text: Home > Experts > Question Question Posted by: Rudi | 2013/11/20 White spots in my underwear Good day From time to time I get these white spots/marks in my underwear, almost like pre-cum, even though i have not had an erection during the day or anything. Is there any answers or explanation for this? I am 30 years old. Not what you were looking for? Try searching again, or ask your own question Have your say Your name (optional) Your comment Security × Thanks for commenting! Your comment will appear on the site shortly. Search health advice Find an answer × Thanks for commenting! Your comment will appear on the site shortly. Reply to Your name (optional) Your comment Security Close Submit comment Recently: Asked Questions Answered Questions Commented Questions What subjects do you need for grade 10 if what to become a vet? Drug interaction. Am I pregnant because my period stopped? Inhalers. Ek het 2 knoppe op my arms. Can knee inflammation be seen in MRI? Fingers and toes growing crooked. My baby has a rash all over her body. Link between eczema after Scarlet Fever. My dogtertjie kruip baie goed loop oral teen alles maar op haar tone. Hi im on depo for one month now and have gained 7kg despite of the fact that im using herbex slimming products.What can I di to stop the weight gain? Did Herbex Slimmer work for weight loss for anybody? Sexual harassment. Husband in denial How do you identify gender issues in tweens? advertisement From our sponsors Johannesburg conference to tackle digital transformation in healthcare WIN a R2000 voucher. Great skin is just a click away! How erectile dysfunction can affect relationships Coital incontinence: the 'oops' women are too afraid to talk about


text:
Congressmen Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and David Scott, D-Ga., released the following statement after sending a letter to leaders of the Farm Bill Conference Committee reminding them of the House of Representatives' overwhelming rejection of supply management provisions:
"The House of Representatives resounding rejection of supply management provisions in the dairy title of the Farm Bill speaks loud and clear," said Rep. Bob Goodlatte. "More than 140 diverse groups have joined the 291 House Members, including 95 Democrats, in voicing their opposition to supply management. A supply control program that will directly intervene in markets and increase milk prices will ultimately hurt dairy producers and consumers. As the Conferees continue their work, I urge them to remember the House vote and adopt the House-passed Goodlatte-Scott amendment as part of the final Farm Bill."
"Unfortunately the media is portraying the current dairy policy debate as a struggle solely between Speaker Boehner and Ranking Member Peterson," said Rep. David Scott. "Nothing could be further from the truth. The overwhelming bipartisan vote count on the Goodlatte-Scott amendment, which passed 291-135 with 95 Democratic votes, was a clear and strong statement of the will of the entire House on this issue. To that end, Farm Bill conferees should honor the House vote and insist on inclusion of the Goodlatte-Scott amendment in the final conference report on the Farm Bill. The Goodlatte-Scott amendment as embodied in the House dairy title of the Farm Bill represents bipartisan compromise that protects dairy farmers as well as restaurants, food processors, grocery stores and most importantly consumers."
Click here for a PDF version of the letter to leaders of the Farm Bill Conference Committee.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
HOUSTON - It strikes without warning and the symptoms are subtle. But every year, more than 25,000 Americans die from what's called a "silent" heart attack.
It happened to Frank Burke.
"I would feel a weird sensation in my chest a vibration that felt like gas or something. I would go buy a sprite soda, I would drink it, I would burp, I would feel fine and I would continue on what I was doing just never paid attention to it," Burke said.
During a recent routine medical procedure, Burke learned that 'weird feeling' was in fact an indication of a heart attack he'd suffered 8 months earlier.
"I had no idea, of course," Burke added.
People at risk for a silent heart attack can appear to be perfectly healthy.
"That's why we usually categorize this type of patient as a non-complainer. So if they have something, they think, 'Oh, I'm out of shape,' so even if they have symptoms, they don't contribute these symptoms to their heart. They say, 'Oh, I need more work out,' rather than say, 'I might have a heart problem,'" said cardiologist Dr. Michael Shen.
The symptoms of a silent heart attack can include shortness of breath with exertion, which some may dismiss as a result of their increased activity. Other symptoms include discomfort in the stomach, which could be excused as 'Just something I ate.' A third symptom could include light headedness, which some may think is just a result of being tired or hungry.
Doctor Shen said if a patient has atypical symptoms combined with heart disease risk factors such as high cholesterol, diabetes, high blood pressure or smoking, they may be referred for some form of cardiac imaging.
"Imaging will reflect the whole process of heart attack from acute phase to later on delayed phase," said Dr. Shen. "So you can see the whole process and what's involved."
Through exercise, diet and medication, Burke is making every effort to protect against another silent heart attack.
"I definitely pay closer attention now," said Burke.
If you have one or more of risk factors for heart disease and experience any of the atypical symptoms of a heart attack, call 911. Don't try to get to the hospital on your own.
A recent study showed that the flu vaccine may reduce the risk of having a heart attack or stroke among those with heart disease.
Some researchers believe the vaccine helps break up plaque in the arteries.
Copyright 2012 by Click2Houston.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


text:
A couple of weeks ago I poked fun at the trend known as the consumerization of IT -- the notion that business users will soon get most of the technology they need directly from commercial mobile and cloud vendors rather than from internal IT. The idea that a shift like this will happen across the board overnight is just ridiculous.
But that doesn't mean IT should ignore the trend or try to stand in its way. On the contrary, IT needs to lead and take advantage of it.
[ Also on InfoWorld.com: The shift in the IT landscape requires a shift in leadership -- find out how to be a modern CIO. | Get the no-nonsense explanations and advice you need to take real advantage of cloud computing in InfoWorld editors' 21-page Cloud Computing Deep Dive PDF special report. ]
I'm not the first to say this, but the parallels between today's consumerization trend and the very early days of PCs are striking. From a user standpoint, the PC was about personal empowerment: The technology to do my job better is available on the open market and the IT department, which seems to care little about my needs, is not going to stop me from getting it.
If I recall correctly, way back when, the IT organizations that were quickest to embrace and lead the adoption of PCs gained the advantage -- not only over IT shops that fought the new desktop paradigm, but also over those that rolled out PC technology willy-nilly. The same will be true of consumerization.
A new relationship with users
The key for IT is to provide a framework within which users can procure their own stuff. Rather than users getting out of hand and messing things up, they can actually help take technology to the next level -- and do much of the work to get there themselves.
The trick is to treat users as if they were part of IT. In fact, they already are. The majority of security breaches, for example, are caused by users who unwittingly download stuff they shouldn't. Users are the front line in protecting the security of the organization. If they felt like they were part of something, rather than simply following someone else's rules, they might be more careful.
If users are going to get more capabilities on their own, they need to accept the responsibility that comes with that greater empowerment. Rather than the consumerization of IT diminishing IT's power, it makes users conscripts to the IT cause.
If employees want to use their own smartphones for company email, for example, they need to accept that their device will forever be password protected -- and if the device is lost, it will be wiped remotely. IT can set up the process, so users can provision their devices in this way on their own. The business gets added productivity with almost no additional overhead.
Do-it-yourself technology
In many companies this DIY model may soon extend to the user's primary computer. It's quite possible, for example, that Windows 8 will include a client-side hypervisor, which will be able to run a secure virtual machine containing everything the user needs in the way of business apps for work. When the system powers down, the business virtual machine goes away.
The main criterion for client hardware, then, is that it must be able to run the virtual machine. That's a wide range of hardware -- so why not let the user choose? The company reimburses the user for the cost of the machine, but vendor tech support takes care of maintaining it -- curing one of IT's biggest headaches.
The cloud side of consumerization is more complicated. Cloud services and applications need vetting to screen out providers with poor security practices and to avoid subscriptions that are redundant or wasteful. One interesting approach I've seen is VMware's Horizon App Manager, which gives users access to SaaS and Web apps, but allows IT to enforce policy -- for compliance, among other things -- and track usage.
You don't need to contemplate cloud apps very long to see the limitations of the consumerization of IT. Individuals should not simply run off and subscribe to stuff, and cost, security, and compliance aren't the only reasons. Even more important is data integration with applications already running in the enterprise. Otherwise, users are reinventing silos that fragment data about customers, products, projects, and so on.
So the long-range challenge for IT is to provide a consumer-like experience and enable users to self-provision through IT. In some cases, this may result in a certain class of user becoming more rather than less technical, as they customize SaaS apps and maybe even aid with simple integration. But IT must always provide a rational framework.
The trade-off is clear: IT relaxes control over a certain part of end-user technology consumption, while in exchange end-users take on some low-level IT tasks while adhering to explicit guidelines. But for this new relationship to work, IT must also be attuned to the new capabilities users want and have a fast-track process to get highly desirable new products or services on the approved list.
The limits of consumerization
The consumerization of IT is mainly about adding capabilities around the edges rather than replacing core functions -- nor does it have anything to do with the core application development that forms much of the intellectual property held by larger organizations. IT people do more than stand up servers and install software. They ensure everything works together, that people don't duplicate effort, that priorities are straight, that there's a plan and a point to the money being spent on technology.
But the surest way to cause chaos is to go overboard on control and try to stand in the way of consumerization. You can't win that battle because users will find a way around your prohibition -- and you'll be left with a mess to clean up. One the other hand, if you provide the right framework and leadership, you have a shot at enjoying one of the rarest combinations in IT: more capabilities, less work, and happy users.
This article, "Staying ahead of consumerization," originally appeared at InfoWorld.com. Read more of Eric Knorr's Modernizing IT blog, and for the latest business technology news, follow InfoWorld on Twitter.


