Fan in Chicago

Fair enough and I don't expect everyone to know chemistry either save for those in politics and media who spout the virtues of hydrogen without understanding the entire picture. It is their job to understand what they are advocating and influencing policy about.

Egads. Never thought I would say this about any poster but ax4782 and krazykat individually put Pyrite Gal to shame regarding length of posts.

Care to explain that sentence ?

Knock yourself out ... http://www.h2fc.com/technology.html Warning - By the time you finish reading the section on for and against arguments you will rush to the main board clamoring for an Edwards-JP debate.

Technology can never overcome the laws of physics and chemistry. Most of the hydrogen discussed in these sources has a source with carbon attached to it. So even if technology can extract said H2 economically, the question of disposing of the carbon (or dioxide) still remains and may become an even bigger lightning rod for criticism in the future. Secondly, as I mentioned, splitting water takes an enormous amount of energy and generating from a renewable source is the only logical solution. So, as I said in a previous post, there are several aspects to this situation and when you put the entire value chain together (production, distribution, storage, by-product disposal and usage) it doesn't add up to a attractive picture no matter how much advanced technology is developed to solve a production-related problem.

If oil prices stay where they are, they will be close enough to incentivize accelerating technology to extract oil from oil shales which is aplenty in our own backyard. Without any links to support this - I think $80 was the price point at which Canadian oil sands became feasible as an oil source & $150 is when oil shales reach that point.

ya, but ... Where is the hydrogen going to come from ? Wicked laws of nature have intricately linked hydrogen with carbon molecules and these things called hydrocarbons are widely present in usable form in natural gas, coal and crude oil. So if the end goal is to reduce our dependence on these sources, we are SOL. If purely from a environmental perspective, using hydrogen to power transportation is good but what I said above implies that separating hydrogen will leave behind carbon which will have to be disposed off in some enviro-friendly fashion. There are ofcourse other pesky factors as to production plants for hydrogen, fill-up stations etc. which are a major barrier to the utopian 'hydrogen economy'. If the goal is to produce on-board hydrogen, it still needs a feed which will most likely have a carbon-related by-product. The ultimate solution will be to split water (a highly energy intensive process) using solar energy to get hydrogen and oxygen. Sucky situation, eh ?

Ha ha ha ha ... The Onion is really funny.... ha ha. Wait, this was Fox News ? As in real news ? I am stunned that anybody in the US, the land of Univ of Chicago thinking, can even bring up this idea. Especially one of our elected politicians. I promise to never vote for the first presidential candidate that supports this idea.

Which regions/states/cities have you narrowed down to ? I used to live in Warren, PA and loved coming to Jamestown but can understand lack of opportunities. Here is an opening in my daughter's elementary school (Far western suburb of the Chicagoland area). Plenty of houses for sale around here & I have the NFL Sunday ticket : http://www.generalasp.com/SWDP/onlineapp/j...School+Teaching

Check my comments on page 4 of this thread http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showt...67066&st=60

No that could be because our O will be scoring so many TDs, that we won't need no stinkin' FG kicker. Seriously though, that ranking is ridiculous.

If you are into classic rock, check out their collection of concert DVDs (especially from 60s & 70s).

Too early to tell. It took in decent amount of money in its first weekend albeit against a $157 million budget. Also, 'biggest' flop ? There are other movies still to come such as Hancock and Hellboy II which (I am bettting) would be in the running for that crown. This summer has been very tame in that there are no certified disasters yet.

I never said that. For example, these people are invaluable to determining which rookie QB belongs in the hall of fame and which one is the next Ryan Leaf.

Now if you put it that way, I can appreciate it. I do think Unbreakable is his best by far - didn't realize how good it was till I saw it a second time. As for the trashing the Happening is taking, it was bring trashed way before the movie was released on both Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB. Yet, it had a solid weekend worldwide. This further strengthens by belief that internet loud mouths (me included) matter little to the financial performance of a movie.

Seems like just a few months back and not that long ago. But welcome back and looking forward to more amicable debates in the future.

Fair enough but I think the question was related to this weekend and not next. I expect it to drop fast as well but perhaps not too much as there is no other scare/thriller competition for that target audience (18+) next weekend. Hulk's target demographic on the other hand has plenty of competition coming up.

No question Hulk will be tops. But The Happening made ~ $13 million on Friday compared to the $21 million take for Hulk and most 'experts' had expected not only the gap to be wider, but Hulk's take to be much more. Critical reviews and viewer preferences are not always directly correlated. http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/hulk_...riday_estimates

MadCap, What do you define as 'hit'. All his movies since Sixth Sense have made a lot of money save for Lady in the Water. I can post stats if you want. Secondly, using superlatives such as 'ever' implies you have studied all the directors ever to make movies and narrowed down a list to those that made one commercially successful movie followed by all flops. Is that what you want to say ?

I disagree. My wife and I both enjoyed it. Preferred seeing this one to the Hulk.

I am assuming you are asking about capacity utilization. Quite simple - dynamics of the market few years back was such that demand was surging, prices were high and refining capacity was constrained. Hence the evil oil industry decided to use some of their profits to invest in their own refineries to expand capacity. Now that capacity is high, a different set of dynamics is causing demand of end products to fall rapidly. Hence, processing is curtailed to meet the (lower) demand.

Bills_fan & Adam, Excellent posts. I was taken aback by the above statement and went back to confirm it (not that I don't trust you ) And, by jove, you are correct: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mopueus2m.htm Comment on refining profits: Refining profitability is generally measured by the 3-2-1 crack spread (not what you dirty minds are thinking) - related to the cost of three barrels of oil versus the price of two barrels of gasoline and 1 barrel of heating oil. This crack spread has already dropped drastically compared to last year which means that refiners have been unable to raise prices on the end products at the same rate as their cost of buying the oil. The refiners reporting highest profits are the ones who also control the upstream assets (read: oil fields) in various parts of the world. Right now, even with the high prices of gasoline and diesel the ones that are NOT making huge profits are the refineries and the retail outlets. The poor sap running the corner gas station wants you to buy a can of coke in addition to filling up your Hummer as that helps his profits immensely. Oil company profits are mostly coming from selling the oil itself. I don't understand the commodities markets much and I need to read up a bit more to see if indeed the speculators and weak dollar are the major causes of high crude oil prices. But, to comment on the point of the OP, I hate the idea of a windfall profit tax - idiotic idea from a free markets perspective and near impossible to implement (tax laws, accounting etc.)

I will be seeing The Happening anyway. Still pi$$ed about the first Hulk.

Suburb of Chicago - I pay $22 per week for cutting, trimming and clean-up after the cut.

My vote goes for Hardy as the most important player. The players on offense are virtually unchanged from last year. Granted all will be a year wiser but our offense will take a big step ahead and upwards if Hardy has a decent rookie season. Not only will he be the big target, but will enable Evans to have a good year too. I cannot point to any one person on D because I see fairly good depth all over and that includes the D Line (can't be worse than last year even if someone is injured or underperforms).