text:
CommNexus, a San Diego trade group for the wireless and defense industries, has selected the first three fledgling companies for its new incubator program.
Out of 45 applicants, CommNexus and its sister organization, EvoNexus, chose Medipacs, a wireless life sciences company; IO Semiconductor, a radio chip maker; and Pixon Images, a video imaging company. They will get free mentoring from industry experts, furnished office space for up to two years and other help at no cost.
EvoNexus received a donation of office space in Sorrento Mesa from Leap Wireless to start the program. The trade group hopes to house 10 to 12 startups there. It has received about 35 applications for its second round of awards, which is expected late next month, said Cathy Pucher, the group's executive director.
Mike Freeman
Novatel Wireless device expands its reach to Asia
Novatel Wireless said it has signed its first distribution deal for the company's MiFi mobile hotspot device with an Asia carrier. MobileOne of Singapore, part of the Vodafone partner network, will introduce the MiFi this week.
Novatel's MiFi device is about the size of a small stack of credit cards. It provides high-speed Internet connections to computers via a cellular network. As many as five computers can connect to the MiFi at once.
The San Diego company has MiFi distribution agreements in Spain and in the United States with Sprint and Verizon. Novatel has said demand for the MiFi initially has been strong, with $100 million in orders in the first two months of launch.
Novatel's shares rose 83 cents, or 7.5 percent, to close at $11.92.
Mike Freeman
Defense contractor SAIC picks facility in Indiana
San Diego-based defense contractor SAIC plans to take over a former Visteon facility in southern Indiana, where it will do work for the nearby Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center.
Company executives said Science Applications International Corp. would have 60 employees at its new site in Bedford when it starts systems integration work there.
State officials say SAIC's Indiana work force has grown from 100 employees in 2001 to its current level of more than 1,000 scientists, engineers and technicians.
Associated Press
Fed survey shows signs of economic stability
The Federal Reserve's latest survey of businesses around the country found economic activity stabilizing or improving in most regions.
All but one of the Fed's 12 regions indicated economic activity either was "stable," showed "signs of stabilization" or had "firmed," according to the Fed's survey yesterday. The one exception was the St. Louis region, which reported the economic decline is "moderating." Businesses in most Fed regions said they were "cautiously positive" about the economic road ahead. The survey, known as the Beige Book, does not include precise figures.
Analysts predict the economy is growing in the current quarter, which ends Sept. 30, at an annual rate of 3 percent to 4 percent.
Associated Press
Kratos Defense & Security of San Diego has been awarded two contracts to assist the U.S. Navy in training its information technology work force. The contract awards total $1.5 million.
Xenonics Holdings, a Carlsbad maker of high-intensity flashlights, said it has received a contract worth up to $2 million from the U.S. Army to supply its NightHunter 3 flashlights.
Shares of Gen-Probe rose 5 percent after the San Diego biotechnology company was upgraded by an Oppenheimer analyst.
Kraft Foods Chief Executive Irene Rosenfeld said she will keep pushing to buy candy maker Cadbury as part of Kraft's focus on higher-margin brands and international markets.


text:
- Home
- Dentist.net Official Blog
- Sensodyne ProNamel Fresh Wave Toothpaste Product Review
Dentist.net Official Blog
Sensodyne ProNamel Fresh Wave Toothpaste Product Review
Posted on:
Filed under breath, Product Review, teeth, toothpaste, whitening
Sensitive teeth make it hard to drink hot tea or coffee in the morning, or enjoy a chilled drink or ice cream in the summertime! It's very inconvenient when you are restricted from enjoying your favorite foods and beverages due to your sensitive teeth. Sadly, some of these tasty foods and drinks are also the cause for the erosion of tooth enamel. It is very important to maintain the health of our teeth while eating the foods we enjoy. Good thing, there are now toothpastes that protect your teeth enamel from sensitivity and you can enjoy your favorite things! Sensodyne has a large selection of toothpastes designed to protect your teeth and its enamel. The whole line is designed to protect teeth from sensitivity and they have various features such as pronamel, whitening, anti-cavity, fluoride, and a kids toothpaste. I tested out the Sensodyne ProNamel Fresh Wave toothpaste because I drink a lot of coffee and soda which erode my teeth enamel. I also occasionally experience tooth sensitivity when drinking cold refreshments. After using the toothpaste, I had no sensitivity when drinking cold drinks for the remainder of the day. I am also hoping that the toothpaste will protect my tooth enamel from becoming less white. Great minty flavor that left my breath fresh and clean for hours! Rating: 5 stars out of 5 When you consume acidic foods and drinks like fruits, juices, wine, coffee, and sodas to name a few, those acids can weaken your teeth by dissolving the strengthening minerals in the enamel. This makes it a lot easier for decay to form, as well as causing sensitivity and making your teeth less white. Sensodyne, the leading brand for tooth sensitivity prevention, now has a new toothpaste designed to fight against acid erosion. Sensodyne ProNamel features Potassium nitrate to help rebuild the soft parts of the enamel, bringing your teeth strength back to the way its supposed to be. By hardening the enamel, your teeth will also regain their natural white! Sensodyne ProNamel also contains fluoride to help prevent and protect against cavities. And the fresh Wave flavor will give you fresh breath for hours!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Srinivasan Narayanan to re-launch his distribution company
Mumbai, Sep 27 (IANS) Film industry veteran Srinivasan Narayanan announced on Tuesday the re-launch of his international distribution company In2Infotainment India.
The company has acquired the distribution rights of the British drama "I, Daniel Blake" by Ken Loach. It tells the story of a 59-year-old carpenter befriending a single mother and her two children as they navigate their way through the impersonal and Kafkaesque benefits system.
With this, In2Infotainment India has made a comeback to the distribution business following earlier titles such as "L'Enfant", and "The Barbarian Invasions".
"When I prepared a business plan in 2001 for distribution of art-house movies in India, I was a pioneer and had to go through the learning experience. When I took over as the Director of the Mumbai Film Festival, I strengthened my association with award-winning and critically-acclaimed films.
"With that commitment having concluded, I took some time off to revive my company and create a sustainable model for the distribution of international films in India," Narayanan, Chief Executive, In2Infotainment India, said in a statement.
While In2infotainment's forte remains acquiring award-winning films for distribution in India, it is also set to forge new partnerships with investors across the world to market Indian films, documentaries and TV content. In the past, the company has also exported Indian films to Iran, Singapore, Australia and Canada.


text:
About Me
About this Site
Curriculum Vitae
Expert Witnessing
For my Students
I have not paid charter cities enough attention, in part because the concept is so patently ludicrous that I didn't want to take it seriously, and in part because, as my favorite Honduran oligarch periodically reminds me, Honduras already is a model country (going by the model provided for ciudades modelos), so why should we act like this is something special? But despite the idea's ludicrousness on the one hand, and the continuity it represents with the narcoestado golpeado neoliberal de Honduras on the other, charter cities are both a real threat and an extreme example of democracy usurpation in the interest of profit, particularly profit from large-scale drug trade. And debate is intensifying as they come closer to becoming a reality.
Belén Fernandez approached the topic with her customary scathing brilliance in an Al Jazeera article a couple weeks ago in Partitioning Honduras: The advent of charter cities, which was also cited in Keane Bhatt's latest spot-on NACLA blog post, News Reports Confirm Drastic Deterioration of Honduran Sovereignty.
And more recently, brazen stupidity from a Romer cheerleader named John Otis How a TED talk inspired a utopia urban vision in Honduras. I'd break it down, but reader, you're not stupid, and the title kind of says it all.
Another cheerleading piece masquerading as hard-hitting journalism ("some will say..."), in which Stephen Sackur of the BBC gives an exclusive to the creepily evil Mark Klugman: Radical experiment to beat drugs trade in Honduras. Klugman, a political strategist trained under Reagan and in Chile who worked on Lobo's 2005 campaign, is also given a soapbox here.
Yesterday in the Guardian, we were told that Hondurans with complaints about the RED zones can seek justice in Mauritius (10,000 miles away) or in London.
Meanwhile, OFRANEH has led the fight against charter cities. It launched the campaign against charter cities, which would be built on
empty Garifuna lands, on July 18th.