text:
›› Photos: Funeral for El Paso Police Officer Angel Garcia
›› Guestbook: Offer condolences to friends and family
El Paso police Officer Angel Garcia had the characteristics of a future El Paso Police Department leader before he was killed in a traffic accident on Sunday.
The 27-year-old officer was a go-getter, who could have really helped El Paso, his supervisor said after his funeral Friday.
"The sky was the limit with his work ethic and his knowledge," said Lt. Gabriel Lucero, Garcia's shift supervisor. "He could have gone all the way to being a chief for us."
Garcia, a Mission Valley patrolman, died Sunday morning when a car hit him while he was trying to remove a ladder from Interstate 10 East near Cielo Vista Mall.
The Clint High School graduate and active Marine reservist graduated from the police academy nine months earlier.
Garcia had dreamed of becoming a police officer since he was 5 years old, his family said.
Investigators are still trying to determine the chain of events that led to Garcia's death, but preliminary reports indicate that he was hit by one of three cars involved in the accident.
Friends, family and other law enforcement officers attended an intimate Mass at Corpus Christi Catholic Church, followed by a burial at Mount Carmel Cemetery.
A group of children held up letters spelling "Thank you Ofc. Garcia," as a procession of police motorcycles and funeral home vehicles entered the church's parking lot.
As officers carried his flag-draped casket into the church, residents who had walked from their homes stood on the sidewalk to pay their respects.
"I came out to show my respect to the police," said Rosa Gutierrez, 60, who lives down the street from the church. "I heard about the accident by reading the newspaper and watching TV."
A United States flag was flown by a firetruck at both the church and the cemetery as helicopters from the U.S. Border Patrol and the Texas Department of Public Safety flew overhead.
U.S. Marines carried Garcia's casket at the cemetery, and "Amazing Grace" was played on bagpipes.
Garcia joined the Marines before he became a police officer.
Garcia's family asked for their privacy through the El Paso Police Department, but they did offer a statement.
"We are saddened by the loss of our beloved son Angel David Garcia," the statement said. "Angel pursued his long-time dream of being a police officer with a positive and giving attitude."
The family thanked the community for its support and said Garcia was proud of his time on the police force and in the military.
"We pray for all public servants, military personnel, their families, and are grateful to have a very supportive police department," the statement said.
After the Garcia family was presented two flags, one from the Marines and one from the Police Department, a flock of doves was released into the sky.
"It was a very touching, emotional and proper funeral," Lucero said. "It was well deserved."
Garcia's military background and natural instincts made him "a gift from God," to the Police Department, Lucero said.
"He did the small things that as a veteran officer you overlook or forget about," Lucero said.
"I'd go into work at 5:30 a.m. and he was already there, had finished his workout and was getting showered up."
Sgt. Lawrence Lujan, one of Garcia's senior supervisors, echoed Lucero's words and said Garcia was "a fine example for all young men."
"His life was lost to help others," Lujan said. "There was a lot of traffic on the road that day and anyone could have hit the ladder, gotten into an accident and died."
Even though Garcia's career was in its beginning stages, his actions and tragic death will leave a lasting impression in the department, Lujan said.
"His name and family will never be forgotten within the El Paso Police Department because we are one big family," Lujan said.
Lujan said it was a tough loss for the entire Police Department, which just lost Officer Jonathan Molina in late September when he was beaten to death.
"We try to prepare for something like this, but nobody can ever be prepared," he said. "The best we can do is watch out for each other. If you see one person grieving you have to help them pick their head up."
Mayor John Cook and Northeast city Rep. Carl Robinson attended Garcia's funeral.
"It's a sad day when we lose anybody, but particularly one of our police officers or first responders," Robinson said. "The fact that he was also a fellow veteran was very special for me. He served our country with honor."
Aaron Bracamontes may be reached at firstname.lastname@example.com; 546-6156. Follow him on Twitter @AaronBrac


text:
View unanswered posts | View active topics
Board index » General Discussion
All times are UTC - 6 hours
Jeff B wrote:Bamboo gouges a lot worse than end grain wood boards and your new board will actually heal it's self somewhat. I have put gouges in my end grain maple and go back later and they're gone.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


text:
As many of you are probably already aware, an Adobe Edge preview has been posted to Adobe Labs today. Here is a quick roundup of resources:
- Adobe Edge on Labs: go here to download the preview and grab the sample files to experiment with. You can also access the release notes (PDF) and the Edge discussion forum.
- You should also be sure to check out this Developer Connection article by Mike Chambers (@mesh.)
- Adobe TV has a great video, Edge Getting Started, that features Adobe Fellow Mark Anders.
- Follow Edge activity and news via the dedicated Facebook page as well as their Twitter account.
That's all for now…enjoy!


