Uncle Jax, the Nicest Asshole on the Well (jax) Sun 4 Jan 04 10:48
You're confusing big talk on the Internet with will, purpose and stamina. :-)
Ted (nukem777) Sun 4 Jan 04 10:55
I guess. But if the Dean blog is proving anything, and I'm not sure that it is -- Iowa and New Hampshire will tell if there is anything real behind the supposed momentum -- then there is some hope for some consensus of will, etc that might be formed on the Net. I think what I'm getting at is whether or not the Net can provide that kind of forum; if there is a new potential for electronic town halls, etc.
Uncle Jax, the Nicest Asshole on the Well (jax) Sun 4 Jan 04 10:59
It's like the One Ring -- it gives power according the stature. The probelm with American democracy isn't the channels of expression: the democracy throve when men rode horses for days through the spring mud to make stump speeches. No, it's the ease and comfort and jealous guardianship of wealth and world empire that's killing democracy. "Luxury lies upon us like a vampire / Avenging the captive nations we brought to heel" said Juvenal 1900 years ago in Imperial Rome.
Jon Lebkowsky (jonl) Sun 4 Jan 04 17:05
My recollection is that the One Ring assigns power to any entity (with opposable thumbs and a ring finger) that happens to possess it. What varies is tolerance: power corrupts the flesh and, where the flesh is weak, power destroys it. So who is Sauron in today's world? And who is Frodo?
The Fucked-Up Piano Chicks (magdalen) Sun 4 Jan 04 17:31
and where are the hot elf babes?
Paul Terry Walhus (terry) Sun 4 Jan 04 19:05
Flashback to Bookpeople a few months ago, you're plugging your new book and comparing the eminent invasion of Iraq to the Chechnyan ordeal. And you were making projections. How have those projections been shaping up and how has the Iraq War progressing vis a vis your prediction of that event? Who will win the Presidential election this year? Who will the Dems nominate? Who should they nominate? What's going to be the deciding factor in the Presidential campaign this year? (akin to "it's the economy stupid")
Bruce Sterling (bruces) Sun 4 Jan 04 21:08
Flashback to Bookpeople a few months ago, you're plugging your new book and comparing the eminent invasion of Iraq to the Chechnyan ordeal. And you were making projections. How have those projections been shaping up and how has the Iraq War progressing vis a vis your prediction of that event? *The Iraqis aren't fighting anywhere near so hard as the Chechnyans. Here are my musings from two years ago. From: Bruce Sterling Date: 9.21.01 In addressing the question of "What Now?" I want to speculate freely on what might happen on a large scale in the near term. Here are some rough scenarios, with my even vaguer estimate of their likelihood. A. Aum Shinry Kyo II. The malefactors of September 11 are rounded up with little effort, because they are not genuine provocateurs of a Clash of Civilizations; they are merely nuts. Only distantly connected to any serious revolutionary terrorist, they are in fact an obscure splinter cult who are mostly dead at their own hands. The suffering of New York City is seen in retrospect, not as a grand battle over any principle worth fighting for, but as a simple aberration that is both tragic and crazy, a loathsome, Jonestown-like phenomenon. No particular lessons are learned, very little changes in the global scene, but there's a lasting blow to general morale and to humanity's assessment of itself. Society is saddened and sickened, and people around the world are often seen to hesitate before setting foot in a subway or airliner. Probability: 15% B. Gulf War III. After a great deal of angst and sword-sharpening, there's a quick, surprising Coalition victory. Those who promised a ruthless struggle to the death in the Mother of All Battles are revealed as blowhards. Suicide bombing cells turn out to be careless and unprofessional terrorists, who are easily rounded up by street-wise cops. Americans and allies go back to their barracks, leaving a few extra Southwest Asian bases to keep guard on the troublemakers. A war-leader President with the gratitude of a relieved nation loses his re-election due to economic troubles. Probability: 25% C. Cold War II. A sustained ideological and economic struggle sets in between the G-8 and the world's poorest and bitterest countries. There are numerous hot-war flare-ups, much narco-terror, a great deal of ruthless, paramilitary spy skullduggery, and considerable civil dissent from dissidents in the West unable to morally stomach this grinding, Balkan-style dirty war. McCarthyism and witch-hunts flare up, while the sentiment of "Viva Osama" moves to a simmering Central America. There is huge, inflationary spending on imaginary, symbolic, and unusable super-weapons. The general American population is put under a level of police surveillance previously available only to American black people. This grinds on for decades, with America gamely bearing-any-burden, on until the opposition loses all heart and begins