text:
3,000m steeplechase - Helsinki, 1952
At 10 p.m. one spring night in 1952, in the respectable New Jersey suburb of Glen Ridge, an elderly lady called the police to report a man fleeing down her quiet street wearing underpants. The cop located the man in the pocket-sized Glenfield Park, where he was running back and forth, jumping over three park benches set 30 yards apart. The only other person in the park at that time was collecting worms for fishing. For New Jersey's cops, these were the days before the Sopranos.
Horace Ashenfelter worked full hours for the FBI in Newark, so had to train at night. A conventional, quiet family man, he was also quietly committed, adding repeat half-miles to his hurdles practice. When he got a break at work, he ran the building's 18 floors of stairs.
The commitment paid off. He took vacation leave for the Olympics, ran three times a day in Helsinki, still including his three-hurdle workout, and won his steeplechase heat in a 15-second PR. The final was a Cold War classic, the thoughtful FBI agent ranked 17th in the world against the Soviet iron man, police officer, former soldier and world record-holder, Vladimir Kazantsev.
As Ashenfelter kept pressing, the two drew away from the field, including Britain's fancied John Disley. At the last water jump, Ashenfelter chose a spot where he had identified firmer footing to land on and surged away. "No one remembers second. Hit him hard," he was thinking. He won in a world record 8:45.4, with the Russian almost caught by Disley, later co-founder of the London Marathon.
Ashenfelter, 89, still lives quietly in New Jersey, where the Ashenfelter 8K Classic is run in his honor.
Bob Schul (719) took gold in the 5,000m in Tokyo.
5,000m - Tokyo, 1964
What a field! Ron Clarke (Australia), Michel Jazy (France), Harald Norpoth (West Germany), Bill Baillie (New Zealand) and Kip Keino (Kenya) all at some point held world records. Nikolay Dukov (USSR) and Mike Wiggs (GBR) were also threats. But it was Bob Schul (USA) whose long stride splashed across the rain-soaked cinders to haul in first Norpoth and then Jazy. The Frenchman, second to Herb Elliott at 1500m in Rome in 1960, put faith in his long sprint, taking off at 300 to go, but on the stretch it was all Schul, hair stuck to his face with the rain, cutting him down with a perfectly timed stroke of the sword. With Jazy in despair, Norpoth and another astonishing American, Bill Dellinger, took the silver and bronze.
Schul was inducted in the National Distance Running Hall of Fame in 2005, and Dellinger, famed mostly as an Oregon coach, in 2001.
"The start of my drive for the Olympics was when I joined Mihaly Igloi [the famed Hungarian-born coach]. He and the Los Angeles Track Club led the nation in the early '60s, making everyone train harder. That was the main reason we were able to catch up to the Europeans. Today's athletes have no idea what we went through. Training at 5:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. as well as working an 8-hour day meant dedication--you gave up everything else. The cinder tracks were not so good, and we climbed fences to get into the workout areas," Schul told me by email.
Moral: It's hard work that wins gold medals.
The names of Hill, Ashenfelter and Schul will likely not trip off the TV analysts' tongues in August. But all three earned a place of honor in the history of American Olympic running.