text:
The Millennium Project was commissioned by the United Nations Secretary-General in 2002 to develop a concrete action plan for the world to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and to reverse the grinding poverty, hunger and disease affecting billions of people. In 2005, the independent advisory body headed by Professor Jeffrey Sachs, presented its final recommendations to the Secretary-General in a synthesis volume Investing in Development: A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals. The bulk of the Project's work was carried out by 10 thematic Task Forces, each of which also presented its own detailed recommendations in January 2005. The Task Forces comprised a total of more than 250 experts from around the world including: researchers and scientists; policymakers; representatives of NGOs, UN agencies, the World Bank, IMF and the private sector.
Reaching the Millennium Development Goals
At the Millennium Summit in September 2000 the largest gathering of world leaders in history adopted the UN Millennium Declaration, committing their nations to a new global partnership to reduce extreme poverty and setting out a series of time-bound targets, with a deadline of 2015, that have become known as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
Read more
The Millennium Villages are based on a single powerful idea: impoverished villages can transform themselves and meet the Millennium Development Goals if they are empowered with proven, powerful, practical technologies. By investing in health, food production, education, access to clean water, and essential infrastructure, these community-led interventions will enable impoverished villages to escape extreme poverty, something that currently confines over 1 billion people worldwide.


text:
Mickey Drexler, the ebullient chairman and chief executive of J. Crew, has done well out of private equity and will probably do so again. Mr Drexler, who would be integral to the $3bn buyout offer for J. Crew, was first recruited to the clothing company by Texas Pacific in 2003.
© The Financial Times Ltd 2016 FT and 'Financial Times' are trademarks of The Financial Times Ltd.


text:
- 10" Shaft height
- Full-grain leather
- Floral stitch pattern
- Fancy stud details
- 2.5" leather wraped heel
- Single stitch welt
- D toe
- ATS® technology
These Daisy western boots by Ariat are cowgirl with a little flower power. The Daisy's lively floral stitching is dressed up with fancy stud detailing, a 2.5" heel, and a fashionable snip toe. The innovative ATS® technology supports and cushions the foot as you move, promoting good posture and reducing fatigue so that you can work or play all day. The Duratread outsole provides lasting performance, protection, and flexibility. This exclusive rubber compound combines maximum wear-resistance with comfort and flexibility. It is also highly resistant to barnyard acids, oils, and slips. These boots are a great choice for the barn or a night on the town!
Style(s): 10004575, 10004576, 97750, 97755
Ariat Boots quickly became known as the most innovative and performance riding boots. They provide the same technology in men's riding boots, women's riding boots and kids riding boots. They totally redesigned the traditional outsole, arch support and last shape and took Ariat Boots to the next level in riding boot technology. While building the technology into these western riding boots, Ariat had hundreds of top riders help design and develop their final product.
Today Ariat is the world leader in performance equestrian footwear as well as offering the most stylish western boots on the market. Ariat Boots offers a wide range of products from English and Western riding boots, work boots and casual boots. Their forward thinking and performance lines outfit today's most avid equestrian riders and enthusiasts.
If you are the professional rider who absolutely demands performance boots or the novice who likes to ride around from time to time, Ariat definitely has the boots for every man, woman or child. We have all of the top styles including the Fatbaby boots, Heritage Western, the Dixie and the QuickDraw. These styles are all must have for men's western boots, women's western boots or kids western boots. The casual look and performance driven Ariat Boots will provide you with long comfy rides in the country or a relaxing day in the sun. Get yours today!


text:
Interior Designer II Salaries
View Interior Designer II Hourly Wages
Alternate Job Titles: Interior Designer II, Level II Interior Designer, Intermediate Level Interior Designer
How much does a Interior Designer II make? The median annual Interior Designer II salary is $51,152, as of August 03, 2017, with a range usually between $41,750-$60,638, however this can vary widely depending on a variety of factors. Our team of Certified Compensation Professionals has analyzed survey data collected from thousands of HR departments at companies of all sizes and industries to present this range of annual salaries for people with the job title Interior Designer II in the United States.
This chart describes the expected percentage of people who perform the job of Interior Designer II in the United States that make less than that annual salary. For example the median expected annual pay for a typical Interior Designer II in the United States is $51,152, so 50% of the people who perform the job of Interior Designer II in the United States are expected to make less than $51,152.
Source: HR Reported data as of August 03, 2017
Refine by:
This chart describes the expected percentage of people who perform the job of Interior Designer II that make less than that salary. For example 50% of the people who perform the job of Interior Designer II are expected to make less than the median.
Source: HR Reported data as of August 2017
Develops plans and designs for the interior of residential, commercial, or industrial buildings based on the needs of the client. Creates functional and aesthetic designs that help boost productivity, increase sales, attract customers, or enhance a living space. Responsible for planning the use and layout of the space and decorating with color, furniture, fixtures, etc. Develops drawings, presentations, and cost estimates and coordinates the work of contractors. Requires a bachelor's degree in area of specialty. Typically reports to a supervisor or manager. Typically requires 2 to 4 years of related experience. Gaining exposure to some of the complex tasks within the job function. Occasionally directed in several aspects of the work. View full job description
View Architecture Jobs by Salary Range: <$30K, $30K–$50K, $50K–$80K, $80K–$100K, >$100K
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- District of Columbia
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming


text:
Print this issue
Many MBA colleagues and friends gathered at the association's Boston headquarters for its holiday reception on Tuesday evening. MBA President David W. White Jr., fellow MBA leaders, MBA Executive Director Marilyn J. Wellington and other MBA staff joined members of the bar association to celebrate the holiday season.
Likewise, nearly 75 MBA members attended a festive holiday celebration at the MBA's Western Massachusetts office in Springfield on Tuesday, Dec. 4. MBA President David W. White Jr., Past President Mark D Mason and Executive Director Marilyn J. Wellington mingled with both longtime and new members from the Western Massachusetts area. The event was sponsored by the MBA Insurance Agency.


text:
Axion Estin Foundation, with Chanter Christos Chalkias, to Honor St. Vladimir's Seminary
Acknowledging its long-standing interaction with St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary (SVOTS), the Axion Estin Foundation (AEF) will present the seminary with 20 volumes of the "Great Theory of Music" by Chrysanthos of Madytos (1770–1846), during an evening reception Friday, March 23, 2012, on the seminary campus. The presentation will immediately follow the services of Little Compline and the Fourth Stasis of the Salutations of the Theotokos, served according to Byzantine liturgical tradition and including renowned chanter Christos Chalkias of Thessalonica, Greece. Services will be held in Three Hierarchs Chapel, beginning at 7 p.m., with a reception and presentation following in the John G. Rangos Family Building. The public is welcome.
The 20-volume gift set (AEF, 2010)—the first ever peer-reviewed English translation of this important source—was funded by The Rev. Peter N. Kyriakos Endowment Fund. Translator Dr. Katy Romanou of the Music Department of the University of Athens, Greece, and Senior Visiting Scholar of the Onassis Foundation USA, noted, in reference to the volumes, "Chrysanthos' treatise is by far the most referenced source in Byzantine music education...."
AEF's gift of the print publication will be accompanied by an electronic publication of the volumes (AEF, 2011), and by 20 copies of the music CD "Sacred Music of Byzantium" (AEF, 2008), featuring the Greek Byzantine Choir, directed by Lycourgos Angelopoulos. The latter gift, in enhanced-CD format, allows for electronic access to complete printable bi-musical music texts (i.e., Byzantine music texts juxtaposed with western music texts, accompanied by the original Greek text, transliterated to facilitate access).
Christos Chalkias is an alumnus and former teacher at the Athonias Ecclesiastical Academy (established 1749) of the monastic community of Mount Athos, Greece. He is visiting New York as the featured artist in a program titled "Christos Chalkias Chant and Oud Performance," which will be co-presented by The Metropolitan Museum of Art and AEF on March 24, 2012, as part of the museum's "Byzantine and Islam: A Festival for All Ages" exhibition.
Since its incorporation with the New York State Department of Education, AEF has engaged in strong collaborative efforts with regional centers of academic excellence. Of those centers, SVOTS is the closest in proximity, being less than five miles away from the foundation's headquarters, Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church, in New Rochelle, NY.
In January 2006, The Very Rev. Dr. John Erickson, then dean of St. Vladimir's, opened AEF's inaugural conference, titled "Byzantine Music Teaching Methodologies." Since then, the two institutions have interacted many times, including the recent participation of Hierodeacon Herman Majkrzak, lecturer in Liturgical Music at SVOTS, and Matushka Robin Freeman, the seminary's Annual Gifts Officer and co-director for special musical programs, at AEF's event at The Cloisters Museum in New York City (September 2011).
As part of AEF's mission to identify opportunities to introduce Byzantine Music content into academic curricula in the United States, AEF's Director, Dr. Angelo Lampousis, initiated dialogue in January 2010 with The Very Rev. Dr. John Behr, dean of SVOTS; Dr. Christos P. Ioannides, director of the Center for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies at Queens College, City University of New York; and Dr. Peter Jeffery, The Michael P. Grace Chair in Music, University of Notre Dame.