drinking itself to death. Probability: 15% D (1). Pearl Harbor Straight to Bretton Woods. Since there really is no military enemy to fight a few nasty guys with boxcutters there is a general economic and diplomatic rearrangement, without WWII's ugly bother of bombing and sacking whole continents. The original enemy a rather vaporous notion of "terrorism" is quickly lost sight of in a general, very wide-scale, geopolitical emergence into 21st century Modernity. This global New Deal moves Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam and other longterm pariahs into the "Civilized" camp, while the broken nations that are today considered basket-cases are made into blue-helmet protectorates. The Second World vanishes. From now on, there's just two sides: Real People, and some pariahs. Among the Real People, there is a great deal of general housecleaning: currency reforms, arms reduction, climate treaties, economic rationalization, demolition of trade barriers, labor laws, emigration, all that sort of thing. Everybody else The People Without Plumbing, basically have to live off a combination of empty threats and emergency handouts. Oddly, the one major power least likely to join the Real People is probably the United States, but the USA may have a grudging unilateral role as a kind of Third Way or Loyal Opposition. D (2) . 1989 Redux. Upset and alarmed by the unnecessary global mayhem so cynically triggering by madmen, civil society takes to the streets worldwide in a touching display of aspiration and political maturity. Democratization sweeps the Moslem world in a second wave of Velvet Revolution. A grateful mankind sees the martyrs of New York as the unwitting harbingers of a better and kinder way of life, which is full of caring, solidarity, human rights and social justice. This scenario is basically the same as D(1), but seen from the other side of the WTO fence and the Genoa barriers. Since Al Qaeda can't distinguish a Western radical from a Western capitalist, they are both in the same boat now and can henceforth work in tandem. Probability: 20% E. Greater Afghanistan. The Coalition suffers an outright military defeat at the hands of indomitable armed peasants, in a ruthless, bloody, punjee-stick dirty war, possibly combined with an unconventional use of weapons of mass destruction. NYC 9.11 turns out to be just the first of a series of bloody Tamerlane-style attacks from a growing and increasingly frenzied horde of enemies of the West. Nerve-shattered, the West takes the last copter from the Saudi embassy and sues for peace. This Qaeda victory scenario has a number of variants, which could exist singly or in combination. E1. The Empire Formerly Known As NATO. The US bears the blunt of blame for its clumsy handling of the global conflict, which relied so fatally on the so-called strength of America's arrogant and untenable free-market ideology. The defeated Alliance splits up much like its former mirror image, the Warsaw Pact. Without Persian Gulf oil, the American economy and its war machine both collapse. Severe discord and disillusionment ensues, with crime and corruption skyrocketing. Desperate Russian women leave the streets of every capital in the world and are replaced by desperate American women. E2(A). The Great Terror. A victory by fanatics careless of life becomes a giant Khmer Rouge-style death machine for Islam; the Aztec charisma of a Qaeda cult requires ever-greater human sacrifice, especially of one's own. A 12th-century lifestyle can only sustain a 12th-century population. E2(B). A Grand Caliphate. With malignant American and Jewish influence finally scorched from the holy lands of the Umma, a new Golden Age of just and tolerant Universal Islam ensues. It's ruled by Sharia law, under a wise and merciful Caliph who re-unites Sunni and Shi'a and outshines Haroun Al Rashid. A grateful mankind erects many grand and glorious mosques in memory of the warrior saints of Islamic fundamentalism; men whose tactics were rather rough, but in the eyes of history, fully justified. Combined probability of any of the E variants: 10% F. America Goes Bonkers. The globe's worst fears of a paranoid "Cowboy America" come true, as further terror provocations decapitate the American nation. A ferocious nuclear power, eyeballs gone rigid with a crazed lust for vengeance, launches a massive thermonuclear lynching spree. Probability: 2 % G. Many More Wild Cards. This is neither an "age of terror" nor an "age of freedom". This is an age of random calamities. It's a genuine end of history, in which the passage of time in human affairs no longer has any rules as we previously understood them. There is no great historical narrative at hand, nor is there any grand scheme by which a rational analyst can make useful sense of events. NYC 9.11 is quickly eclipsed by other, biggest factors even more untoward and shocking: perhaps dumber acts of terror by even smaller groups, plus some Greenhouse calamities, an asteroid strike, some brand-new plagues, or even free beer and five cent