text:
« Dow and Crystalsev to Make Polyethylene from Sugar Cane Ethanol in Brazil | Main | Mushroom Genome Could Assist In Biofuel Production and Carbon Management »
EPRI-NRDC Studies Highlight GHG and Air Quality Benefits of Plug-in Hybrids
19 July 2007
Two studies released by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) show that widespread use of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) in the United States could significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and has the potential to provide small but significant improvements in ambient air quality in most areas of the US.
Widespread adoption of PHEVs could reduce GHG emissions from vehicles by more than 450 million metric tons annually in 2050—equivalent to removing 82.5 million passenger cars from the road. Cumulative GHG emissions reductions from 2010 to 2050 could reach 10.3 billion metric tons under the most aggressive scenarios for the development of a lower-carbon electrical infrastructure and PHEV penetration.
The analysis is the first to combine models of the US electric system and transportation sector with atmospheric air quality models to account for the future evolution of both sectors in technological advances, electricity load growth and capacity expansion.
PHEV Impact on Nationwide Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The GHG research measures the impact of increasing numbers of PHEVs between 2010—the year the researchers assumed PHEVs would become available on the US market—and 2050. The "well-to-wheels" analysis accounted for emissions from the generation of electricity to charge PHEV batteries and from the production, distribution and consumption of gasoline and diesel motor fuels.
The researchers combined three scenarios for the development of the electric sector— high-, medium-, and low-levels of both CO2 and total GHG—and three scenarios for the rate of adoption of PHEVs—low, medium and high.
The different scenarios of CO2 and GHG intensity for the electric sector are:
High. There is limited availability of higher efficiency and non-emitting generation technologies and a low cost associated with allowances to emit CO2 and other GHGs in this scenario. Total annual electric sector GHG emissions increase by 25% from 2010 to 2050.
Medium. Advanced renewable and non-emitting generation technologies, such as biomass and IGCC with carbon capture and storage, are available in this scenario. There is a moderate cost associated with allowances to emit CO2 and other GHGs. Total annual electric sector emissions decline by 4% between 2010 and 2050.
Low. Carbon capture and storage retrofit technology for existing coal plants are available in this scenario. In addition, there is significantly slower load growth indicative of a nationwide adoption of energy efficiency, or other demand reduction, and a high cost to emit CO2 and other GHGs. Total electric sector emissions decline by 85% in this scenario from 2010 to 2050.
The three different PHEV adoption scenarios each presume PHEVs enter the market in 2010 and achieve maximum new vehicle market share in 2050. PHEVs reach a maximum of 20% new vehicle market share in the Low PHEV scenario, 62% in the Medium PHEV scenario, and 80% in the High PHEV scenario.
|2050 New Vehicle Market Share by Scenario
|Vehicle Type
|Plug-In Hybrid
|PHEV Fleet Penetration Scenario
Total system emissions from a given level of PHEV use will be determined by a combination of the vehicle type (PHEV with a 0, 20 or 40 miles of electric range), annual vehicle miles traveled by vehicle type, and the types of generating resources that are built and dispatched to serve the electrical load from grid-connected PHEVs.
The researchers found that annual GHG emissions reductions were significant in every scenario combination of the study, reaching a maximum reduction of 612 million metric tons in 2050 (High PHEV fleet penetration, Low-electric sector CO2 intensity case).
|2050 Annual GHG Reduction (million metric tons)
|Electric Sector CO2 Intensity
|PHEV Fleet Penetration Scenario
Air Quality Analysis. The air quality study evaluated two scenarios for the year 2030:
- A base case without any penetration of PHEVs in the US vehicle fleet; and
A PHEV case with PHEVs having reached 50% of new vehicle sales and constituting 40% of on-road vehicles by 2030. In the PHEV case, the overall fraction of vehicle miles traveled by the US vehicle fleet using electricity stored in PHEV batteries is 20%.
The study used a high electric-sector emission case where nearly all additional electricity demand needed to power an aggressive market penetration of PHEVs was assumed to be met by an increase in the use of present-day coal-fired generation technology with only currently required environmental controls.
The study consisted of four steps:
Transportation Sector Modeling. For both the base case and the PHEV case, the transportation sector and its emissions were modeled out to 2030. Emissions offset due to vehicle miles traveled using electricity (and reductions in upstream emissions) are calculated by the transportation models. In addition, the incremental electricity demand due to PHEVs was calculated for the PHEV case. The incremental load takes into account losses during transmission and battery charging. This incremental load is also attributed to different hours of the day assuming an overall charging profile for the fleet.
Electric Sector Modeling. For both the base case and PHEV case, the US electric sector was modeled from 2006 to 2030. New generation capacity and electricity dispatch is simulated by the models to account for increased load due to population and economic growth. Emissions associated with electricity generation is also calculated and constrained by environmental regulations as explained earlier. In the PHEV case, the incremental electrical load due to PHEVs is added for all intermediate years in which PHEVs are present as well as 2030.
Emissions Processing. For each scenario, emissions from the transportation sector and electric sector were merged with emissions from all other sectors into an emissions inventory. Natural emissions from vegetation and soil are also added into the emissions inventory. The emissions inventory is then transformed into a format suitable for use in a three-dimensional model of air quality for the entire continental United States.
Air Quality Modeling. The US Environmental Protection Agency's Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model was used to simulate US air quality in 2030 in each scenario. The key air quality indicators investigated in the air quality modeling were: ozone mixing ratios; daily and annual particulate matter concentrations (for both PM10 and PM2.5); deposition of sulfate, nitrate, total nitrogen (sum of oxidized and reduced nitrogen) and mercury; and visibility at Class I areas (e.g. national parks). In addition, population-weighted exposure indicators were also calculated for ozone and particulate matter.
The study found that:
In most regions of the United States, PHEVs result in small but significant improvements in ambient air quality and reduction in deposition of various pollutants such as acids, nutrients and mercury.
On a population weighted basis, the improvements in ambient air quality are small but numerically significant for most of the country.
The emissions of gaseous criteria pollutants (NOx and SO2) are constrained nationally by regulatory caps. As a result, changes in total emissions of these pollutants due to PHEVs reflect slight differences in allowance banking during the study's time horizon.
Considering the electric and transportation sector together, total emissions of VOC, NOx and SO2 from the electric sector and transportation sector decrease due to PHEVs. Ozone levels decreased for most regions, but increased in some local areas. When assuming a minimum detection limit of 0.25 parts per billion, modeling estimates that 61% of the population would see decreased ozone levels and 1% of the population would see increased ozone levels.
Mercury emissions increase by 2.4% with increased generation needs to meet PHEV charging loads. The study assumes that mercury is constrained by a cap-and-trade program, with the option for using banked allowances, proposed by EPA during the execution of the study. The electric sector modeling indicates that utilities take advantage of the banking provision to realize early reductions in mercury that result in greater mercury emissions at the end of the study timeframe (2030).
Primary emissions of particulate matter (PM) increase by 10% with the use of PHEVs due primarily to the large growth in coal generation assumed in the study. In most regions, particulate matter concentrations decrease due to significant reductions in VOC and NOx emissions from the transportation sector leading to less secondary PM.
Environmental Assessment of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (EPRI reports)
July 19, 2007 in Climate Change, Emissions, Plug-ins, Power Generation | Permalink | Comments (35) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference EPRI-NRDC Studies Highlight GHG and Air Quality Benefits of Plug-in Hybrids:
That nice.
Now when will the NRDC stop ignoring the air quality downsides of Ethanol?
I love analyses that don't analyze anything; and make other than projections that are straight forward and not really applicable.
Of course PHEVs would have improved air quality. But that assumes that direct anti-pollution action will not have solved that question anyway. The US auto fleet produces 1/1000 th of the pollution of the auto fleet in 1975.
And that includes the fact that the US auto fleet today is another third larger in the number of vehicles. Despite continued pressure for even more, the US auto fleet has risen in efficiency by about 5.1% per year compounded. Most of this went into larger, safer vehicles, equipped with more safety subsystems, and better performance. But changes in that direction, has gone about as far as is necessary, or likely.
Even if the auto fleet stayed based on fossil fuels, the un-written and un-appreciated fact is that air quality is essentially coming into compliance virtually everywhere in the USA, without a single PHEV in the fleet, as yet.
If air quality targets were the same as originally targeted in the the 1970's, ALL the USA would be in compliance, today. But job justification creep has tightened the EPA targets for defining "good air". Of course, PHEVs would have helped, but there would not be actual improvement because the air will have been cleaned anyway, even up to the toughened targets in but a few more years and long before 2030.
The other stupidity is assuming that the present electrical generation mix or emission levels will remain as they are today. In other words, they are making a straight line projection.
Three points about that non analysis.
There are 29 Nukes in the pipeline in the USA, where as a few years ago there there were none.
Nuclear is making a gigantic comeback.
Over the next 25 years there will be many more, and the percentage of clean electrical power will rise from 20% to as much as 40-50%. Starting about then the earliest Nukes will start to permanently retire, so the percentage may then stabilize or even decline. But Fusion will be looming then as a viable and inexhaustible solution that will start to take over.
Hydro will remain essentially the same,as it is built-out. Wind, solar, wave and geo-thermal will increase from today's insignificant nothing to twice or three or four times the insignificant nothing, with government subsidy, knocking off another percent or two of fossil generation.
The coal power plant of 2030 will be significantly cleaner than today's coal plant. IGCC, with optional sequestration, will be much more common. Even with out sequestration, the emission levels, are at least an order of magnitude cleaner than today's plants. Even the present "dirtier" plants are much, much cleaner than the "clean" auto fleet. As noted, the cleaner coal plants will constitute a smaller percentage of electrical generation than it does today as well.
By the 2030 time frame the Global warming nonsense will have died; pollution will have been conquered; dependency on a petroleum basis for the ground transport application will have diversified; productive lifespans will have increased as auto immune debilitating diseases, (atherosclerosis, diabetes, MS, Alzheimer's) will have been conquered one after another. Cancer will likely be much better in control too.
What will the Cassandras worry about then?
It would be helpful to read the article in context before bashing it. The air quality side of the article was clearly secondary to the GHG side of the article, and its analysis was obviously meant as a "worst case" sort of scenario.
The subtext of the article was that PHEVs can be expected to reduce GHGs under most any circumstance, but will that be at the expense of pushing the pollution upstream, to the power plant level? If power plants become very green, this is obviously not a problem, but in a "worst case" scenario, where all new power plants are the dirtiest we can think of (conventional coal), would widespread introduction of PHEVs come back to haunt us, through the creation of worsening air quality?
The answer this study suggests is no. Even with fairly high PHEV penetration and usage (20% of all vehicle miles powered by grid electricity), the consumption of all that extra coal-fired electricity will still not worsen our air quality. This is because even though modern cars are rather non-polluting, they still emit enough to be noticeable, so reducing the amount of gasoline consumed still has enough benefits to outweigh the cost of some increase in coal consumption.
As an aside, I find your remark about "job justification creep" and our increasingly strict air quality regulations to be rather misdirected. Forty years of advances in atmospheric science sound like a plausible enough source for the revised pollution criteria. To make a comparison, the results of forty years of biomedical research seem to contain reasons enough to justify the fact that our medical treatments are not the same as they were back in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
I agree with what NBK-Boston said here. The study of this subject is a good thing and the results are very interesting.
One of the great things about PHEV and BEV solutions is that they give us the option for powering our vehicles with wind and solar power.
I am doing both right now with an electric motorcycle I built myself. My next conversion will be a car that I can use next winter.
I also got a call today from the local Vectrix dealer that they now have an electric scooter in stock for test drives. We need more options like this to choose from.
Yeah KJD - that sounds awesome. The more people we can get motivate to working on similar projects and pushing alt autos the better - I'll all for supporting those types of efforts (not much of an engineer myself - but I walk to work now so I don't need one). Also, something cool I saw today is a new push by the Center for American Progress for alt fuels is their new Clean My Ride project where they're getting a ton of celebrities to make web videos that support the cause - the first one is up and has Ben Affleck in it (actually really funny) and its at www.cleanmyride.org. CAP is doing a great job with this by trying to generate some popular buzz for this.
This summary is great -- especially because it includes a table that is not in the study's own Executive Summary: the matrix that shows the worst-case (low PHEV penetration and high-CO2 grid still delivers 162 million metric tons of CO2/year, while the best-case (high PHEV penetration and a much cleaner grid) will result in 612 million metric tons/year.
Here's CalCars' overall take on the report:
The EPRI-NRDC studies finally give an environmental stamp of approval to PHEVs. Scientist have confirmed that unlike gasoline cars, plug-ins will get cleaner as they get older -- because our power grid is getting cleaner.
For people looking for the most effective way to end our addiction to oil, PHEVs have made sense because carmakers can build them now, with today's technology and using today's infrastructure. But they've needed definitive proof that PHEVs won't increase pollution. The main study shows that under all nine scenarios for both rates of market penetration of PHEVs and the evolving power grid's characteristics (capacity/carbon intensity), PHEVs will vastly reduce greenhouse gases for the next 40 years. In the second study, for the next 20 years, even if, worst-case, we still use lots of coal, nationwide air quality for other emissions will also improve.
Three more points: Both reports match up well with previous studies. They reinforces the Pacific National Lab's January 2007 findings that we won't have to build new power plants for cars that charge at night. And we're gratified that General Motors recognizes sees this study as validation of its decision to evolve to the electrification of transportation.
BTW, the studies are huge -- If you want to spend a worthwhile hour on this, at the URL cited, read the press release, then get the Executive Summary for part 1 (9 pages, 8 charts & tables) and the Frequently Asked Questions that covers both reports (7 pages, 24 questions).
-- Felix Kramer, Founder, The California Cars Initiative
Cause and effect. For those who made the effort to actually read the report, that burning sensation in the eyes was virtual smoke being blown in your face.
So how much could I save on energy bills with a PHEV with a 20 mile range? About $1/day while increasing ghg from 'old coal' 11%.
The data does support ways to reduce ghg, reduce energy bills of Americans, and increase energy independence. Replace CCNG generation with new nuclear power plant until LNG terminals are out of business.
NRDC is the ultimate late comer to technology. They were still pushing natural gas power as late as 2005 with price forecasts that were off be almost 100%!
I met a senior member of them in early 2006 and he never even heard of cellulotic ethanol, then three months latter he was talking it up like crazy on a radio interview!
Just in case anyone believes Stan's outrageous claims for the "efficiency" improvements in the US auto fleet I have excerpted a scientific study below. Indeed, pollution from automobile exhaust is being reduced but not nearly 1000 times and it is still the major source of air pollution in the US.
The reason for the rash of permits for nuclear power plants is due to the huge subsidies in the energy bill, 2 cents/KWH for the first reactors constructed. Do away with this production subsidy, the subsidies for decommissioning, yucca flat, Price-Anderson liability limits etc. and nuclear could not compete.
The History of Improving Automobile Emissions...
Department of Chemistry, Pepperdine University, 2003
The steady reliance on the automobile for transportation over the past several decades has resulted in a dramatic decline in our nation's air quality. Over 50% of all United States air pollution is generated by motor vehicles, and transportation accounts for over 75% of U.S. CO emissions, nearly 50% of U.S. oxide of nitrogen (NOx) emissions, and 40% of the volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions [1]. Ground-level ozone, the most problematic constituent of smog, forms when volatile organics combine with NOx in the presence of sunlight; urban areas having sunny, warm climates are particularly prone to ozone problems [2]. A strong correlation between breathing smoggy air and an increased incidence of respiratory and cardiopulmonary disease is emerging. In general, slower lung growth in children appears to be associated with exposure to constituents of smog [3]. These findings continue to prompt new legislation associated with motor vehicle emission controls.
In the 1960s, a typical new car produced 228 pounds of smog-forming hydrocarbons in a year; today the typical new car produces less than five pounds annually [4]. Over the past four decades, emissions of carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen have also been substantially reduced. For example, a pre-1966 automobile emitted 84 g of CO/mile and 4.1 g NOx/mile; the current federal standard is 3.4 g CO/mile and 0.4 g NOx/mile (Tier 1) [5]. Aggressive air pollution control programs in the U.S. stimulated changes in engine design and emission control devices in the 1970s, and later use of reformulated gasoline and low-emission automobiles in some states also mitigated vehicle emissions. Since the phasing out of leaded gasoline in the 1970s, several oxygenated compounds, including ethanol and methyl tert-butyl ether, have been used to enhance octane ratings and to reduce carbon monoxide emissions.
I probably do not understand the study. The way I read the article, they coupled a degrading picture of generation air pollution to minimize the effect of Hybrid plug-in vehicles. The new fossil fuel generating units such as the GE combined cycle approach 60% thermal efficiency, whereas the older boiler technology ran around 38%.
Now I certainly concur with the observation that PHEV shift the source of the pollution to the electric generators, and therefore is the generation is coming from buring fossil fuel, no real improvement is achieved. But, if at the same time (2010-2050) we shift away from fossil fuel to nuclear and renewables, then significant reduction seems in the cards. Especially for me, I live in Southern California near a freeway packed with cars crawing along spewing unbreathable exhaust.
Man, the trolls are out today. Stan Peterson trolls:
By the 2030 time frame the Global warming nonsense will have diedIf you mean the denial that it's already happening and rapidly getting worse, you're probably off by about 20 years. But I think you mean the opposite.
And the Kit P trolls:
So how much could I save on energy bills with a PHEV with a 20 mile range? About $1/dayIf you replace the average 25 mpg vehicle and gasoline is $3/gallon at the pump (it's really costing you a lot more, but the various agricultural and military expenses come from income taxes) your fuel savings would be saving $2.40/charge or up to $4.80/day for a commuter who recharges at work. Figure half that on weekends, so 260*4.80 + 104*2.40 = $1497.60/year. Savings would go up as fuel prices increased, of course.