text:
I'd heard these were very well-respected up there. Tried both. Excellent sides, but I guess 'cue doesn't always translate regionally. Brisket was rubbery at both. Ribs were OK but falling-off-the-bone, and Dinosaur mixes Memphis and KC styles with both rub AND sweet Sauce. Pulled pork was very good at Dinosaur, but tasteless at Stick Lips (though S.L. had a very well-seasoned chicken leg and thigh.)
Beer was very good at both, but Dinosaur had an extraordinary selection, a live blues/oldies band and overall excellent atmosphere and great service.
Sticky Lips got my dining companions order wrong on two items, but let him keep the mistakes at no charge. I guess I'd compare them both to a chain like Famous Dave's, Certainly good enough, but not something to rave about unless you live in upstate NY.
Wings at Dinosaur were outstanding .... got the Habanero hot ... Smokey and grilled as opposed to typical fried Buffalo variety.


text:
A social misfit, was kicked out of every school he ever attended, due to his uncontrollable wit. His mother (Frances) died of breast cancer when Richard was 18. His father (Charles) committed suicide when he was 22. A dedication is written to him in Richard Belzer's "UFO's, JFK, and Elvis: Conspiracies You Don't Have To Be Crazy To Believe" (Ballantine Books, 1999).
Name: Richard Belzer
Known for: Law & Order: Special Victims Unit
BirthDay: 04, Aug ,1944


text:
- None
- None
Not-for-Profit agencies and organisations represent a significant employment sector in the UK. Although professionals working in this area earn understandably low wages relative to many other industries, careers in Not-for-Profit fields tend to be rewarding, fulfilling, and philanthropic.
The positions most commonly listed and filled by recruitment agencies involve research, policy work, and lobbying. But there are professionals needed in countless areas of the sector, ranging from fieldwork to administrative roles. Salaries typically start at around £12K annually for new entrants to the sector. Top tier earners have incomes in the £40K range, however, and average salaries throughout the UK tend to be about £17-18K. The sector also offers a particularly high number of part-time, apprenticeship, and volunteer positions, all of which can be good ways for young professionals to gain industry experience and build their CV's by contributing to respected social institutions.
Much work in the industry involves travel, and a large percentage of available jobs are to be found in London. Wages in London also tend to be higher than those given elsewhere in the UK. A large proportion of not-for-profit work is politically motivated, and those with interest in Political Science are especially drawn to the sector.


text:
Chris Christie's New Jersey Power Play [VIDEO/AUDIO]
Roughly 2 million New Jersey homes and businesses are still without power today after the devastation left behind by super storm Sandy. That means almost 5 million people are in the dark.
Governor Chris Christie toured storm ravaged areas of the Garden State yesterday with President Barack Obama and both are focused on full power restoration ASAP.
The power outage high was about 2.6 million says Christie and because it is now down to about 2 million.
"We're moving in the right direction, but that's clearly not good enough and I know it's never going to be fast enough until the lights go back on in your house. This is our number-one priority."
Christie says he's spoken with the Governors of ten other states and, "All of them have said that they are urging their utility companies to send crews and equipment to New Jersey…..We have commitments from all of those states to send servicemen, tree clearers, equipment and trucks to work with our utility companies, some of which are on the way now. The more manpower and equipment on the ground, the faster we can move."
"We have an enormously difficult task here in restoring power," explains Christie. "The President also committed to getting utility crews and equipment from anywhere they're available in the nation and having FEMA transport those people and their equipment to this state."
As of late last night, the state's largest utility, Public Service Electric & Gas had restored power to 30 percent of its 1.4 million customers who lost service. 900,000 PSE&G customers were still without electricity.
Jersey Central Power & Light reported outages for 943,801 customers, mainly in Monmouth and Ocean counties. Atlantic City Electric said 120,552 homes and businesses remain in the dark, while Orange & Rockland Electric reported roughly 54,000 customers without service.
Courtesy Governor's Office


text:
Promoter regions explain ape human difference, reports an article in ScienceNOW 13 Aug 2007. Although chimp and human genes are claimed to be 99 percent the same you don't have to be a biologist to see that chimps and humans are very different. Way back in 1975 Allan Wilson of the University of Wisconsin suggested the difference may lie in the way genes are regulated, i.e. when they are turned on and off and how active they are. A group of scientists at Duke University have now carried out a study of promoter regions, sections of DNA that regulate adjacent genes, in the human, chimp and macaque (a monkey) genomes. They found 575 human gene promoters that were quite different from chimps. Most of these were involved in controlling the development of nerve cells and their connections. A large number of others were involved in carbohydrate metabolism. Molecular geneticist Sean Carroll of the University of Wisconsin, Madison commented that the study offers some "intriguing leads" on candidate genes to be followed up, and that changes in regulatory sequences may be important in the evolution of many species.
Editorial Comment: Promoter regions are much smaller than genes. Therefore, they only account for small differences in the DNA of different species, but they have huge effect. This research confirms that simply comparing whole genomes, or even individual genes gives no indication of what makes two species different and it is about time evolutionists stopped using the 99 percent excuse for claiming that chimps and humans were once the same creature. (Ref. genetics, evolution, genomics)
Evidence News 10 October 2007


text:
Topic: My 1 year anniversary
Well, 1 year has gone by...strange...weird...crazy...but I am so BLESSED! I have Stage IV with mets to the liver, humerus, spots on my hips & spine and finished up 8 months of straight chemo. (GTX) this fall. I've been off for 4 glorious months! I've lost most of my hair and it came back. Now I sport a sassy, short style! I had time in the hospital to search for my tumors & diagnosis (yuck!) I've had several surgeries (to remove the mets to the humerus, to get a mediport) and I've had radiation to my arm. I turned 40. I got a new car. (It is sassy, too!) I walked in the Livestrong Challenge. Lots and lots of blood draws, waiting, wondering, praying, laughing, being uncertain; but most importantly, LIVING. My ortho oncologist thinks I should be "restaged" (you can do that??!!) My medical oncologist says I am amazing. And I don't really feel amazing...just normal with this weird second life. I work full-time in a stressful, busy job...although I did take a leave for three months when I was first diagnosed and started chemo. I am a brownie leader for my kid's troop. I do whatever, whenever to have a so called "normal" life.
So, what will my next year bring? I know it will continue to bring me time with my family, new adventures and I hope, a continued shrinking CC tumor!
My doctor has basically told me that for me, I am going to live with my CC like a chronic disease. If it isn't growing and spreading, then we'll just leave it alone. When it "acts up" we'll zap it with some high dose chemo. Hey, I can do that for another 40 years. Forget that...I am doing it for another 60 years. So, here's to my first of many, many anniversary posts to come. : ) You all can do it, too! Come along with me on my long ol' trip to a cure!