nano-genetic intelligent cigars. Humankind has lost all control of our destiny and nothing can restore it. Probability: 3% H. None of the Above. Probability: 10 ****************************************************** *At the moment we seem to be muddling along somewhere between "B" and "C." "D(2)" would now be officially dignified with the term "the Brasilia Consensus", but it remains to be seen if it can get any traction. http://www.iht.com/articles/122604.html Who will win the Presidential election this year? *If bin Laden is still alive, that's pretty much his decision. We Americans have never before forfeited so much initiative to an enemy. Who will the Dems nominate? Who should they nominate? *I'd suggest nominating a competent technocrat who can actually govern a major power, but when one looks across the political landscape there is just not a lot of depth of talent in anybody's politics anywhere. That would include not just the USA but Britain, Germany, Italy, France, Japan, and maybe Canada. The only political figure I see with serious stature right now is Lula from Brazil, and he's from Brazil, for heaven's sake. *The entire planet is politically weak. We're really at sixes and sevens. It's amazing that a blatant suicide cult like Al Qaeda has been able to push us all around for years on end now. We didn't used to flinch that way when we were facing the Soviet Union, a superpower run by Stalin and bristling with atom bombs. If we had any idea of what we wanted and how to get there, their grotesque parody of visionary glamor would have faded long ago. We have a "dream gap" with the Mujihadeen because our own politics are so blatantly vapid. What's going to be the deciding factor in the Presidential campaign this year? (akin to "it's the economy stupid") *I don't think the American political establishment has enough initiative to supply its own deciding factors. If the Special Forces manage to drag bin Laden out of a rathole, that could do it right there. Alternatively, if the Moodge get lucky on their third attempt and kill Musharraf, we could see a major-league Pakistani bloodbath that would be so weird, scary and freaky that everything done since 9/11 would seem sort of childishly misguided and irrelevant. Or the dollar could implode, or there could be the mother of all Enron - Parmalat scandals, or SARS could re-emerge and eat everybody's lunch, or there could be the long-expected scandalous eruption of Iran-Contra II, "Iran-Neocontra." Somebody could offer the President a blowjob and the Republic would fall straight to its knees. I wouldn't be surprised if the political landscape on election day has as little resemblance to today as September 12 2000 had with September 12 2001.
Paul Terry Walhus (terry) Sun 4 Jan 04 21:42
I see you don't share the commonly held love affair with Dean or Austin's latest darling, Kucinich (Willie even wrote a song for him). These guys don't shake your tree?
Jon Lebkowsky (jonl) Mon 5 Jan 04 02:03
Maybe this is relevant: http://www.bopnews.com/archives/000124.html#000124 "And this is the final failure of the long string in Traub's article - he sees what people who sit in the media bubble think of as America - an American that is a herd of consumers to be pushed towards which ever image a small group selects. Who sees politics as a sport - in that it is decided by a few megamillionaires making inside decisions about which team it recruits - and that the involvement of the public is limited to buying tickets, worshipping quarterbacks, and cheering or jeering. "And this change, of citizen-participants, willing to follow arguments in full about the manner and direction of American policy - away from consumer-voters who care more about how someone looks in a flight suit - is backed by hard data. The decline of the nightly network news into a side show demonstrates it - it is the small cable news shows which drive discussion now, with running commentaries on Meet The Press, Hardball, Crossfire and Washington Week in Review occuring on forums with thousands of readers - who then turn and take the impressions they form with their electronic coffee house companions out as conventional wisdom. Watching the rating of the big three news programs plunge from virtually every house with a television set, to less that a fifth of the population should tell people what they need to know about the decline of image bite, sound bite and thought bite politics. The mass image still pushes the buttons of those who follow it, as the "chopped down Christmas tree" that pollkatz follows, and which bopnews looked at in Post Pop. There is a shock from an image, and a pop, but the net of conversation and reinforcement that turns the perception into an immovable factoid isn't there any more. Bush gets a bounce, but not a boost." -- Stirling Newberry
Jon Lebkowsky (jonl) Mon 5 Jan 04 02:04
While I'm thinking of it: nonmembers of the WELL who are reading this interview and have questions or comments can send them to inkwell-hosts at well.com, and they'll be posted here.