It would be more interesting with you around if you'd at least try to make your falsehoods more subtle than gross arithmetic errors.
For those of you who seem to have a problem with this study, and PHEVs in general, there is another option. Do nothing and wait until the oil runs out. Problem solved. But I suspect there are posters here who want it both ways. Do nothing and magically wish for a substitute for oil.
Having said that, it is guaranteed that as long as we use oil, carbon emissions will not improve unless we simply cut back, increase efficiency, and/or switch to smaller vehicles, which isn't necessarily a bad approach and one that many of us are personally following.
But even with all the above, there will need to be alternative ways of running our vehicles in the future. Electricity has the advantage that it can be made with a wide variety of fuels, including those which emit little or no greenhouse gases. We need to move to those alternative sources regardless of how we choose to run our vehicles. Converting our vehicles to electricity will compliment what should be done anyway.
One issue not mentioned is that for the next decade, the baseload can take care of most of these new vehicles. At night, especially if one is using coal, the demand for electricity is typically below what is produced anyway because the generators need to run at a certain capacity, a wasteful exercise. In essence, then the first crop of PHEVs can run on fuel that would be wasted anyway. The net contribution to emissions in the early stages, therefore, will be zero.
In a saner world, we would drastically cut back our use and need for the automobile, which I consider one of the most destructive, dangerous, and harmful technologies ever developed and put into widespread use. In the mean time, however, we will need to find ways to mitigate the otherwise destructive effects of this monster.
E-P, how about if you replace the average 25 mpg vehicle with a Corolla and you commute 20 miles a day?
Speaking of smoke, did you get a whiff of what E-P was blowing. He might think it is cheating, but I took the numbers out of the report. I multiplied by the price I pay for gasoline and subtracted price I pay for electricity. I did not consider the added costs of a PHEV which would most likely negate any savings at all.
Increasing ghg from 'old coal' by 11% came straight from the report.
The list of nuclear power plants in the 'pipeline' is not about 33. The PTC for the first 6 and is the same that wind power gets. Each nuke plants pays its own cost for spent fuel disposal and decommissioning.
Here is a link to a list: http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=344
What may not be apparent form this list, is that most of these nuke plants will be merchant plants run by companies that also own CCGT. The reason this is relevant is that the mix of electric generation will likely be such that ghg emissions have significantly reduced to the point where the cost of a PHEV can not be justified unless the price of gasoline doubles In which case, biofuels will be very economical.
Maybe E-P does not consider himself a troll when he ignores the price of electricity, the fuel economy of a sticker price comparable POV to a PHEV, and the most likely energy sources.
Kit: Yes, when you go to PHEV's you may get a bit more ghgs from coal under the current mix of energy production (by all means replace with cleaner energy), but you've removed far more by not burning the gasoline you would have. Not only that, but a PHEV will eliminate all of those short, cold start trips that are so polluting.
For consistency of analysis, if you're going to replace the entire fleet with corolla's (wishful thinking), then you should also replace all of the coal fired plants with solar panels (also wishful thinking). PHEVs still comes out ahead in the pollution department.
Have you got a better solution than EVs for pollution (particularly local), ghgs and oil dependence?
The source for the comment of 29 Nukes in the pipeline is the Nuclear Regualtory Commision, NRC web pages. Look on their licening page. And the economics are all for the Nuclear plants building pre-approved, pre-certified comnbined construction and operating licensed plants, with predictable and fixed price plants, 36 months from first concrete to first power, is impeccably the cheapest power and its not even close.
The source for the "outrageous statement" that the auto fleet has been getting more efficient at the rate of 5.1% per year compounded is ...TA DA... this very Green Car Congress web site. Use the search button. Just remember the original 42 hp beetle without any airbags, bumpers, side impact, or crush contro; or any pollution control or catlaytic converters, got all of 16 mpg. Today that is terrible mileage for a full size Big Cadillac.
The source for the eeath of the GHG statement is the IPCC TAR IV report itself. They said Methane, CH4, (1/4 of the GHG proposed GHG threat) is no longer rising and now declining slightly; Haloflorocarbons, are declining for a longer time now, now removing another 10% of the potential driving problem that could be assigned ot GHGs. Nitrous oxide from plantlife is a comaparative constant for a long timenow and also stabilized. So the GHG "problem" is reduced to two gasses only, and is an H20 and CO2 problem only. Good bye GHGs.
The rate of CO2 rise is slowing. So 35% of the total possible driving force due to GHGs has been conquered already. Then the Current IPCC TAR IV shrunk the total GHG threat another 12-15%.
More significantly, the IPCC removed 12-15% of the total driving force from GHGs and assigned it to more intense light and direct solar radiation.
They ALSO said that when they understand the effect of solar wind on the cloud formation, (Dr Svensmark's work being tested at CERN) which is much larger in potential impact, that the IPCC will assign the appropraite value to that cause. Just like in teh IPCC TAR IV the IPCC will remove it from the CO2 default, probably in the IPCC TAR V due before 2012.
The earlier IPCC TAR III report said the cloud effect can be substantial and account for maybe 80% or even all of the measured Global Warming. Since then GW has appeared to stabilize in the last decade, when Dr. Mann's tree ring hockey stick statistical errors are disregarded, and measures of warmng from satelittes or direct measures are used.
This is probably the case as the Sun's increased output cycle has crested and turned down in the last decade since 1998.
The 11% GHG increase figure for PHEV-Old Coal, which you pulled from the report, is relative to what? That is, it is an 11% increase over what baseline?
You fail to answer that question in your post.
But I looked it up. It was in the Year 2010 projections section.
The 11% GHG increase figure -- actually, a 1%-11% range was reported -- is against a the baseline of a straight hybrid vehicle. The same paragraph of the report indicates that, compared to an average *conventional* car, a PHEV with a 20-mile all-electric range, charged entirely from Old-Coal electricity, actually releases 28%-34% *less* GHG.
Who is blowing smoke at whom, I ask? Who chose a percentage tied to an unusual/misleading baseline figure, and then neglected to point out which baseline he was using?
That part of the report also examines the GHG intensity of PHEV-20s charged from other sources, such as nuclear power, IGCC plants, IGCC-CCS, etc. Each of those other cases was far better than the conventional baseline. Some were roughly comparable to the straight-hybrid case, but always slighly better than PHEV/old-coal. Some were significantly better than both. Strangely, I didn't see much data on oil or natural gas fired electricity. The results rely on a model of 12,000 miles driven per year, with assumptions about those miles are put on (long vs. short trips, etc.).
What does this tell us? To me, it says it's not worth buying or charging a PHEV, from a GHG perspective, in an area which gets 100% of its power from "old coal;" a regular hybrid is as good or slightly better, and probably a good deal cheaper because of the batteries. But in any place that gets a good fraction of its power from virtually any other source you are probably ahead. Also, even if you live in a 100% coal area, it may be able to support a limited number of PHEVs charging off its marginal-cost-free base load.
The source for the comment of 29 Nukes in the pipeline is the Nuclear Regualtory Commision, NRC web pages.
That's the number of applications, hardly "in the pipeline". Projects go fizzle all the time.
And the economics are all for the Nuclear plants building pre-approved, pre-certified comnbined construction and operating licensed plants, with predictable and fixed price plants, 36 months from first concrete to first power, is impeccably the cheapest power and its not even close.
Not according to the IEA.
[My apologies for the horrific formatting on the prior post.]
The source for the comment of 29 Nukes in the pipeline is the Nuclear Regualtory Commision, NRC web pages.
That's the number of applications, not really "in the pipeline". Projects go fizzle all the time.
And the economics are all for the Nuclear plants building pre-approved, pre-certified comnbined construction and operating licensed plants, with predictable and fixed price plants, 36 months from first concrete to first power, is impeccably the cheapest power and its not even close.
Not according to the IEA.
Welcome to this this post. Your pioneering work along with good Dr. Andy Frank is worth thousands of these "studies" that study not much at all.
I look forward to the diversification and substitutes your work offers to solving the transportation application dilemma.
The Electrification of Ground Transport is coming thanks to your efforts and the maturing of battery technology that is enabling it.
It seems altogether too often, that many here just would prefer to curse the world, imply conspiracies, and blame the innocent, rather than roll up their sleeves and go to work like you have done.
My point that many miss, is just because we don't need to build more electrical generating plant capacity to accommodate an off-peak PHEV charging application, that does NOT MEAN that MORE FUEL will not be consumed, in those existing Plants.
Somehow there is a disconnect; people know that an idling car uses much less fuel than a car pulling a heavy trailer up a steep hill. They somehow do not recognize the same thing occurs in a electric power plant. There is a vast difference in "no-load" operation and "full load" generation.
The economics of electric generation is much, much better for nuclear than for any fossil under full load operation. Historically, Nuclear is cheaper to operate but more expensive to build. Thanks to professional NIMBYs and critics of Fission power, of which I am an Original one, added costs as construction competence was questioned, as it merited.
This served to create a situation where the capital costs of Nukes and it unpredictability, eventually dwarfed the much higher operating cost for fossil fuels for a fossil generation plant.
After ordering 100 plants, looking at the attractive generating and operating economics of Nukes, only to be sabotaged by building costs, the utilities gave up.
Ironically, Three Mile Island answered the problems that genuine critics had, such as myself.
a) Apollo type assessments for plant reliability were finally undertaken.
b) The regulation was divorced from promotion when the NRC was spun off into a separate agency apart from the AEC.
c) Someone really conducted an experiment to measure the effects of a Loss of Coolant accident and not a paper study. (FINALLY!!!).
Now I understand that no one wanted to build a $5 Billion dollar Plant. And then just destroy it to see if the safety systems really worked; but that is what TMI really did, and what we wanted and needed. Despite the stupidest operation imaginable, they couldn't harm anyone other than destroy the core of the Plant and all the safety systems were indeed proved to work.
Unlike the Solar or Wind advocates that dream of getting to a low of $.06 per KWH for these sources; Nukes with predictable capital construction costs can generate electricity at $.024 per KWH. Coal costs from $.033 to $.055 per KWH depending on load factor. The more fuel they burn, the worse their costs are after capital costs are quickly amortized.
The Point of this discussion is this fact.
Coal will shrink as a generating choice and PHEVs will drive many coal plants into oblivion. That fact is wholly unrecognized in this "study".
If PHEVs come on as we both expect; the utilities will respond by building much MORE Nuclear generation. Using any projection of the present electrical generation mix is entirely wrong and incompetent. By analogy, if you drive only a few thousand miles per year, then you don't really care if you have a gas guzzler. If you drive 25,000-50,000 miles per year you certainly do care, and that is the situation for the Utilities. Just as You might purchase a more fuel efficient car then. Many Utilities WILL decide to retire or semi-retire their old coal guzzling plants early, choosing to build more economical and profitable Nukes.
I would comfortably go so far as to say with PHEVs, to level the load factor, 50+ % of the then electrical demand will be nuclear.
Then the reduced CO2 output won't be 612 megaton reduction, but from 100% or 1224 megatons reduction, (at 40% electrical Nuclear); to 150% or 1530 megatons greater reduction(at 50% Nuclear), mix of electrical generation.
All of Mankind's CO2 contribution to the atmosphere is but a few thousand megatons, so this one reduction is 35-50% of the entire worlds anthropogenic issue of CO2.
The IPCC will likely alter CO2 to but 10% of its present attributed driving force for global warming in IPCC TAR V. (So a non harmful predicted change of a few tenths of a degree Centigrade, would become a change of a insignificant one tenth of teh problem, or a few hundredth of a degree change with a then impossible doubling of CO2 levels.
In any case all the other GHGs are already in control. CO2 will have been stabilized by this one change in technology. No on eis discussing "controlling" H20 atmsopheric levels.
The adoption of the PHEV and its direct consequences, in the US alone solves the CO2 "problem", worldwide.
Of course the US auto fleet is not any longer an isolated case. The US, Japan, Korea, the EU, and China will be building common auto designs and PHEVs in but a few more years. Indeed, except for far tougher safety and auto pollution emissions standards in the USA, they do so today, essentially. So the PHEV autos of the rest of the world will be making their reduction contributions also. You should know that the rest of the world is going nuclear in a big way,even as we are ramping up. 251 Nuclear generating plants are being built outside the US, to provide power and will "refuel" those future foreign PHEVs.
Neil, I hope you understand that this whole EPRI/NRDC study is an exercise in wishful thinking. PHEV are just an idea that sounds good but there is no reason to think that it is actually an idea that will be accepted.
Do I have a better idea? Well of course. To start with a fleet of affordable Corollas is not wishful thinking. They are a popular model.
NBK is horrified that I would change the baseline to something that actually exists. The same cherry picking tactic was used to promote hydrogen fuel cells. Pick some low ball figure then compare it to something that has not been proven yet. This time I substituted the Corolla in table 4-2 for the HEV and compared to the less efficient PHEV using coal. This corresponds to the 11% that EPRI used for a different scenario.
For the record, I think PHEV are a good idea. However, I do not think the public will accept them or that the engineers will make them work as advertised.
For the person stating concerns with the ramp up of 29 Nuclear plants based on four established international designs. Thank you for the list of sites and likely types.
Certainly some may not be built. But thi is but two years of potential orders. There will be additional ones in 2009, 2010 and beyond. I know of two more here in Arizona as two more of the originally planned six at Palo Verse are under consideration to add to the three in existence.
But they are "in the pipeline" at defined sites, with pre-selected plant architectures, and site selection already accomplished.
As to the economics. The comparison for the economics of fission versus fossil was clear in the '60s and '70s when the present Nuclear plants were ordered. Even before the big run up in fossil prices from 20 cents a gallon fro gasoline, and the accumulating pollution emission requirements, Nukes were cheaper even then. That's why so many were being ordered.
It was only when a plant that was thought to take five years to build, and ended up taking ten or fifteen years did the economics change. As regulations changed, and changed agasin, plants had to be rebuilt several times before they even ran once. Frankly, in addition to principled critiques, like Patrick Moore or myself, there were members of our environmental organizations that knew interminable lawsuits, hashing and rehashing the same issues and generally stalling, would bankrupt the Utilities and it did. That and mobilizing unthinking mobs of "greenshirts" know-nothings shoutuibg "No NUKES!" helped to end rational discussion.
The Advanced Passive 1000 is the T-W design and by far the most popular due to its thermal efficiency over the BWR.
The earlier Advanced BWR, ABWR and the Economically Simplified Boiling Water Reactor, ES BWR follow on is the GE-Hitachi design. The AP 1000 and earlier AP600 are pre-certified, the ESBWR will soon be pre-certified. The other foreign designs are in process for pre-certification. Hundreds of engineering man years have been invested in checking, improving and approving these "standard designs". Thanks to the genuine efforts of the Bush administration in creating the Combined Construction and Operating License approach, the economics of Nuclear power have been stabilized and more importantly made predictable.
Utilities accepting standardized design concepts, together with the efforts of the four principal nuclear plant builders worlwide, to invest in GEN III+ plants and meet the "standardized design" tougher safety requirements, the world has a source for lots of clean passively-safe, and predictably priced, nuclear generation.
This work has completely altered the economics for the Utilities. The Utilities can now buy a fixed price plant.
The vendors offer those terms, now.
The Utilities know that it has been accepted by the regulators, and will be on-line 36 months after first concrete is poured and they won't pay for any overage. Environmental organization stalling own't be as easy to do either.
All they need to do is elect to chose to build a pre-certified and pre-approved standard-design nuclear plant; unlike the one-off custom plants that used to be the norm to purchase. (That was how progress used to be made, each successive plant slightly better than what came before.)
All of the proposed US plants are PWRs or ESBWR from Toshiba-Westinghouse and Hitachi-GE except for three. The French are certifying their old Framatome nuclear designs raising other safety levels to Gen III+ standards, and there are three plants in among the proposed 29 to likely use that design. The French are in the process of getting pre-approved, pre-certified and will then be among the world's standardized designs.
All designs have many passive features that operate with minimal operator control required. All are several amgnitudes of safety measureably safer than what is running today. The GE ESBWR for example, does not need a single operator command for three days as it shuts itself down completely.
It is re-invigorating and solving the electrical generation issue. The other genuine progress is the painstakingly difficult re-construction of the International cooperative effort to fund and build the $12 billion dollar International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, ITER.
This ITER is the last, (and expensive), fusion physics-oriented experiment. It's also the first full reactor-sized fusion reactor capable of generating as much as 750 Megawatts of thermal power created by Fusion and making much more power than it takes to run.
Having the USA rejoin the ITER effort after the Clintonians dropped out, insures Fusion power will come and be here when we need it. It almost certainly provides a Fusion follow on to this GEN III+ era of fission plants being discussed, here. Fusion will provide an inexhaustible and genuine answer to the Energy problems without the necessity of breeders and high temperature un-tested closer-to-the-limit fission designs. It should, but won't silence the Peakist "End-of-worlders" who somehow think a KWH from oil is distingusiable from any other KWH, and endowed with some mystical life-giving quality.
I believe Stan's advocacy of nuclear and other needlessly provocative stances in the comment section has diverted attention from what I believe to be the key failing of this study: the lack of mention of the contribution of wind and solar as well as other renewables to the generation mix. Why can the Danes generate 20% of their electricity from wind today when the US has better wind resources and still only generates less than 1% of its electricity by wind? Solar will get cheaper and will shave peak demand. Storage of renewable energy will improve dramatically.
The chief failing of the study is the notion that coal and only coal (and not that it ignores nuclear) will be the main primary energy for electricity.
I have not made my mind up about nuclear yet in the context of reducing GHG emissions and energy security but I am so sure that we can use solar and wind to reduce our demand for non-renewables to a fraction of what it is today.
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