text:
Over the last few years, hybrid and electric cars have become more popular, but are they really environmentally friendly?
Electric Cars:
Hybrid Cars:
The issues above for electric cars also apply to hybrid cars. Cars powered by hydrogen are only as environmentally friendly as the power source used to split the water molecule into the oxygen and hydrogen molecules.
I would highly recommend watching this TED talk.
To be honest I believed that hydrogen cars would be the future after the praise for them on Top Gear. However, this TED talk was rather convincing and if this can actually be pulled off we may see electric cars before we know it.
Top gear is an entertainment show, and the production company is sponsored by oil companies (Shell I believe), which are all too interested in discrediting electric cars and promoting hydrogen, which they can supply.
Tesla are currently suing the BBC over that particular episode of TG in which they basically lied about the electric cars running out of power and breaking down - something which the BBC have already admitted anyway, but refused to correct on repeats/DVDs etc. Hydrogen cars are HUGELY expensive (£250,000 for that Honda FCX Clarity), something which they failed to mention as well.
As you can probably tell, I'm firmly in the electric car camp! Much cheaper to make & run, emissions ARE far lower even when considering the electricity production as well, AND ignoring the fact that electricity production can be replaced by renewable sources in the future. Top Gear are very anti EV, that much is obvious, but then they only like a car if it makes a loud noise and costs more than £100k anyway. Loads of people are now using EVs, proving that they do work, and with cars like the Tesla Model S coming soon (Model S | Tesla Motors - god I want one of these!!)
Robert Llewellyn says it best:
So I'll flip it around. Let's just say for arguments sake that in 1920 something, a man called Charles F. Kettering had been run over by a horse and didn't invent the starter motor and the internal combustion engine didn't catch on. (Most cars were electric powered in the early part of the 20th century.)
So now, I'm 35, live in a flat in a city, have an electric car parked over an induction charging plate set in the road. All the electricity in the country is from renewable sources and I'm not interested in cars.
Then I read an article about these new engines, petrol engines. They explode a highly flammable liquid in a cylinder which turns a crank which turns a flywheel which turns a complicated, heavy gearbox and clutch, which turns a drive shaft which turns the wheels. When I stop laughing, I read on.
The fuel I will need to make this machine operate has to be drilled out of the ground in Arabia and shipped to the UK in massive tankers. It then has to be refined in huge industrial plants that use copious amounts of electricity, it's then shipped to a very expensive installation called a petrol station. I then have to stop, pump this dangerous liquid into the tank in my car. When the complicated engine is running, it not only makes a lot of noise, the gas that comes out of the exhaust pipe is poisonous, the engine creates huge amounts of waste heat which requires a massive, energy sapping cooling system, the fuel is very expensive and finite, it will run out. I throw my head back in hoots of laughter and put the kettle on. Ridiculous, it'll never catch on.
The LlewBlog - Electric Cars - Tesla V Top Gear
I had the pleasure of driving a 1st-generation Prius for a few years. At the local/immediate level, of course it's better than "normal" cars (though keep in mind, gas mileage alone can be matched by many of the small diesels, and the 1st-gen Prius is a subcompact car). Frankly, if all current gasoline-only cars had a small electric motor whose sole purpose was to shut the engine off at idle and battery, coupled with regenerative braking, mileage would improve for everyone but more importantly, you'd be removing the biggest and least-useful source of car pollution. Unless you're running lights or heat, you're just burning oil sitting there. On the highway, a Prius doesn't get any better fuel mileage than any other car its size and weight. It's all the places it saves that makes the difference.
There are schools where they had to demand that the school busses, lined out outside school doors and running their engines waiting for the kids to come out, turn their engines off because the amount of fumes that built up outside (and often were sucked into the air intakes lawlz).
I've wanted an electric car since I was a kid. Too bad the infrastructure isn't as ubiquitous as it is for fossil fuels now.
When I was big into renewable energy, I would go to RE fairs and drool over the 80's Mercedes and Volkswagen Rabbits running on biodiesel (both styles: modified fuels lines and straight veggie oil, or made biodiesel at home and had leftover methanol where they had to try to find enough little old ladies who liked making soap at home, lawlz). Using waste oil from restaurants is pretty cool. Using productive farmland to grow one crop solely to run vehicles is not.
There is also the disposal of the lithium and over chemicals from the battery when it is life-expired.
As a metal, it should never be "disposed". Metals are recyclable. That costs energy (and usually water), but no metal should ever really be "disposed". Especially when mining it in the first place costs so much (to the environment, in energy...).
Y'all know Olshevsky's idea for a solid block of hydrogen? Man, that was a cool idea. So for the equivalent of hitting the gas station, you'd go to a station and swap H2 blocks. Solid fuels are totally appealing to me.
But for the question of, which kinds of cars are better... frankly, we need to stop building our infrastructure in such a way that we NEED cars to do simple, daily things. This is where we're being stupid and short-sighted, not which kind of car we allow on the road.
I haven't driven a car in about 4 years. Public transport sucks butt over here (every time a single snowflake touches the ground, every time a pidgeon poops on the rails, every time the world is not absolutely 100% crystal perfect, the trains and busses are late and cost way more than owning, insuring and driving a gas-guzzler), but I am very pleased to be able to buy food, get to work, and do pretty much anything I need to do on foot or on a bicycle.
When we were in New Zealand, wow it's a pretty country but you can't take a poop or tie your shoes without having a car (or two). It was, for me, the biggest turn-off of the country. The distances are vast, but people hurry to fill them as much as possible, instead of seeing how they can intersperse agriculture and living (I hope some of the urban solutions in Cuba, even though they were born by extreme need, spreads around quickly).
It's simply not going to be sustainable to have the whole world living the way a part of it does now: large agriculture, manufactured far away relying on fossil fuels, reduced of its nutrients so it can be shipped (or flown) thousands of kilometers (relying on fossil fuels) so that most of us have kids who don't know where mustard comes from. The store? A little plastic packet? A factory?
(I love when they go to schools and ask kids what foods are and where they come from. They have no idea. Which is why they can't tell real food from edible food-like products. Which is why so many of the Western world is sick and fat)
Working at the US Department of Transportation, I get quite a bit of exposure to alternative fuel vehicles. Some manufacturer or another is always bringing their "stuff" here for us to look at. A few years ago they brought a Tesla. It was nice. Really nice. I even got a few pics.
I'm a car guy. Always been a car guy. I've always had big American V8s up until around 2006, when I just couldn't justify the fuel consumption, so I bought a Mini Cooper. I really like the idea of electric cars, especially for local city driving. Sure, you have to generate the electricity somehow, but there are tons of ways to generate electricity (solar, hydro, wind, etc) that create little to no pollution. Plus, to me it seems that cleaning up a few hundred power plants would be easier than cleaning up a few million vehicles that are all owned by private citizens.
As for the recharging problem on long trips, I think what we need to do is come up with a battery standard for all electric cars (a form factor if you will) and make all electric cars use it. Service stations could have a few dozen of these on charge, and when you need a refill you pull in and have a swap. Your old battery goes onto the charger for someone else a few hours down the road. It's sort of how propane tanks are done.