virtual community or butter? (bumbaugh) Mon 5 Jan 04 10:06
And here's one now: Bruce, How do you see the near-future of energy politics shaping up? The USA just parked tanks on a third of the middle east's oil, but now we've got to pay the price for actually extracting it. Do you think at some point energy independence for the USA is going to make it into political consciousness? And if so, from the right or the left wing? Vinay Gupta
from MICHAEL SEMER (tnf) Mon 5 Jan 04 12:41
Michael Semer writes: Is it utterly cynical of me to wonder if the American "petrocracy's" aims aren't being better suited by dragging out the "hunt" for Osama until we've secured all the aims laid out in the Neocons' infamous "Next American Century" precis? I'm afraid I can't buy any hooey from the White House about how we've suddenly become evangelizers for democracy. The underlay here is strategic and capitalistic, and Al Qaeda provides a convenient enemy at exactly the right moment for the Wolfowitzes of the world. Methinks there's a moment of clarity for Osama and the boys when they see an Iraq or Afghanistan semihegemonized, rock back, whack their foreheads and declare, "Crap! I can't believe we fell for it!"
Uncle Jax, the Nicest Asshole on the Well (jax) Mon 5 Jan 04 13:06
Well, he may be making the same mistake Bill Clinton did in thinking the White House really runs things all the time. By contrast, listen to Bush himself as he struggles to change the course of the ship of state. This from http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2003/11/07/bush_urges_mi deast_to_accept_democracy/ ... In an unusually candid assessment of Mideast policy by a US president, Bush said decades of support by Washington and its allies of nondemocratic regimes in the region did not work, but that the United States had now adopted a "forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East." "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty," Bush said in a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy, a federally funded group that promotes democratic efforts worldwide. ... So there are wheels within wheels. I'm not saying that the policies adopted are necessarily likely to bring about the desired goals, but there's apparently some real thinking going on, even inside the president's cranium.
Ted (nukem777) Mon 5 Jan 04 13:09
I'll third that. If we hadn't run out of money, I'm thinking we'd be in Syria right now. It does look like Pakistan is the real problem, with very little focus going on there. Any thoughts as to how that may play out?
Paul Terry Walhus (terry) Mon 5 Jan 04 16:37
When's your next Bookpeople gig?
Bruce Sterling (bruces) Mon 5 Jan 04 18:54
Bruce, How do you see the near-future of energy politics shaping up? *It doesn't look good. I would predict continuing domestic troubles with blackouts and price spikes. The worst problem is that the near-future of energy policy was Enron's for the asking, and with them gone there's nobody left but morons, hucksters and terrorists. Enron was no good either! It's like watching a brothel on fire. *It's just bound to dawn on people eventually that oil ruins every government it dominates. It doesn't matter what race, color or creed you are, if you put oil people in power they grab the wellhead, surround it with bayonets and watch society wither. *Iraq is just the poster-boy for that. Venezuela, Nigeria, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, they all suffer the curse of oil. Norway is the exception to the rule. The USA used to do okay, but as soon as they put oil people in power they went for the throats of the nearest available enemy oil clan. If you think of the USA as behaving like an average oil-state right now their behavior makes perfect sense. The USA just parked tanks on a third of the middle east's oil, but now we've got to pay the price for actually extracting it. Do you think at some point energy independence for the USA is going to make it into political consciousness? *No, I think this kind of Gandhian economic nationalism makes no sense. Energy is always a patchy resource, and if you live next to Quebec, what's the big deal? Buy some of their hydropower and sell them maple syrup or something. *Personally I buy a lot of Texan wind power, but it's generated by Danish windmills. And if so, from the right or the left wing? *It distresses me to see "right wing energy" and "left wing energy." There are people around who will tear off solar panels because they were put up by lefties in Birkenstocks. This is craziness. Lenin didn't have a patent on sunlight. It's too important an issue for this kind of Coke-Pepsi partisanship. Michael Semer writes: Is it utterly cynical of me to wonder if the American "petrocracy's" aims aren't being better suited by dragging out the "hunt" for Osama until we've secured all the aims laid out in the Neocons' infamous "Next American Century" precis? *Yes, that is utterly cynical. Osama isn't somebody's pet scorpion. He tried to put a plane-full of civilians straight into the White House. He attacked the Pentagon and knocked down two skyscrapers. He's trying to kill Musharraf