Strategies & Market Trends | BuSab


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Stan who wrote (12984)5/27/2012 2:36:18 PM
From: SmoothSail   of 19017
 
Wow. That's amazing that so many people hated it. Smells bad and it's lumpy the most common complaint. Guess it pays to check out the reviews.

I didn't read all the reviews, but learned something I hadn't thought about before. I order things online all the time and will see the box for a coupon code and just ignore it. Turns out you can search for those coupons. Could save a little money for the effort.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

From: TimF5/27/2012 3:14:23 PM
1 Recommendation   of 19017
 
Oh, boy.
Now I have to explain the absolute Greatest Moment in Wacked Out Real Science.


Couple years ago, some people I worked with finally completed a long-delayed
project to build a very large vacuum chamber for testing plasma thrusters and
other advanced spacecraft propulsion systems. Not the biggest in the business,
but maybe top ten nationwide. Big enough to walk around inside, at any rate,
which is the important point.


Important, because in order to go operational it needed the approval of the
local Safety Nazis. You know the type. They have a checklist, nay, a whole
handbook of checklists, one of which involves Confined Spaces. Big enough
to walk around in? Check. Airtight? Check. Can be filled with asphyxiant
gas? Well, the MSDS for "Vacuum" apparently lists it as an "asphyxiant", so
check. It's a Confined Space, and so the Confined Space checklist must be
implemented.


Issue the first: How do they make certain nobody can accidentally walk in while
the chamber is full of that deadly asphyxiant, "vacuum"? No, the fifty *tons*
of force holding the door closed, is not an acceptable answer.


Issue the second: When the chamber is vented back to full atmospheric pressure,
where does the vacuum go? If the chamber were accidentally vented by opening
the door (see above, and note exact Safety Nazi quote, "OK, say if you were
Superman and you opened the door"), where would the vacuum go?


Issue the third: What assurance is there, that when the chamber is vented back
to full atmosphere, there is an adequate percentage of oxygen in the chamber?
Hint: It is a big, big, big mistake here to acknowledge here that the laws of
statistical gas dynamics allow for one chance in 10^10^17 (no typo) that the
chamber will spontaneously refill with a sufficiently oxygen-poor atmosphere
to preclude respiration.


Issue the forth, and so help me God I am not making this up, again an exact
Safety Nazi quote, "How can you be sure there won't be vacuum pockets left
in the chamber, that someone could accidentally stick their head into?"


And, coupled with issue #2, there could be deadly vacuum pockets floating
around the lab! Aieeee!!!! Run for your lives!


It only took three weeks to find someone with the common sense and the real
authority to overrule the Safety Nazis on this one, and the SNs still take
offense if anyone brings it up in their presence.


Vacuum pockets.


--
*John Schilling

groups.google.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: TimF who wrote (12986)5/27/2012 3:41:48 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie   of 19017
 
That's even worse than the deadly pools of dihydrogen oxide

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (12987)5/27/2012 4:02:09 PM
From: longnshort   of 19017
 
WC Fields wouldn't touch that stuff, something about what fish do in it

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: TimF who wrote (12986)5/27/2012 4:42:35 PM
From: SmoothSail   of 19017
 
Vacuum pockets.

Perhaps the Safety Nazi has personal experience and knows they exist. All he need do is present himself as a prime example.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: SmoothSail who wrote (12985)5/27/2012 4:49:05 PM
From: Stan   of 19017
 
I didn't know that you could search for coupon codes either. Thanks.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (12982)5/27/2012 5:03:11 PM
From: ManyMoose   of 19017
 
Gone too soon. Both of them.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: TimF5/27/2012 5:13:11 PM
   of 19017
 
Government Pension Potpourri

Written By:
Donny Baseball
May 24, 2012
11:24am

The lights are literally going out in Detroit

Philadelphia will be closing schools

Providence, RI is running out of money… (caution: DO NOT READ if you have a weak stomach, the heart-wrenching details of the retired firefighter who takes in annual pension payments of $196,000 but who will now NOT be getting his 5-6% annual COLA increase, is frankly too much for the average person to endure emotionally.)

sayanythingblog.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: TimF5/27/2012 8:05:59 PM
   of 19017
 
“The surest way to guarantee a product’s failure is to subsidize it.”

Rob Port
May 24, 2012
11:53pm

So says Mark Perry, noting that huge amounts of subsidies for hybrid and electric cars haven’t exactly resulted in a lot of success for the “green car” industry.
Since 2008, taxpayers have spent or provided loan guarantees of $6.5 billion for electric vehicles. That includes $2.4 billion for battery and electric drive component manufacturing, $3.1 billion in loan guarantees for electric vehicle projects, and $1 billion in tax credits for the vehicles. The price that American taxpayers pay for commercializing electric vehicles is painfully evident in the billions spent on green projects that are driven by politics rather than performance.

Using taxpayer dollars to favor one automotive technology over another is contrary to the free-market principles that undergird our economy. Simply put, subsidizing electric vehicles doesn’t make economic sense.

The surest way to guarantee a product’s failure is to subsidize it. Over time, cars that succeeded in the marketplace have been those that were developed and commercialized without government involvement. If a technology isn’t capable of succeeding on its own economic merits, there’s no amount of taxpayer support that will ever make it a commercial success.

To put it another way, products that work and for which there is a market don’t need to be subsidized. Products that are inferior to their counterparts on the market are the ones that need to be subsidized. And the taxpayers really shouldn’t be asked to subsidize inferior products.

This applies to all things that are subsidized, be it “green cars” or “green energy,” etc., etc.

By the way, doing the math on Perry’s figures, he notes $13 billion in subsidies for green cars. According to Wikipedia, some 2,263,924 hybrid/electric cars have been sold since 1999 when they first became available on the market.

That works out to a per-car subsidy of roughly $5,742. Of course, not all of those cars may have gotten all the subsidies. They may not have been available when some were sold, and some purchasers may not have applied for their credits, but still it’s a massive subsidy.

sayanythingblog.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: SmoothSail who wrote (12985)5/27/2012 8:10:38 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie   of 19017
 
I am turning into a really really good cook.

Next weekend you have to plan on staying out here after the game so I can cook you dinner.....actually, assuming we win on Wednesday, we will have games on both saturday and sunday.

My chicken is really the best chicken I have ever had.

(I'll work on the modesty thing later.....)

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.