So I think if there is a market for these things, and a financial incentive, they're going to happen. Car companies have historically fought change and told us that things were "impossible" (CAFE, safety features, emissions requirements) only to miraculously pull it off once the laws are passed. I think they can pull this off too. It's just more profitable (at the moment) to stick to business as usual.
The problem with both electrics and hydrogen is that they all suffer from NOT being more efficient than other fuel sources, and are only really practical as transmission/storage mediums. As a rule, they usually just mean you're polluting somewhere else instead of where you happen to be -- NIMBY in action. (Not in my backyard)... Who cares if you're polluting at the power plant or extraction station, at least your not polluting your backyard -- net change zero.
Hydrogen may be the most plentiful element in the universe, but there's a "problem" with it -- it is NOT naturally occurring on it's own when in the presence of heavier elements -- like say... on a iron/silicate body with a oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere. It's tendency to readily combine with just about any other element makes it very hard to find "straight" -- sure, it's in water and natural gas, but it takes the application of energy to extract it... said energy requirement being higher than what is produced by the fuel...
Where does that energy need to come from then? Fossil fuels end up the weapon of choice with people having their panties in a twist over nuclear, solar and wind both having increasingly negative environmental impacts and not delivering practical amounts of energy despite all the claims, and your ecology nuts refusing to allow more dams to be constructed.
Of course the four legs good two legs evil leftist-moonbat eco-nuts don't seem to want to let us even do the stuff 20 years ago they were clamoring for us to do. Few years ago they were talking about adding a wind farm off the coast of new england -- this was cancelled because the spinning blades might endanger some bird species. Solar farms aren't practical in places like New England (60% overcast) but worse, even in places that get the type of sun and have the raw acreage to make them useful, the drop in ambient temperature in many places has started to be linked to changes in weather patterns to the point of effecting the length of mating periods of many species... think about it, you're stealing light and heat that otherwise would be warming the ground and air, and turning it into electricity instead to be released as heat, movement and light somewhere else...
Then you have the storage mediums on things like hybrids... Lithium? Too expensive which is why most hybrids use NiMH cells -- Nickel-metal hydride. Nickel is one of the biggest polluters to refine requiring lots of heavy diesel machinery, caustic chemicals to be processed, and as a rule turns everything withing a mile of the mine into a "dead zone" where little if anything can actually survive. While this has nowhere near the impact many of your right wing-nuts would have you believe, it does still add up to most hybrids having a higher pollution footprint than your average gas powered economy car over the first six years of it's life. The right wing-nuts want you to believe it's higher than a hummer over the entire life of the vehicle, and their exaggeration and card stacking gutted the "battery footprint" arguments credibility -- even though it was based in fact... they blew the fact out of proportion, tacked on their own lies and agenda, and in the process pissed all over the science behind it.
Really these technologies are not the answer - from needed changes in the infrastructure, to not returning on the investment cost, to many of them being little more than sweeping the problem under the rug, they flat out do not deliver the power needs of 6.7 billion people!
You want a real answer look no further than Brazil; a country that has gone over to a biofuel economy. Biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel can run cleaner with nearly as much power, are easily made from renewable resources, and can also provide more employment. Brazil is so far ahead of the entire rest of the planet on this front so called "first world" nations should be ASHAMED.
It gets more interesting when we talk waste recovery -- Nearly any organic waste can be converted through a process known as thermal depolymerization into a variety of compounds, most notably potable water and a biodiesel that is almost identical in burn and flow to #2 heating oil... It ends up way cleaner than natural petroleum as the heavier compounds that pollute natural fuels (sulfur, heavy metals, free carbon, etc) are separated out.
... and when I say ANY solid organic waste, I'm not joking. We're not just talking corn and peanuts here -- There's a turkey plant in Carthage, Missouri that's outputting 500 barrels a day of biofuel and several thousand gallons of potable water extracted from turkey offal (that's guts, bones, feathers and other stuff you can't actually sell)... The process makes enough of a gasoline type fuel to actually power the process, they burn much of the oil in-house, put the clean water from the process back into the farmyards, and still have enough "crude bio" left over to sell on the open market and even sell electricty back onto the grid. The entire facility is not only self-sufficient on power -- it's contributing to the power infrastructure! All using waste that 20 years ago would have been left to rot in a landfill.
The joke on thermal depolymerization is that you drop a 200 pound man in one end, you get two gallons of crude, eight gallons of water and a pound of valueable chemical compounds out the other end.
Though biodiesel isn't ALWAYS the answer, as those of us in the north can attest -- for a good 4 to 5 months of the year it's unusable or requires a supplemental fuel source as in cold temperatures it turns to jello.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg on waste recovery -- organic waste simply left to rot in landfills produce large amounts of methane as they decompose; a smelly but easily burned fuel. (that doesn't produce odor if you burn it). Simply putting layers of non-decomposing plastic sheeting in place to 'trap' the gas in a bubble and then piping it out gives us a cheap, affordable source of fuels -- and the trapping of the gas and heat underground can be further used for geothermal-like recovery. Once the 'field' has processed you end up with an organic soil that can be sold to agriculture and the plastic sheeting can be reused on a new load of waste.
Given the increasing need for clean water and reliable cheap energy as the world population grows, the increase in output of waste materials that population produces -- the future near as I can tell is in renewable crop fuels and waste recovery. It certainly does not lie in solar, wind, nuclear, hydroelectric, or pure hydrogen...
Brazil is a HORRIBLE example. People can't afford food because they're wasting valuable farmland (and burning rainforest with sh*tty soil to make more farmland) just to grow corn just to make ethanol (which has less energy per mass than gasoline or diesel... meaning you need to burn more of it to go the same distance). Reusing existing waste is way more awesome.
Growing fuel is as bad as growing meat, if both replace growing food (and meat can count as food, but at 3 times the cost of growing straight food... especially costs water). It's not sustainable IF it continues the assumption than everyone drives, all the time, with sometimes mutliple vehicles. Not sustainable.
Total misinformation - producing electricity and transmitting it down a power line to a car is FAR less damaging than drilling for oil, shipping it, refining it, storing it, transporting it again, then burning it in an engine, even with fossil fuelled power stations. With a nuclear station, the emissions are zero. In the future, renewable sources make this even better (although I firmly believe we should be using nuclear until the renewable sources get sustainable enough... shame the govt. are dragging their heels on this one).
Hydrogen I'm not sure on, but I know it does take a lot of energy to produce so you may be closer with that one.
No, people can't afford food there because of the abject poverty of many regions -- they grow more food than their people can consume, much like the rest of their South American neighbors -- so much so that I go to the produce aisle at the local grocers and my Tomato's are from Argentina, my Lettuce, cabbage and onions are from Brazil, and all my fruit is from Chile.
Flat out many of the people there cannot get JOBS to PAY for food from the people growing it -- or even jobs that pay well enough to handle that. Historically prior to the introduction of export crops they were looking at 30-40% poverty -- the export of cash crops cut that in half, and further social programs are whittling away at it. They have MORE than enough land to feed their people and grow cash crops -- especially since most of your good cash crops like sugar cane and cotton are best grown on a rotation schedule with food crops like lettuce, cabbage, or with crops that can go either direction like Corn and Peanuts.