text:
I am updating my tasting note here. 1 – 1/2 minutes is plenty of time to steep this oolong, I tried it again today and it is much better with less steeping time.
I do like many flavored oolongs by Lupicia but unfortunately this is not one of them. Smells of mango but not only vaguely fruit flavored in my opinion. I would recommend giving this a short steeping time because it will turn bitter very quickly. Not really my cuppa… but perhaps it will be yours!


text:
Forum List » Guru News and Commentaries
Guru News, Stock picks and commentaries
Goto: Forum List•Message List•New Topic•Log In
ROB Magazine CEO of the Year... Bill Ackman?
Posted by: CanadianValue (IP Logged)
Date: December 4, 2012 04:56PM
An interesting look at the man who has been stirring up board rooms up here north of the border:
It is a grey, blustery New York morning, days before Hurricane Sandy will unleash its fury on the city, and Bill Ackman is tearing his way through a day that started just after dawn.
He is running on just a few hours of sleep, his private jet having returned him home the night before after a whirlwind four-day trip through Korea and Singapore. His first stop was dropping the youngest of his three daughters at a small, private grade school on Manhattan's Upper East Side. By 8 o'clock, he is sitting next to me at Sarabeth's, a popular eatery on Madison Avenue, inspecting an egg-white and spinach omelette.
Dressed in a close-fitting navy blue suit, he leans over the table, head bowed, as he fires off pointed responses to my questions—sometimes even before I've finished asking them.
Here on the Upper East Side, Ackman is just another silver-haired billionaire eating a $20 breakfast. In Canada, however, he is the boardroom barbarian who toppled four-star corporate generals at one of the country's most historic companies. It has been 20 years since the 46-year-old Ackman launched his first hedge fund and began building a reputation as the most active activist on Wall Street, betting against overhyped companies and arm-twisting directors into fixing broken businesses. He has had some flops, but today he waves them off. He can afford to. His hedge fund, Pershing Square Capital Management, now ranks as one of the world's biggest and most feared activist forces, with $11-billion in assets under administration. (All currency in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.)
Pershing is the corporate personification of the restless, sharp-tongued investor who has such a long history of rubbing people the wrong way that a fellow student once contributed this quip for his high school yearbook caption: "A closed mouth gathers no foot." The bigger the fund gets, the more financial clout and confidence Ackman has to lead shareholder insurrections against powerful boards used to closing ranks on impertinent investors.
"I have always had this drive," Ackman says. "I want to have a significant life. I want to make a difference."
On the home front, that means hosting occasional singles' nights with his wife, Karen, at their sprawling co-op overlooking Central Park to introduce friends to potential mates. "I love matchmaking," he says.
In the business realm, Ackman's reputation rests on boardroom bust-ups, a reputation that was cemented this spring, after he launched what at the time was his biggest activist bet yet, against the oldest of the old guard, Canadian Pacific Railway. The railway's profitability had lagged behind its peers for years, yet the board appeared unwilling to acknowledge shareholders' frustration. What began in November, 2011, as a campaign for a new CEO and two seats on the CP board mushroomed into a proxy war that eventually saw close to 90 per cent of shareholder votes supporting Ackman's dissident slate.
The boardroom massacre that ensued sent a chilling signal to big-business boards: Perform or else. Directors, anxious to avoid the fate of CP's ousted crew, are more motivated than ever before to challenge executives' poor results. Pension and investment funds that have historically shrunk from confrontation have greater leverage to push for change. Since Ackman took aim at CP—triggering a 49 per cent increase in the railway's stock price in one year—it's a good bet that most of Canada's fund managers have his phone number on speed-dial. In short, no other CEO has had a bigger impact on how our publicly traded companies are steered than Ackman.
And Pershing's influence will continue to grow, he insists, because boards in both Canada and the United States are "still somewhat dysfunctional," he says. Too collegial, directors don't push hard enough to get the right information out of executives—who, by the way, can be very selective about what they share.
Continue reading.
Guru Discussed: Bill Ackman: Current Portfolio, Stock Picks
Stocks Discussed: SPY, DJI, QQQ,
Goto: Forum List•Message List•Log In
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Please Login if you have an account or Create a Free Account if you don't
GF Chat


