Balta1701

Wow....just....wow.

QUOTE(Steff @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 10:41 AM) I heard a snippit on Fox news that they are something called (or like) "rare earth" magnets. Those are the kind the manufacture supposedly uses (common for other toy makers as well). And they are apparently supposed to be that strong to hold the toy together. They did say they were not at all like the alpha magnets. I know what a 2 day olds intestines look like.. they are tiny. Chemistry lesson time... Rare earth magnets are incredibly strong magnets which are based on elements which sit in those bottom 2 rows of the periodic table. Most common magnets which you're familiar with are based off of iron, which in 1 oxidation state gives magnetite, a common terrestrial mineral. These magnets, most commonly made with Neodymium-Iron-Boron alloys, are vastly stronger than the ones you're used to feeling on your fridge. They produce a magnetic field roughly 10-25 times stronger than the ones you're accustomed to. You do, however, have some right in front of you - your computer's hard drive uses them.

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 01:05 PM) 10 billion barrels of oil won't do anything to help decrease foreign dependence. There's over 180 billion barrels of oil in Canadian shale alone and no one ever thinks of drilling that. Well, people do, but those people usually start yelling "PEAK OIL" and then start crying in their underground bunker while watching Mad Max. Actually, people do think about accessing those canadian oil shales/tar sands, but there are some severe problems with them. In fact, tehre are at least 2 major companies who have operational plants mining those oil shales. What are the problems? Well, first of all, it costs a ton of money to bring that stuff out of the ground and process it into a usable form. We're talking something on the order of $100-$125 a barrel before it even becomes close to cost effective. So the price of gasoline basically needs to double before they become cost effective. $5 a gallon or more in the U.S. That sort of thing. (The 2 companies that are working up there now are gambling that the process will become cost effective in the near future, and if they have the technique mastered beforehand it will give them a competitive advantage then.) Secondly, those 180 billion barrels of oil? Well, they're not all recoverable. Why? Because it takes an enormous amount of energy to refine and process that stuff. So what they actually end up doing is consuming a significant portion of the recoverable energy just to keep the plant and the process running. Third, those plants are ungodly polluting monsters. The oil shale coming out is dirtier and more polluting than Coal. And you have to burn a ton of the stuff just to generate the energy it needs to process it. Think about this...if we were to supply the entire world's supply of oil based on oil shale...you'd have to increase emmissions by something like 25-50% just because of the fact that it takes so much energy to process the stuff. You'd be dramatically increasing the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere, you'd be dramatically increasing the amount of soot/other pollutants pumped into the air, and you'd be dramatically worsening the health of a lot of people. It is a last resort. But it's not a pleasant one.

I think This at least adds something to the discussion here. Much more @ link. It's also worth noting that the study concludes that the most liberal paper in America is the Wall Street Journal. If nothing else, that should call a few of their conclusions into question.

QUOTE(Balance @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 11:51 AM) Indigent? I sure hope not! Given that credit card bill I just paid....

The NYT Transit strike Is over, for now.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 11:55 AM) OF COURSE this is different. Bulls***. The intent is the exact same damn thing. And if one is illegal, the other one is as well. Clinton used this WITHOUT A WARRANT to get this man. Period. He did it by his "inherent powers granted by the Constitution". How can this ignore FISA? Because it wasn't relevant in this case. But the intent is the same. Gain evidence without a warrant on a subject (a US Citizen!) that is aiding an enemy of the United States. Yes, but you're totally ignoring the single most relevant point...the law of the United States has changed since this happened. At the time, there was no statute covering teh exact behavior Clinton did. There is now. There is also a statute that covers GWB's exact behavior. Bill Clinton did that search when there was no statute, and he later signed into law a bill which made that exact act illegal. George W. Bush's act was in direct defiance of an extant statute. Bill Clinton's act was not covered by any statute at the time. It is now. Right now, it would be just as illegal for Clinton to order that search as Bush's executive orders were.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 11:31 AM) There were foreign operatives on the other end of the intercepts. Not one of these, at least my understanding, was 100% domestic. And what about the lack of warrants against a US citizen? Oh, those don't matter, because there was "justification" for Clinton's AG to do it. It's the same damn thing. Not in the least. Gorelick's testimony covered only those searches which were not dealt with under the original FISA. Go read the Testimony...there's links at the page there. The searches she was discussing were done before the law was changed.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 11:09 AM) http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...22610-7772r.htm Where's all the impeachment talk about Carter and Clinton for doing the EXACT same thing? I know, I know... it's BUSH... it HAS to be different and evil. Goodness, the amount of confusion of that issue in that piece is absolutely freaking remarkable. Everything stated there is correct, the President has the right to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. FISA specifies this. However, the key detail that they so conveniently leave out is that FISA gives the President the right only to do this against Foreign targets. It specifically denies the President the right to do this against U.S. Citizens. ANd of course, if the Washington Times bothered to actually educate itself about the law, it would know fully well that The law of the united states has changed since those events happened, and once again, you can't just say that because something was legal 5 years ago you don't have to follow the new law.