Much less the WASTE from food crops is just as easily converted into ethanol and biofuels -- with corn for example you have to clear the stalks every spring from the field -- traditionally these were either left to rot, burned inefficiently, or used in the paper manufacturing industry (to a limited capacity). Pressure cooking for ethanol and de-pressurization for biodiesel takes this otherwise waste material and puts it to use.
The export crops and self sustaining fuel resources are what will save Brazil and have been saving that country for thirty years -- it's been a hefty part of why their government even has the money in the first place to pour into education and societal aid in impoverished areas... Biofuel growing is NOT to blame for their poverty, and is their one shining hope at getting OUT OF IT!
See, there's this economic concept called "transfer" -- where if you have exports other countries want you can increase your national wealth and the well being of your citizenry by raping other countries economies. A concept I realize is lost in places like western coastal Europe and the United States where we don't manufacture or export anything worthwhile anymore -- hence the GNP's that don't match the inflation rates and teetering economies.
Oh, here we go with the fuzzy science nonsense... The moment someone stops calling meat food, you know you're in feel good fantasy-land where pseudo-science quackery is the norm. Considering most livestock consumes grains not fit for human consumption or waste materials from human consumption growing (again, dried corn, wheat and barley stalks), as well as rotational crop-stock not suitable for other industries, that "3 times the cost" nonsense holds about as much water as a sieve. The "circle of life" found in nature is easily mimicked and present in the entire agricultural industry, and this "meat is evil" nonsense as a whole is akin to kicking out one of the sides of the fire pyramid. Air, fuel, heat.... you remove any one of them you don't have fire. Food-stock, grain-stock, livestock... it's the same notion. Especially if you talk grazing stocks like cow and sheep, which can survive on rocky terrains unsuitable for normal horticultural farming. (see my local dairies where you can't grow anything on that land except grass, hay or weeds -- and where the ground is frozen 5 months of the year!)
Just ask a farmer. There's a reason most of your major farms deal in all three, or cluster together; The chicken farm next to the corn farm next to the wheat farm. The only places you won't see it is in grossly inefficient resource consuming plant growing like grapes, apples and oranges... All of which generally consume more effort, cost and labor per calorie and nutritional value than long term livestock production like dairy or rotational crops... and ends up about the same as slaughter production at the bottom line.
... and that's before we talk the economic benefit of livestock production paying better and actually having higher regular man-hours than the seasonal migrant work that you see from horticultural foods.
I am sorry that the following links are really one-sided, but I think even those who oppose to claims in them would nevertheless find them interesting.
The issue of supplying enough power at once to quickly charge yet-to-be-seen efficient high capacity low loss accumulator:Low-tech Magazine: Who killed the electric grid? Fast-charging electric cars
Low-tech Magazine: The status quo of electric cars: better batteries, same range
One more (not so pretty) alternative:Low-tech Magazine: Wood gas vehicles: firewood in the fuel tank
On biofuel:Low-tech Magazine: Leave the algae alone
Some other links:No Tech Magazine: Oil Dependency & Alternative Fuels in 1909 Low-tech Magazine: Airships: green, slow air cargo
The Charging Point » Robert
Think about what you just said:
even with fossil fuelled power stations.
Which involve drilling, shipping, refining it, (it's not like a oil power station can burn crude!) storing it (in giant above ground tanks that always leak into the surrounding groundwater)... you're still burning it, you're just buring it somewhere else... and you're losing energy in the process of turning it into electricity, storing the electricity when not in use on the grid, loss of power over transmission lines -- meaning that per mile traveled you're actually consuming MORE fossil fuel.
We don't have "perfect conversion" of fuels and by the time you turn most fossil fuels into electricity you've gone from fossil to mechanical to electrical to transmission -- losing efficiency as light, heat, friction, momentum and a dozen other things at each stage of conversion. That mean electricity sent from a fossil fuel power station to be turned back into moving a vehicle ends up consuming many times more fossil fuel than just going straight to mechanical energy from the gasoline/diesel. Every time we change the energy type, from the inefficiencies of the process we "lose" energy. (you can't really "lose" energy, but you can end up with wasted energy that doesn't serve your purpose).
Seriously, given you lose power through inefficiencies along the way, which is going to be more effective?
fossil-> refine -> power station -> power lines/storage stations -> battery -> electric motor
fossil -> refine -> fuel motor
Guess which one produces more carbon emission per mile traveled... it's not the ICE.
Assuming you ignore the storage of spent fuel, risks of transporting fresh and spent fuel, and how your ecology nuts throw a hissy fit every time you go to build a new one. (the last of those being the pathetically useless real reason it's not an option. )
Given that politicians actually listen to the pseudo-science quacks on that (i believe the proper term is "lobbyists"), it's hardly shocking -- but there is some truth behind the anti-nuclear rhetoric if you figure in the Yucca Mountain storage facility. It drains the economy of 100 billion dollars a year... more than what is spent on coal at power stations over the same period; and that's just storing spent rods that aren't producing power for a industry that only produces 20% of the domestic supply (vs. coal's 50%). Nuclear may have a cheaper fuel cost and the plants don't really cost more to build, but if you figure in maintenance and disposal of spent fuel it's efficiency and financial viability are completely gutted compared to coal or natural gas... especially since you're talking about paying through the nose for hundreds of years to store this stuff.
Though like anything else, in places that are natural energy resource poor -- like pacific rim island nations, it's certainly much more economic a choice, especially with high population densities; See Japan. They've got no natural gas, they've gutted what little coal reserves they had, china isn't trading fuel with them (not that you want Chinese coal given it's ridiculously high radon levels) and shipping from anywhere else costs too much -- to meet their populations burning desire for electricity, they have little other choice than nuclear power.
Especially with their own eco-nuts getting their panties in a twist over the mere notion of tidal power-stations.
So where does the power that goes to the oil refinery come from? Magiced out of thin air? It takes a lot of power to run one of those places. What about the cost of transporting fuel in tankers? What about the cost of drilling for the oil, for transporting the oil overseas? What about the environmental impact of the oil drilling (see: Deepwater Horizon)?
Ha, another misrepresentation. Just miss off the vast majority of the chain to prove a non point! Also, what does 'power station' mean? Why are you putting the location of some of these processes inside a chain? Why not 'oil well' or 'storage depot' or anything like that?
fuel digging -> storage -> transport -> storage -> refinery -> storage -> transport -> storage -> transfer to car -> storage -> burn fuel
Of these, the following require fuel fed from exactly the same process: - fossil digging - transport (x2)
and these require electricity fed to them: - fuel digging - storage (x4) - transfer to car - refinery (huge amounts)
...this electricity being produced by this process:
fuel digging -> burn -> drive turbines -> transmit electricity
...of which fuel digging requires both fuel and electricity.
I see the equivalent for electric cars as (similar to electricity production above):
fuel digging -> burn -> drive turbines -> transmit electricity to car -> storage -> drive motor
of which fuel digging will require fuel and electricity, and transmit to car will require further electricity (to run the charging station, not much), but almost nothing else.
