Fan in Chicago

My 29 KB avatar file is 'too big'. Apparently it is accepting only files 15KB and smaller. I am still wondering which century I landed in after yesterday's time warp.

Just remember what is said about those who forget history ...

Yep it is good now. By the way, why are there a few posts back from April 20-21, 2007 ? (sorry if it has been answered before). By the way, SDS, you rock. Keep up the good work !

I am using Firefox on XP. I can't seem to open all threads. If I click on the topic, I get a blank screen. For example the 'Losman vs Edwards' & 'Jay Rosen' threads opens up fine but 'PFT Mock draft' does not. It appears that if the thread is 1 page long it opens fine but if it is more than 1 then I cannot open it.

Tough to vote given the choices so I chose not to. We need LB, RB and CB as primary needs. However, if a very good prospect on the DL is available (not DE), a prospect better than the choices for the high need positions, then we should draft one in rounds 2 or 3

Didn't take me seriously there, did ya big boy ? I am one of many who are highly appreciative of what you do. So stop banging that head against a wall and get to work on those cash-to-cap numbers ...

Slacker

As you said, pending the validity of this rumour, what you suggest sounds like a fairly decent deal considering our needs and options available. I will be seriously pi$$ed if we give away a 1st round pick - of either this year or any future years.

Haven't read all the posts so apologies if someone has stated this already. This trade has made fans on both sides happy, the players are happy with their new teams, the management must be happy (considering they made the trade). Why are we complaining and arguing. Addition of Spikes and Walker to their new teams makes both teams better. As of this moment, isn't this the best possible situation for all concerned ? We should bury the hatchet with the Philly fans and wish them luck till (and if) we meet them in the superbowl.

Was the capacity of the batteries ever mentioned in this informed and well investigated piece ? I think the batteries that were being used were NiZn batteries. My memory fades but I do remember that those batteries could only handle very short commutes - 10 miles or so. Plus they would have the infamous 'memory' problem which meant you should not charge them until they are near drained. Look, I think the concept was killed because it was technically & practically infeasible - there was no conspiracy.

nm

I used PayPal to send you $s in the past so will go ahead and use it again. As for the headaches associated with changing hosts, the biggest trouble will be what you will go through. I will grin and bear it if told well in advance. Just make sure it is not anywhere in the vicinity of draft day.

If you need any $s to offset the charges, I will gladly send in my small bit.

1. I don't know about that movie. But it jsut does not make sense that if this mythical battery was cost-effective, that any company would have junked its idea. GM would have had a big competitive advantage and milked it dry. You probably also heard a story about this carburetor which allowed cars to get 80 miles/gal of gasoline (or 200 mpg for a Pogue carburetor). The story goes that someone bought and killed this idea. The follow-up is that these carburetors would either have to be as big as a barn or could accelerate a car from 0 to 35 mph in 10 minutes. So take such stories with a fistful of salt. 3. The term solar energy is used very widely and you cannot go about reinventing the meaning of that term. 4. Again the problem is time related. The time to grow a tree and then burn it is too long to make it an effective long term solution. As it is, the world has trouble maintaining its greenery (rain forest depletion etc.). Depending on an idea like this is totally impractical. Even if we go with the idea - it will take say 10 years to grow a large tree over which time it is consuming CO2. And, say, you burn it within one day - putting CO2 equivalent into the atmosphere at 365*10 = 3650 times as fast. This is ofcourse a stupid calc but illustrates the point. Face it guys - we don't have the land or excess crop to solve an energy shortage.