Well, at least this means they won't be signing Frank just yet. On the other hand...I hated having that guy hit against us in Detroit.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 10:11 AM) Thats unless were talking about a big time closer that we'd have the rights to for more years. Like if the nats were crazy enough to deal us Cordero. Dude, is there some reason why we think Bobby can't handle that role for the next 6 years before his arbitration eligibility runs out? I read at least 1 piece a few weeks ago talking about how teams were dumping huge amounts of cash on "Established closers", when at the same time teams like the White Sox and the Nats and the Marlins were discovering that it really wasn't hugely difficult to find people who have the ability to come in and close games for much less money than say, a BJ Ryan is going to earn. (Mariano Rivera, btw, remains in a class by his own).

QUOTE(WSFAN35 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 10:01 AM) mcdonalds is a billion dollar industry and their people make 6.75 an hour How many people in this country have the skills which would allow them to work as a cashier at McD's? How many people in this country have the skills to throw a complete game shutout against any major league baseball team? Right there you can explain the difference.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 09:53 AM) Well then you are just as greedy. Same goes for Rowand44. I understand what you guys are saying but can't players just be humble for a minute? And I do agree, it is a 2-way street but it doesn't eliminate the fact that athletes are way overpaid. Overpaid? They possess a unique set of skills in incredibly high demand, and there are people willing to pay enormous sums of money to watch them perform. This is what market-economics do...when there are only a few dozen people in the entire world well-trained enough and capable of performing an important job in a multi-billion dollar a year industry...they wind up being paid a ton of money.

So has anyone other than me noticed that this thread is actually called "The lastest on Garland." Can we expect this to therefore be the last Garland-related thread here?

Ok, now I think we're approaching the point where we really need to be concerned about these people. Not necessarily because they're right, but moreso because they may have enough power to really disrupt the process over there if they're not listened to.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 04:55 PM) Some other random information on the TWU/MTA strike. MTA Executives gave themselves a 22% raise last year. TWU accepted a 3 year contract with no raise in 2002 to help alleviate MTA budget shortfalls. This year the MTA has been found to have kept two separate sets of books and hiding a surplus of approximately one billion dollars. The MTA also offered to sell rights to property it owns to build a new stadium for the Jets at one-third the market value. The people of New York itself also support the strikers and blame management by a strong margin.

I believe the only Hallmark Star Trek ship ornament I'm missing is the Original Enterprise, which usually is only available for well over $100 these days.

QUOTE(WinninUgly @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 09:26 AM) So AJ siging a 3yr $15 million contract to stay with the Sox is not loyalty, when Ramon Hernandez signs a $27.5 million, four-year contract? Chipper Jones restructured his contract to lower his salary. It happens all the time. AJ was arbitration eligible in the first year of that deal, so signing a 3 year, $15 million deal gets him money sooner and probably earns him as much as he would over those 3 years if he stayed healthy all next year and went out into the FA market. Chipper Jones restructured his contract to lower his salary during his contract's highest salary years, but in exchange he got an option year on his contract turned into a guaranteed year. He will make more money total after the restructuring than he would before because of the additional guaranteed year.

