ambassador Wilson got it right in an interview in September 2003.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_09_14.php

TPM: ... So, setting aside why we're in Iraq, how we go there, whether we should have gone in in the first place, where are we now? Where do you see our position right now?

WILSON: Well, I think we're fucked.

Isn't it a bit ironic that a writer who complains about Riverbend's anonymity signs his or her letter with a pseudonym?

He commends other Iraqi bloggers for "risking their lives" by signing their work. So does he demand everyone else in that situation do the same?

It is disgusting for someone in a safe place to demand that others risk their lives voluntarily -- even more than they are currently doing, involuntarily -- by revealing their names, before he considers their words worth reading. And this when he himself does not have the courage to do the same, posting from what is most probably a rather safe place. Also rather disgusting is the implied connection to Riverbend's "past relationship ... with the regime of Saddam Hussein and his Baathist thugs."

Though, admittedly, no more disgusting than the other apologia and propaganda for this bloody adventure.

I remember when I first started reading about fusion power, around 25 years ago. Up until that point, commercial fusion power had always been estimated about 20 years in the future. So no change there.

swartzer wrote:

Actually, a watt is one joule of energy over one second. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt)

Looking at the definition:

1 W = 1 J/s

which gives us, when both sides of the equation are multiplied by one second,

1 W*s = 1 J

In other words, like Andrew said, one joule is the amount of energy that is produced by the power of one watt during the period of on second.

Perhaps the confusion arises over how to translate the English word "over" in equations. In Andrew's sentence, "A joule is one watt of power for one second", "over" means "for the period of", i.e., it refers to multiplication. When you wrote "a watt is one joule of energy over one second", perhaps you meant "over" to refer to the division sign in the equation 1 W = 1 J/s.

It seems it's better stick to equations to impart the exact meaning of physical units.