HA, That is one post with so many wrongs that I don't know where to start. At the beginning perhaps. 1. I don't know which oil company bought which battery company. But if you are referring to fuel cells, then it is hardly classified as a battery. I do know that several oil companies are investing in research for future fuel sources because they know that oil will end someday. This is a political and long term business decision. I am sure if an oil company did NOT invest in such technologies, they would be bashed for attempting to let those technologies die due to lack of funding 2. Agree on the cooking oil concept - we just do not consume enough cooking oil in an average household to make any significant amount of energy 3. Classifying everything as based on solar energy is very weird. We exist due to the sun - that does not mean we are solar life forms. Typically, the issue is time related - how much time does it take to convert said source into usable energy. If the runs rays hit a photovoltaic cell and make current, that is solar energy. Waiting for a tree to die, decompose in the sun and then get converted to oil does not classify as solar energy. So your entire classification of 'main sources of energy' is outright wrong. 4. Burning debris and saying that it is CO2/CO neutral is also a weird argument. The goal is for all incremental sources of energy to produce less emissions than the one they are replacing. Whether you agree with global warming or not, it is irrefutable that any means that increase the amount of CO2 is not acceptable. The worls is slowly going out of balance with respect to greenhouse gases. You have to look at the global picture and not a microcosm such as a biome with corn stalks.

Something I don't have a good handle on is how the logistics of such a system will work. Not all bio-diesel generation methods are same and not all bio-diesel is the same (unlike gasoline which has small variation in its properties and performance). There are processes based on making this from cooking oil, bio waste, cellulosic material (pulp) etc. My question is how does a manufacturing facility for bio-diesel maintain a steady, predictable supply of raw material that is both similar in quality and has a cost-effective transportation system ??? Right now, liquid & gaseous products are shipped primarily by pipeline which is very efficient in the long run. How will it work for the above raw materials ?? I can understand small facilities or proof-of-concept type factories but large, dependable producers ? I think not. Atleast not enough to make a significant dent in the supply of overall diesel product.

SDS probably advertised on Nickelodeon

Paris Hilton ?

There are several inherent problems with the concept of electric plug-in cars. The stated goal is to reduce emissions. However, we need to not look simply at the car and its emissions but the entire energy chain by which a energy source is converted to electricity and used to power such cars. Electricity is generated primarily by either nuclear or hydrocarbon based fuels. US power plants, overall, have a thermal efficiency of 33% (that much of the sources' energy gets converted to usable energy). Then the electricity is transmitted via the power grid resulting in further losses (not sure of the exact % of losses but it is likely around 30%). So looking at it holistically, the percent of energy converted is very low compared to on-site power generation or the ICE. Secondly, it is debatable whether emissions are reduced or not for the planet. Coal and natural gas both pollute to varying degrees. Nuclear is clean and renewable energy sources are too expensive right now. We may find emissions lower on the road but concentrated at the power plants. Ultimately, I am not sure if the emissions per mile driven are better in plug-in cars. Lastly, the world is consuming electricity at a fast pace. New power plants, upgrading of existing power plants is required just to keep up with the demand growth. Any growth of such plug-in cars will directionally make matters worse. I realize that adoption rates will be too slow for such cars to make any measurable dent in the electricity demand - but directionally it is still not correct.

I wonder if we want to spend $8 MM for a LB, which is what he will need to be 'happy'. Agreed that he is a proven commodity but it depends on how many items are left on Marv's shopping list.

I see little reason to complain, assuming this story is true. It implies that Denver was not willing to give up 'big money'. Also, we don't know what trade offers we have but I highly doubt they are any better than a 3rd round pick (else Levy would have gone for it). WM and Rosenhaus are now understanding the value of a underperforming RB in the NFL today. Good for the Bills - he will shut up and play as he knows the only way to get a lucrative contract is to put up huge numbers in 2007.

hey, hey there newbie. People have been giving you civilized responses so respond with some modicum of decency. You get to violate that guideline when you have been around a while and proven your worth.

Time will tell. Patience, my good man.

Without any sort of calculations, my guess is we have a bit less than half of our $31 MM remaining. Which is still quite a bit of coin. I think we will not blow it all and save some to extend JP and LE. EDIT: I was a bit off on my 'little less than half' estimate. I assumed all contracts to be total value divided by length of contract. 31 MM - 6 Kelsay - 2.6 Hargrove, Tim Anderson, Greer - 7 Dockery - 5 Walker - 1 Whittle = 9.4 Tight but can squeeze in a couple more mid-tier FAs. Ofcourse if Spikes is traded, we save $2.8 MM in cap space.

Apart from his comments after he left Buffalo, he did not do anything wrong as a person. If NE had any class, they would contact him to see if he is going to retire and allow him to retire a Patriot.