Well, the question is...do the Royals have any prospects who are ready who could play those positions? Based on what we saw last year, I kinda doubt it. I would wager that management has decided that if they spend a little bit more money, maybe shoot to win 70 games, they'll at least break even from drawing a few more fans to the park. And they always have these veterans with expiring contracts that they can use as trade bait when July and August roll around, if they're smart.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 04:07 AM) You think Paul DePodesta wishes he had this type of money to splash around? Probably not good news on the Jon Garland front either; Depodesta did have that kind of money, you're forgetting. The Dodgers payroll sits at about $90 million this year...last year they spent $83 million on paying salaries, and I don't think that includes the $10 million or so they dumped on Arizona to get them to take Sean Green. And the Dodgers currently have only 4 starting pitchers, so they still have a spot open. They're at least talking to Weaver still, who is a Boras guy, along with Millwood. They want to start Billingsly @ AAA this year.

QUOTE(knightni @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 09:51 PM) Well...go ahead! Start rueing! I didn't want to add that...entirely because I didn't want to imply that they'd already made the decision and were going to need to do any Rueing.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 09:10 AM) Not to hijack the thread but Reagans SDI efforts are widely credited as the final straw that broke the Soviet Union's back and were the basis for the current and nearly operational missile defense systems we have going into place right now. On the point about Reagan I will agree with you, as his offer to share the technology with the Soviets totally removed the possibility of strength in the Soviet system. However, to pretend that the system we have now is anything other than a joke is simply wrong. You give me a bunch of styrofoam and I'll design a dozen ways to defeat that system.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 08:29 AM) Some rebuttals for traditional arguements... http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/...91756-3971r.htm Actually, I think I'd say that those rebuttals are pretty darn traditional too. This of course is a complete distortion of the truth, but it's one that the Republicans love because it sounds nice. The bill does limit the surface disturbance to 2000 acres, but that only means that there cannot be permanent development on more than 2000 acres. The real key is what they mean by permanent development or whatever the term they use is...roads are not counted. Parking space is not counted. The large areas inbetween drilling rigs where animals won't go because men are there are not counted. That 2000 acre thing is one of the most annoying bits of spin around, because it's such a pointless limit. The piece spends a fair amount of time talking about other developments. Of course the problem with this argument is that you can never apply lessons from 1 ecosystem to another. Just because you can build a dam in 1 river without making a fish population go extinct doesn't mean that you can do so in every river in the country. Just because you can drill or build a pipeline in 1 area doesn't meant hat if you drill in the breeding grounds for many of those animals, you won't see a negative reaction. There's no guarantee you will, but to pretend that other drilling sites are evidence that drilling doesn't harm the environment is simply wrong. Of course, the Washington Times conveniently leaves out the reason why Alaskans so strongly support drilling...that state is incredibly wealthy thanks to oil dollars, and almost all of the citizens pay no taxes and in fact receive refund checks from the state government each year based on the petro dollars. If you paid each American $1000 or so a year to support drilling, I bet you'd get 75% support in every state in the union. (By the way, why can't the Alaskans use some of that money to build their bridge to nowhere? Damn you Ted Stevens!)