text:
Chiang Mai is one of the more popular areas in Thailand and a great place to invest in real estate. Unlike Bangkok which has become a melting pot of different types of cultures, Chiang Mai has managed to retain its own distinct heritage even through years of modernization. If you are planning to invest in Chiang Mai real estate, there are certain things that you need to know about buying property in this area and in other Thai provinces as well.
As Thai laws go, foreigners are not permitted to have ownership of land in the country, but there are several ways that you can go about doing so nonetheless. That is, if you meet certain requirements as stated in various provisions of Thai real estate and property laws. Buildings for example, are exempt from these provisions, and you can buy a Chiang Mai condo as long as the land it is nestled in is not included in your purchase.
It's easy enough to look for a Chiang Mai condo for sale as there are a lot of listings for this type of property online. To protect your interests as a foreigner however, it is recommended that you contact an experienced Chiang Mai real estate agent to help you in your investment. Also, it would probably be wise to contact a lawyer as well, as this will assure you that all transactions you engage in while in the country are legal and binding.
Apart from a Chiang Mai Condominiums, you can invest in landed properties provided that you establish a company in Thailand. There are allowances made for foreign investors who wish to do business in Thailand and purchase real estate in the long run. You also have the option to lease land for up to thirty years, after which you can simply renew the lease for another thirty years if you wish to.
Aside from just investing in a Chiang Mai house or condo for sale, interested foreigners who wish to buy land in Chiang Mai can also marry a Thai citizen to facilitate the buying process. However, take note that you will be required to declare your spouse as the sole owner of the property and that the money you used to purchase it was in fact from your spouse. In cases like this, it is strongly suggested that you seek advice from a lawyer before making a decision to make sure that you are legally represented.