and blow up the Indian Parliament. You can't trifle with a guy like that for some kind of piddling domestic advantage. It's senseless. *The Iraqi mujihadeen (or whoever they were) almost killed Wolfowitz with a rocket attack. I can't imagine that Wolfowitz gets up in the morning, dusts off his hands and says, "Oh yeah, gotta fit my pal Ozzie into the PNAC blueprint here." *If the neocons bring Osama's severed head in on a pike and throw it in front of the cameras of Al Jazeera, the "New American Century" is gonna have a boost like nobody's business. "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty," Bush said in a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy, a federally funded group that promotes democratic efforts worldwide. *I agree that it's a little late in the day to come up with a rational policy, but there's no WMD around, and that utter vacancy in the common-wisdom is so vast and awful and stunning that the government just has to say *something.* *Iraq is not gonna be the last seriously disordered place that is gonna require heavy-duty nation-building. Call it "Imperialism" or call it what you want, but huge areas of the planet are sliding right off the map into septic narco-terror. Afghanistan, Chechnya, Congo, Somalia, these guys are living in the Next Dark Age. Colombia, Serbia, Argentina, they're kind of trembling on the brink. It's kind of lame and dumb that the US is trying to civilize Iraq all by itself now, but if Iraq turns into a giant flaming intifada, nobody's gonna be any happier. If the Order doesn't figure out ways to at least keep the Disorder running from place to place, we're gonna be in a feudal age. So there are wheels within wheels. I'm not saying that the policies adopted are necessarily likely to bring about the desired goals, but there's apparently some real thinking going on, even inside the president's cranium. *Hung for a lamb, hung for a sheep. If I were an Iraqi, I'd want for the Yankees to spend all the 80 billion on bridges and power plants before I chased them out. What's the big hurry? It's not like Americans are ever going to actually govern Iraq -- they don't know how to speak Arabic. I'll third that. If we hadn't run out of money, I'm thinking we'd be in Syria right now. *We're not out of money. If Iran makes nice and Iraq somehow settles down to a dull roar, Syria is in trouble. It does look like Pakistan is the real problem, with very little focus going on there. Any thoughts as to how that may play out? *I have to say I'm a Pakistan pessimist. They've failed so badly in so many ways that I don't know how they drag themselves out of the tailspin. *This is kinda my favorite evidence here. It's a little dated, but look at India and then look at that large dark spot next to it that is Pakistan. Fifty years ago they were the same polity. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap001127.html *(Also check out North and South Korea. Jeez!) *Worse yet, Pakistan is so thickly populated and so huge that the only power that could enforce order there is India. Pakistan used to *be* India, of course. They would have stayed India except that they were afraid that they would have all their throats cut. It's been fifty years, and while formerly they merely feared attacks, they've now provided India with five decades' worth of *good reasons* to cut their throats. *The government running India now are people who are the direct heirs of the guys who shot Mahatma Gandhi. They're tough, nuclear-armed, grumpy, assertive characters, and they just couldn't be more swaggeringly pleased with themselves, either. http://www.magindia.com/multimedia/india151203.html Oh lord a-mercy. When's your next Bookpeople gig? *I got a book out in April, we'll see if any independent booksellers survive that long. Or if me and my fans do. The track record looks promising, I'm hoping for the best there *8-/
Uncle Jax, the Nicest Asshole on the Well (jax) Mon 5 Jan 04 19:05
>>"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of >> freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the > *I agree that it's a little late in the day to come up > with a rational policy, but there's no WMD around, and that utter > vacancy in the common-wisdom is so vast and awful and > stunning that the government just has to say *something.* Bruce, with all due respect, that's the "we wept to you and you did not mourn, we piped to you and you did not dance" fallacy first described in the Bible :-) You're saying, in effect, that what Bush said in this instance makes sense only because he's wrong all the time! I would, rather, ascribe it, you should pardon another biblical allusion, to the seven-headed beast nature of government. That is, the president could grow much sadder and wiser without policy getting much saner, it's a hard tiger to ride. I think G. W. Bush, whatever the general limits of his intellect, does grasp the essential problem: we made this bed we're sleeping in. The road from the 1953 overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh to 9/11 is fairly easily mapped. It's deucedly hard to miss, no matter what your persuasion.