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 05:24 PM) Seriously, what is the problem with drilling in ANWAR? Might disrupt some caribu? SO WHAT? I agree that we should be trying to find some kind of alternative fuel. I would love to tell OPEC to shove their oil where the sun don't shine. But in the mean time, we need oil, it is there, and I don't give a f*** about caribu. I had this post 95% complete last night...and my damn computer crashed! Arrghhhhh! Here we go again. I fully agree with you that I really don't care about the environmental conditions up in the Arctic wildlife refuge. The only reason I'll ever see that place is if the tundra melts, and suddenly the geology becomes mappable an interesting. It's frozen. Very little actually lives up there compared with most "Wildlife" refuges. Yes, it's nice to keep it pristine, but at some point, you do have to pick and choose which refuges you keep "Pristine". If I had to choose between allowing drilling in ANWR and drilling in the Rocky Mountain Front of Montana, I'd choose ANWR in a second. That said...I believe you're partly wrong when you say the "we need oil, it is there" part. And this is the thing which really frustrates me about this issue...very very few people are actually informed on what is actually up there. In fact, there are several huge concerns with the oil which is actually up there. First of all, let's talk about the estimates. The estimate for the amount of oil up there is somewhere between 5 and 15 billion barrels of oil. As far as I know, this number is based on a very limited number of seismic surveys done in the late 90's, but also based on assumptions as to the maximum amount of oil which could have been produced by the known source rock in the area. The key point here is this...there has not been a real detailed survey of what is actually there. Based on the data we have, we can estimate the maximum yield from the field, but that is assuming that everything goes right. (i.e. we know the size of the reservoir, we basically are assuming the reservoir is totally full and easily recoverable.) Both of these have the potential to be bad assumptions, and here's why. When oil comes out of the ground in Saudi Arabia, it takes roughly $1.50 or so to process that barrel into useable fuel. That's what's called Saudi "Light Sweet Crude". Easily refined stuff. Low phosphorus, not degraded at all, etc. It's a snap to refine that stuff. The stuff we know about from Alaska, however, is not. If we were to pump from ANWR, we'd almost certainly be looking at costs between 5 and 20 times the cost of refining a barrel of Saudi oil just to turn that oil into gasoline. Why? Because there are things which do damage to oil fields, and we know they've been active in Alaska. The oil up there is not of high quality. It's heavy oil. Lots of stuff dissolved in it which needs to be removed during refining. This reduces the total yield of the field (as it takes more energy to refine the stuff) but more importantly, it also makes the field far less cost effective. Secondly, there is a major issue with transportation. We're not just talking about driving down the road and finding an Amoco refinery here like you do in the Chicago area...we're talking about having to ship and transport this stuff hundreds of miles through fragile ecosystems. You have to be careful when you do that, it takes a lot of equipment, and the costs are through the roof. Furthermore, there are also major issues with developing and setting up that large of an operation. You have to transport an enormous amount of equipment up where no man has gone before basically. You have to provide workers up there. These are harsh conditions, they are harsh on equipment, and they cost a ton more money. Finally, there are major issues with the amount of oil there itself. I mentionned a moment ago that the cost of refining the stuff is very high...that's a symptom of a major problem...the oil fields up there have been highly degraded by bacteria and other processes which can eat away at these high energy fluids. What does this produce? Well, basically it produces oil which is non-recoverable or non-useable. What you end up with when this happens is an oil reservoir which doesn't yield nearly as much oil as it could, and that is almost certainly what is happening up there. It is quite possible that the recoverable amounts of oil from that reservoir will be far less than the amounts that officials quote, which is important because there has to be enough oil up there to pump out of the ground in order to justify the expenditure of moving up there and setting up all that equipment. It's quite possible that there won't be enough. Based on these reasons, a huge number of the oil companies which were once interested in drilling up there have already pulled out. Right now there is basically only 1 or 2 companies that are left with any real interest in drilling up there, and most of them only seem to want to do so for political reasons (i.e. they're closely tied with high ups in the Republican Party.) The odds are very, very long against those fields being profitable, even at current oil prices. One of the reasons I hate this issue, however, is that people keep making such a big deal about it. The Democrats and the Republicans both fight over it, and when people hear that they're fighting about it, they assume that it must be a valuable issue, and they assume that it must be a big reservoir in a wonderfully sensitive area. Neither is the case. Drilling in ANWR has become almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Republicans at this point seem like they want to drill there almost solely because they don't want to let the environmentalists win, and the environmentalists don't want drilling up there because they don't want to let the Republicans win. The people hear this, aren't told anything about the actual conditions, and you wind up with 1/2 of the population thinking that those oil fields will mean that we can put Saudi Arabia totally out of business, and you wind up with the other half of the population thinking that ANWR is the most beautiful place on Earth. Neither is true.