text:
|By Permi_Eden on Jan 10, 2013 3:01 PM
|Great trade. Even surprised with some extra items!
|By weedsfree on Jan 11, 2013 6:23 PM
|A wonderful and enthusiastic trade partner. Small-ish divisions were sent but in no way are they inferior. Thank you for helping me with my want list!!!
|By arejay59 on Jan 21, 2013 3:44 AM
|Bells is a generous and timely trader!! Anytime Bells!!
Bellsp's rebuttal: Thanks, I've just done a little trading, but everyone has been sooo generous and helpful:)
|By jimmac619 on Jan 29, 2013 8:22 AM
|Belle more than fulfilled her side of our trade. Many surprises as well, and she takes a lot of time for packaging and notes. Overall, a very pleasant experience!
|By flwrsnflyrs1 on Jan 31, 2013 6:16 PM
|This is my 2nd trade w/ Belle. This one for seed. GREAT!!! I appreciate the extras and just for fun seeds. I can't wait to get planting. Thanks Belle.
|By AmandaEsq on Feb 6, 2013 11:57 PM
|I received my first trade of the year from newbie Belle. Wouldn't know she's a newbie 'cause she trades like a pro. I look forward to sharing my own seed stash w/her. Highly recommend.
|By allender56 on Mar 24, 2013 3:02 PM
|Belle is a super sweety! Incredibly generous! So many great plants!!! Just sent ANOTHER box of plants because some dropped out of the original box before shipping! GREAT TRADER!!!
|By agravation on Apr 7, 2013 6:47 PM
|Belle was my first experience on this website. She is generous, fast, informative, every plant is doing great. She was the first person to respond to my dmail with a wealth of knowledge!!
|By camellia36 on Jul 20, 2013 7:42 AM
|Great trader, very generous, suprised me with alots of new plants, good timing, very helpful, definitely will trade again with her. 2 thumbs up trader
Bellsp's rebuttal: Thanks Lidya-your a sweetheart! I enjoyed the trade-anytime!


text:
The government's repeated characterisation of the draft mental health bill as the first systematic reform since the 1950s ignores the vast reforms in the Mental Health Act 1983 designed to protect the rights and dignity of people with mental disabilities. Indeed, its proposals undermine the human rights approach that many advocates including myself, then legal director of Mind, sought to achieve through the current legislation.
Decisions by the European commission and the court of human rights against the UK provided the impetus for the 1983 act. The commission was deeply troubled by the treatment of patients in hospital, particularly high security hospitals. This was the era of the "patients rights" movement, which strongly influenced the tenor of the 1983 act.
By contrast, the impetus for the draft legislation is protection of the public and retrenchment of human rights. Responding to highly publicised, unusual cases of violence by people with mental disabilities is not a good way to create law.
The government's bill is based on at least two false assumptions. It suggests that mental illness is closely associated with dangerousness, which is not true. In fact, data suggest that as a population people with mental disabilities are not disproportionately dangerous.
The bill also suggests it is possible to accurately predict dangerousness, despite several studies that demonstrate otherwise. The best predictive factors are past violence and drug or alcohol abuse. However, there is little or no evidence that future dangerousness can be predicted with a psychiatric diagnosis or prognosis.
Mental health law historians will not view this bill kindly. First, it introduces a pejorative label - dangerous and severe personality disorder (DSPD). People with DSPD will be viewed as dangerous and socially undesirable, making it more difficult to reintegrate into the community. They will be subject to indefinite confinement without committing a crime, even though DSPD is not a reliable, internationally recognised diagnosis.
Second, the bill removes the "treatability" criterion and replaces it with a vague, single definition of mental disorder. Mental hospitals are intended to treat people with mental disabilities and the state should have to demonstrate that the person would benefit from treatment before resorting to compulsory powers.
The raison d'etre for civil commitment is that the person benefits from treatment. If there is no benefit, involuntary admission to hospital is akin to preventive detention. Preventive confinement unfairly restricts the liberty of individuals, not because of a violent act they have committed, but because they may commit violence in the future. It is for this reason advocates of human rights and civil liberties distrust preventive detention.
Third, the proposal to force patients in the community to take their medication may deter people with mental disabilities from seeking services, thus causing suffering and potentially increasing risk to the public. Community treatment orders will widen the net of people subject to compulsion. It will make the Mental Health Act appear more repressive and less beneficial to those with mental disabilities.
The draft bill will not provide better public protection but will diminish the rights and status of people with mental disabilities.
I am working with the World Health Organisation on a comprehensive international, comparative review of mental health legislation. Sadly, the UK used to be considered among the most humane and progressive of countries. If this bill is enacted, it will be thought of as stigmatising and punitive. That is hardly the message that mental health law should convey.
· Lawrence Gostin is professor of law at Georgetown university, professor of public health at the Johns Hopkins university, and director of the centre for law and the public's health in the US


text: Thank you very much for your interest of joining PartnerPlusBenefit program! We would like to have some quick information about your company. Our Key Account Managers will then be in touch with you to answer to your questions on this corporate loyalty program (if there is) and assist you to enroll. * Company Details: Company Name: Company Address Contact Person: Contact Number: Contact Email: Next


text:
Step-by-step, the Baltimore Orioles are closing in on their first playoff berth since 1997. They'll continue the quest Saturday in the second contest of a three-game series with the Boston Red Sox at Camden Yards.
Baltimore's magic number to clinch a playoff spot is three, but the Orioles have aspirations of a division title as well. They enter Saturday a game behind the New York Yankees in the American League East standings.
The Orioles will try to build on a solid pitching performance from last night when Steve Johnson makes his 12th appearance, including his fourth start, of his initial season in the majors. In his three home starts, the right-hander is 3-0 with a 2.12 ERA. Opponents are hitting just .200 against him at home.
Last night, Ryan Flaherty hit a grand slam and Chris Tillman tossed eight dominant innings, as the Orioles won, 9-1.
Tillman (9-2) gave up just one unearned run on one hit while striking out four and walking two. Flaherty also had an RBI double for Baltimore, which holds the top wild card spot in the AL. Chris Davis added a two-run homer.
"It feels good, and I am glad I could help my team win," Flaherty said. "Whatever that is, defense, offense and tonight it was with the bat. So it was good."
Dustin Pedroia knocked in the lone run for the Red Sox, who have lost three in a row and seven of eight.
Boston starter Aaron Cook (4-11) lasted just one-plus innings, allowing six runs on five hits while walking three. Alfredo Aceves gave up three runs on six hits over 3 2/3 innings of relief.
Felix Doubront, who has just one victory in his last 10 starts, gets the assignment tonight for the Red Sox. The left-hander is coming off a no- decision against the Orioles on Sunday. In that game, he had 11 strikeouts in 11 innings. Doubront is 0-1 in five games (2 starts) versus Baltimore.
Baltimore took two of three from the Red Sox last weekend and is 11-5 against them this season.


