Your comments on Blogger are fair game already. They are not private in any way.

They are definitely not fair game for ads. Where I live (California), it's illegal to use my likeness, name, or photo in advertisements without my consent.

She is building a social network for hobbyist gardeners. Apparently this is what humanity needs more than geek toys like self-driving cars and augmented reality sunglasses.

That's a bizarre critique. It's just more likely she would be working on youtube ad code than self-driving cars or augmented reality sunglasses, which most people would consider less constructive than a social network.

Additionally, I think many people would consider Facebook more valuable than augmented reality sunglasses. If we're going to only build things that humanity "needs", we're going to needlessly limit our scope and put many people out of jobs. After all, our needs are considerably less than our wants.

The original article specifically mentions self-driving cars and augmented reality sunglasses as "geek toys", FYI.

It isn't a critique. It's about her project Growstuff which she considers more important and valuable than Google's self-driving cars and Project Glass.

What do you suppose you've contributed to the conversation with this remark?

"hobbyist" is relative. I started as a hobbyist and eventually expanded it into a business. Also in an era when people are underemployed, I feel that these sort of activities will become a valuable way to obtain a degree of self-sufficiency.

uh, yes. that's exactly right.

Why?

Mozart was very popular.

The hell it isn't.

There are much better devices for consuming content.

I fail to see how blogs can replace novels.

> but if you remove the option to drive, then you get around this problem

Isn't it nice to dream about removing options people have?

> I reckon we have about a decade of reasonably affordable petrol left before we hit the wall in a big way.

Citation needed. We have at least two decades of cheap oil ahead.

> We have at least two decades of cheap oil ahead.

[Citation needed]

I, uh, don't suppose you noticed who that report was by?

Certain parties, namely oil companies and OPEC members, have an extremely strong vested interested in "business as usual". BP being one of those parties. A measure of common sense, however, should assure you that despite the corporate assurances there is reason indeed to be concerned. There is no profit in the corporations and oil states blowing the whistle now; quite the opposite.

Do longbets.com et al do actual bets, including counter-bets? Because I would put quite a lot of money against $5/gallon gas, inflation adjusted, in 2030.

Do you have better sources?

If you look at KSA, UAE production in 2009. They are down 10%+ on 2008.

To me, it seems very likely that the diminishing Energy Return on Energy Invested will not support [cheap] oil prices at a level that will allow Western Countries such as the United States to remain out of recession.

Much of the current 'proved reserves' include tar sands and heavy and inaccessible oils that are expensive and polluting to process, that are not economic to produce at a bbl cost of less than say $80.

As China and India grow, they will continue to account for a larger and larger share of oil imports, pushing up prices, and reducing the quantity of oil available to the United States to import.

This chart shows unleaded gasoline delivered to gas retailers in the US. We are roughly 20% off the highs, with very little spare oil, judging by the rising prices. The corresponding Chinese chart on the other hand... http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&...

If anyone wants to look further, www.theoildrum.com presents varied commentary on some of these issues.