All in all, ICE cars require a HUGE chain of events, many branches of which are recursive. If you want me to draw a large diagram / flow of it all then I will, but it's pretty obvious the electric chain is far smaller.
So again, just more misinformation.
Do you want to place a bet on that?
Well, the last few you linked to aren't bad, the first two reek of more "someone writing about science while completely blinded by it" -- thankfully, I'm not Thomas Dolby, Science doesn't blind me.
This one in particular:Low-tech Magazine: The status quo of electric cars: better batteries, same range
Is so far out there, it's laughably pathetic as the author seems to have this bizarre delusion that going slower over distance saves power... While certainly the processes of acceleration and deceleration do have their associated energy costs, traveling at a higher consistent speed over distance is ALWAYS more fuel efficient -- in fact the further you go in a trip the more true this is.
The point of the article would therein best apply to your in-town trips -- but for the average city commuter maintaining 55 to 65mph down the highway on a 30 to 60 minute trip, slowing down to 40mph should by all logic mean HIGHER energy consumption due to one of the most basic principles of Newtonian physics... an object in motion. If you went to high school you should know the rest...
The only outside forces needed to be compensated for on wheeled vehicles is friction of the propulsion mechanism, friction with the ground, and drag. Compared to the energy needed to create that initial momentum at speeds below 100mph these are bupkis. It's actually one of the arguments that allowed many states to post higher speed limits than the 55mph US federally mandated one where higher speed was not a safety issue.
Even hypermilers know this -- in town they may drive like grandma so as not to waste momentum and energy on breaking, but you get them up on the highway and they're pushing whatever speed (typically 55 to 70) puts the engine in their car at the optimum fuel to power ratio.
It can even be funny when a heavier vehicle of equal shape and size can get higher fuel economy at flat highway speeds due to their increased ratio of momentum to drag... something that makes people scratch their heads just as much as the fuel difference between tailgate up and tailgate down, or why an airplane on a treadmill wouldn't take off when the indicated speed at the wheels equals the rated takeoff speed. [i](that Mythbusters even had to do episodes on those shows just how STUPID people are when it comes to physics).[i/]
You'd think the heavier load would take more fuel -- and it does to get up to speed -- but once at speed it can consume less, or at the very least the same fuel. See why it's more efficient to ship by train than by truck -- you're still overcoming the same amount of drag even as the mass increases... the speed difference of the two vehicles doesn't even play into it.
Methinks you missed the logic disconnect I was pointing out -- either way you're still talking burning fossil fuels for the foreseeable future as the majority of the electric supply... so burning it at the plant vs. burning it at the engine is LITERALLY just sweeping the problem under the rug.
Which is why most refineries burn the less often consumed Kerosene that comes from the refining process?
As opposed to the cost of transporting coal or natural gas on railcars, mining coal and drilling for natural gas? The storage costs and environmental impact of transporting and storing spent nuclear waste?
NO difference, if anything they can cost as much or more. It takes a crew of five to drill and cap a oil well, and if on land one guy to sit there watching twenty of them pump... try that with a coal mine... or a uranium mine, refinery and breeder reactor.
They all pretty much suck equally on those points, which is why they don't figure into such a discussion.
Huh, I don't understand what you're trying to say with that.
A power station -- nuclear plant, oil plant, coal plant, gas plant, hyrdo-electric plant, wind farm... A power generation station. The place where a non-electrical energy resource is converted into electricity. What did you think I meant?
Which are before the conversion process into useful power and for pretty much all of them involve the same amount of effort.
The entire next section of your post (starting with "try:") I couldn't even make sense out of, but seems to fail to grasp the processes involved.
Which is just as much of an issue as transporting it to the power station and then back to the automobile -- more so given the loss of energy at both ends. You're either running fossil or other source to electricity (loss)
Not when you figure in loss of conversion. In mechanical terms the term is 'engine efficiency'. Your average internal combustion automotive engine may have less than 20% efficiency -- around 80% of the energy being lost as heat out the exhaust... and it's figured that by the time you count in the expense of shipping after the refinery that's actually dropped to around 10% total energy efficiency.
You look at electric, your typical steam turbine power station (be it coal, gas or oil, covering >70% of electricity generated in America) may be able to reach the 40% efficiency -- but that's once you have the steam, a conversion process from those fossil fuels that in itself is only 60% efficient under the best of circumstances... (though straight natural gas turbines can reach 40% directly!) You figure in the national average 30% grid loss and the electric motor at the wheels itself having an average speed efficiency for city driving of 40% (despite the peak RPM efficiency that can hit over 90% -- the odds of being at that peak RPM are between slim and none; though CVT's can help with that).... do the math. 0.6 (making steam) * 0.4 (steam to elecricity) * 0.7 (loss over grid) * 0.4 (at the wheels) == 6.72% at wheel efficiency for electric.
... and that's skipping a whole bunch of other loss points like capacitance loss during charging, power loss during PWM switching to control motor speed, etc, etc, etc...
NET CHANGE ZERO... Which is why unless we find some other source for electricity, pure electrics and hybrids you charge on the grid are nothing more than NIMBY so far as pollution, environmental impact and cost are concerned. They are not an improvement, they're just a different way of handling it. We need something that's a tangible improvement.
Notice again I'm talking POST refinery -- since from ground to power station fossil fuel ends up costing pretty much the same be it coal, natural gas or crude... and even nuclear ends up costing the same or more if you look at the costs dealing with the fuel AFTER it's used.
You seem so stuck in your ways and unwilling to change (and some of your arguments are so crackpot anyway) that I'm not going to waste my effort trying. Take a look at this table which shows the 'Well To Wheel' efficiency of the various methods:
Read: EVs are over twice as efficient as any other type.
Also, check out page 4 of this for the equivalent in emissions:
Both being card stacking propaganda from the people behind Tesla motors -- you should know better than that!
As such missing a great many consideration factors -- like them listing crude oil as the only fuel source for hybrids and gas, omitting the cost of natural gas by energy output... The real hoot though being that they're claiming the power for the Tesla vehicles comes entirely from natural gas on that first chart.
They're plug-in electric meaning that you're taking power from the grid -- where only 23% of the electricity nation-wide is from natural gas, over 44% is coal, 20% is nuclear, just under 7% hydroelectric, 1% petroleum and the remaining tiny fraction being "other". They're blatantly card stacking their own statistics by cherry picking the electricity source!
Though at least their numbers piss all over hydrogen fuel cells -- but that just boils down to the classic old line "the best place to wedge a lie is between two truths".
Card stacking and glittering generalities -- the cornerstone of any good marketing propaganda.
The only thing their claims prove is that natural gas is more efficient than coal or crude -- it's not as plentiful or cheap either... that 23% nation-wide here in the US comes from only 11% of power stations; much like the 6.9% of hydroelectric comes from less than 1% of power stations -- it doesn't mean it's effective to use them or build them everywhere.
Oh, and it REALLY pisses on hydrogen fuel cell since they're using the cherry of electric generation -- natural gas -- as it's primary source too... naturally omitting it's cherry source as a byproduct of desalination plants.
NOT that desalination is big in the west -- go to the Middle East or Africa that's a whole different story.