Bruce Sterling (bruces) Tue 6 Jan 04 07:47
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, Jax.
Paul Terry Walhus (terry) Tue 6 Jan 04 08:14
Did you watch Battlestar Galactica (the "revisioned version")? If you did, what is the probability of the scenario they depict? And how do you feel about Austin movie theaters losing low wattage bulbs in their projectors?
from LLOYD ARNOLD (tnf) Tue 6 Jan 04 09:12
Lloyd Arnold writes: On the subject of the path of the USA presidential campaign: These are always governed by little hot button issues, rarely are important issues addressed. Examples would include Willie Horton, pledging allegiance to the flag, quotas, did he inhale?, did the first Bush have an affair?. For the campaign of 2004, the media can be easily led by two subjects, same sex marriage and partial birth abortion. The president was surprisingly candid, when he said that dealing with non democracies had not made the USA safer. But so what? When he needed staging areas for the invasion of Iraq, he made deals with wacko dictators in formerly Soviet central Asia.
Paul Terry Walhus (terry) Tue 6 Jan 04 09:47
How's your Austin stock faring? Are you high or low on our city? Why are some folks barrelling out of town for greener pastures? What is going to happen to the tech scene and arts scene? Are you going to ride it out?
Uncle Jax, the Nicest Asshole on the Well (jax) Tue 6 Jan 04 10:50
> The president was surprisingly candid, when he said that dealing > with non democracies had not made the USA safer. But so what? When > he needed staging areas for the invasion of Iraq, he made deals with > wacko dictators in formerly Soviet central Asia. Mr. Arnold's comment is more to the point than Bruce's dismissive "stopped clock" remark. One can disdain the admin's policies without underestimating that crew. It can be advanced that they are wrong, but to pretend that they are stupid is self-deception only. Well, Lloyd Arnold, "So what?" indeed. The question any president must face is, how to translate his will and his perceptions into tangible actions of the bureaucrosaurs? Like Clinton and "gays in the military", he never really won that one, did he? I think Bush, whom I do not greatly admire, is a better man than his admin and than we credit him for. He responded to conservative pressure to condemn Islam as a "failed religion" by attending Friday services at a mosque and calling Islam a "religion of peace". Now while the VP from Halliburton (Cheney) and the DefSec from the Infernal Regions (Rummy) carve up Iraq's oil reserves, we hear Bush recognizing the real problem. As poor, frustrated Pres. Warren G. Harding once said, "In this town, it ain't your enemies, it's your goddamned friends!"
from VINAY GUPTA (tnf) Tue 6 Jan 04 12:04
Vinay Gupta writes: Small is Profitable http://www.smallisprofitable.org/ is a book by the Rocky Mountain Institute which addresses change-of-scale and change-of-control in energy generation and distribution systems. Ditch the national grid, use sensor-heavy portfolios of wind/solar and peak-demand- reduction systems to provide, stuff like that. It's not a "green for green sake" approach: it's a "green because it pays the bills" approach. Also a lot of very interesting options theory on renewable resources as "bonds" in an energy portfolio, because they're immune to fuel supply price fluctuations. Something going on on the technological level - these are essentially post- industrial models for energy generation and distribution. And they work. Lovins is typically about 20 years ahead of the game (his stuff on nuclear non-proliferation by **giving**away** conventional power generation systems to places like North Korea and Pakistan now looks prescient), so let's assume he's on the ball this time too, because, well, he probably is... How do you see that playing out? Do you think there are interesting second and third order effects for decentralized energy generation? Or will it be like the internet - a little really significant change, and a very great deal of empty crowing?
soul of a hacker but the brains of a busboy (mattrose) Tue 6 Jan 04 12:09
Sorry to butt in so late and nitpick, but as a non-american, I feel I must point out two things. 1. WWII did not start with Pearl Harbor, it started with the invasion of Poland. 2. Good luck trading Maple Syrup to Quebec. They make more of it than all of New England put together. There's a reason the Maple Leaf is on our flag, it's cause we got so many of 'em.
Jon Lebkowsky (jonl) Tue 6 Jan 04 12:46
I'll shut up and let you answer those, Bruce. I can't beat that low-wattage-bulb question.
Members: Enter the conference to participate