Fan in Chicago

I don't see how that would occur if people have a balanced portfolios and/or invested in indexed funds. Sure in the short term their 401Ks may tank due to the sentiment. But these financial institutions tanking should not negate a fundamentally sound investment strategy. For example, if the 401K are invested in funds owning shares of Microsoft, Google, AT&T etc. how does the failure of a Bear Stearns affect my 401k value in the long run ?

I agree with what you are saying. However, I think this bail out is horse ***t. The financial institutions are masters of risk theory and if a multitude of bad decisions results in several institutions going under cos of Bear Stearns, then so be it. Let the shake-out happen. Don't interefere with the self-correcting mechanisms. These large financial companies & their employees reap handsome rewards when times are good. They should in no way be bailed out when the times are bad. Heck, do these same banks bail someone out for defaulting on their mortgages ? Why should they be the recipients of good will and that too from the government with money from you and me ?

I wish somebody can explain to me why the Fed stepping in to save a financial firm from bankruptcy is a good thing.

No matter what the consequences, I just cannot agree with the Fed stepping in to save an enterprise such as Bears Stearn. Supporting a failing enterprise is juking the free market and capitalist system which works just fine the way it is.

Apart from the fact that this is not a '2', I think the trailer was not put together well. If we are to believe that Norton's participation as an actor and also an advisor will set this movie apart from the previous attempt, then this trailer should have been vastly more effective. It just did not get me excited enough to want to plunk down $10 hoping this version will be better. I think Batman and Bond franchises have set the bar very high for re-boots and Hulk better measure up.

Is this one really under 15KB ? If yes, how did you manage to shrink the file size so much ?

Last time was early last year (I think). Do I have to do anything to keep me active ? This reminded me that I am due for another contribution anyway.

Let me refresh your memory. You are a rabid Trent edwards supporter and your constant campaigning led Dick jauron (who still coaches the Bills) to bench JP (our ex-QB) in favor of Trent. Is it all coming back to you now ?

I got an email telling me my subscription is about to expire. What is this all about ?

I am trying to upload the exact same pic as before and it won't let me.

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.