text:
Credit Advice
Have a question? Have advice to share? The combined knowledge and experience of everyone in the Credit Karma community can help you. Enter your question or help others below to get started!
QuestionPosted in Credit Karma
Question By
0 People Helped
All Responses
1501 People Helped
Have you used credit in the past ten years? If not, that could be the reason. If you have been using credit that is reported to the credit bureaus, check out the "Help Center" or pull your reports directly from the credit bureaus.
Reply to this Question
Write your response:
The Credit Advice pages of the Site may contain messages submitted by users over whom Credit Karma has no control. Credit Karma cannot guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of any such messages. Some users may post messages that are misleading, untrue or offensive. You must bear all risk associated with your use of the Credit Advice pages and should not rely on messages in making (or refraining from making) any specific financial or other decisions.


text: A friend of mine just dropped off a gun for me to work on that came to him from his dad. He just wants me to clean it up and make it functional again. nothing major. But its sat in the corner of a closet for time untold. I would like to have a little history of the rig when i hand it back to him. OK barrel stamps are: Iver Johnson TRAILBLAZER Lakefield Jacksonville, AR Cal 22LR Arms-CAN Any and all info/history would be appreciated.


text:
BREAKING: Merkel Cancels Putin's Invitation In Russia Over War Loot. Germany-Turkey Diplomatic Row Erupts Over EU bid!!!
This is serious, all happened within 24hrs and it does not look good:
Merkel, after flirting politically with Obama this week canceled an invitation by Putin because the russians didnt let her speak at the event.
Merkel event in Russia cancelled in looted art dispute
Turkey warned Germany that they should not interfere in their bid for EU after Germany made clear that the chances for Turkey's EU membership dwindles after the violent police actions on protesters lately.
Germany-Turkey diplomatic row erupts over EU bid
This does not look good for the Syria conflict. Not good at all.
WW3 build-up


text:
Room & BoardInterview with Ken Griggs about Penthouse 14G
Designed and furnished by Ken Griggs of Room & Board, penthouse 14G is a warmly contemporary residence with views from Downtown to Century City. Griggs designed the space using a palette of mid-tone nuetrals and furniture that is light in scale. The main pieces are modern but not "slick" with some unexpected elements like a cowhide ottoman and a more traditional rug used in the same space as a glass and steel dining table. The overall effect is calming and serene to juxtapose the energy of city. Penthouse 14G is a spacious 1 bedroom, 1.5 bath with 1,327interior square feet and a 216 square foot outdoor terrace with spectacular 180 degree views of the Los Angeles' greatest skylines. Back To All WOW Suites


text:
The so-called 'Twin Paradox' is one of the most famous problems in all of science. Fortunately for relativity it is not a paradox at all. As has been mentioned, Special and General Relativity are both self-consistent within themselves and within physics. We will state the twin paradox here and then describe some of the ways in which the paradox can be resolved.
The usual statement of the paradox is that one twin (call her A) remains at rest on the earth relative to another twin who flies from the earth to a distant star at a high velocity (compared to c ). Call the flying twin B. B reaches the star and turns around and returns to earth. The twin on earth (A) will see B's clock running slowly due to time dilation. So if the twins compare ages back on earth, twin B should be younger. However, from B's point of view (in her reference frame) A is moving away at high speed as B moves towards the distant star and later A is moving towards B at high speed as B moves back towards the earth. According to B, then, time should run slowly for A on both legs of the trip; thus A should be younger than B! It is not possible that both twins can be right-the twins can compare clocks back on earth and either A's must show more time than B's or vice-versa (or perhaps they are the same). Who is right? Which twin is younger?
The reasoning from A's frame is correct: twin B is younger. The simplest way to explain this is to say that in order for twin B to leave the earth and travel to a distance star she must accelerate to speed v . Then when she reaches the star she must slow down and eventually turn around and accelerate in the other direction. Finally, when B reaches the earth again she must decelerate from v to land once more on the earth. Since B's route involves acceleration, her frame cannot be considered an inertial reference frame and thus none of the reasoning applied above (such as time dilation) can be applied. To deal with the situation in B's frame we must enter into a much more complicated analysis involving accelerating frames of reference; this is the subject of General Relativity. It turns out that while the B is moving with speed v A's clock does run comparatively slow, but when B is accelerating the A's clocks run faster to such an extent that the overall elapsed time is measured as being shorter in B's frame. Thus the reasoning in A's frame is correct and B is younger.
However, we can also resolve the paradox without resorting to General Relativity. Consider B's path to the distant star lined with many lamps. The lamps flash on and off simultaneously in twin A's frame. Let the time measured between successive flashes of the lamps in A's frame be t A . What is the time between flashes in B's frame? As we learned in Heading the flashes cannot occur simultaneously in B's frame; in fact B measures the flashes ahead of him to occur earlier than the flashes behind him (B is moving towards those lamps ahead of him). Since B is always moving towards the flashes which happen earlier the time between flashes is less in B's frame. In B's frame the distance between flash-events is zero (B is at rest) so Δx B = 0 , thus Δt A = γ(Δt B - vΔx B/c 2) gives:
|Δt B =
All this is fine. But what about in B's frame? Why can't we employ the same analysis of A moving past flashing lamps to show that in fact A is younger? The simple answer is that the concept of 'B's frame' is ambiguous; B in fact is in two different frame depending on her direction of travel. This can be seen on the Minkowski diagram in :
|T A = + τ = + t
|T A = + = frac2dv
Take a Study Break!


text:
In Defence Of Season Passes
Every month in Play Magazine, we take a hot topic and look at the arguments for and against. The controversial season pass is the subject of debate this time. Last week Retro Gamer Editor Darran Jones argued that season passes are little more than a cash grab. Play Editor Luke Albigés presents the other side of the argument…
Just as with anything else in life, not getting ripped off is a simple case of knowing what you're buying. Would you pay up front for a week's worth of meals from a restaurant you'd never tried before? Of course not. It's a bit different with a supplier you trust – I'd happily throw money at an Uncharted 4 season pass if Sony announced one, because Naughty Dog hasn't made a bad game since Jak X – but even then, it's always going to be something of a gamble. But as I said, the solution couldn't be simpler. If in doubt, just wait.
Unlike pre-order incentives (which I would find somewhat harder to defend), season passes typically offer the same kind of discount on a bunch of content once everything is available as they do when announced. There's no need to jump right in at the start unless you're desperate to get involved with the new content but even then, the Twitch generation has you covered – you can easily check out the streams and impressions of those who are a little more reckless with their wallets before reaching for your own.
In concept, then, I'm absolutely fine with the idea of season passes. For something like Borderlands 2, where I was inevitably going to rinse every last drop of enjoyment I could from the game, I was in day one. And as luck would have it, the quartet of add-ons that made up the pass offered some of the best post-release content I've ever seen. There are few series or developers I trust enough to take that plunge, it must be said, and as much as I've been enjoying Mortal Kombat X, the season pass just seems a bit steep for me to justify right now. If, in a few months, I've enjoyed what I've seen of the four new fighters, maybe I'll bite. Maybe I'll just grab one or two of the new fighters (as if I'm not buying Predator). We'll see. There's literally no reason to rush into this, or any other purchase.
FPS fans undeniably get the best deals when it comes to season passes. With regular content drops that eventually double the amount of content available, a higher price point can be justified. Every new map and mode is going to get rinsed for months, meaning you're ultimately looking at paying peanuts for every hour of enjoyment you get from the game. Hell, even Destiny can make similar boasts about long-term value – as much as I love it, even I couldn't spin The Dark Below as a decent amount of content for the price, that didn't stop me adding a few hundred more hours across three characters. Appearances can be deceptive when it comes to add-on content, so don't write an expansion off before you really consider what any extra maps and modes may offer in terms of extended gameplay.
I get the distrust for season passes in general, and I'm not going to sit here and claim that dropping an extra £20 at launch on a couple of hours of new stuff is a good idea. It isn't, obviously. Some genres suit the format better than others. I can't imagine shelling out for a pass for a solo game unless I heard great things about the additional content but multiplayer games? Price it right, let me know what I'm getting (and what I'm not) and you've probably got yourself a sale.


text:
BROOKLYN, Mich. — Don't be fooled by Joey Logano's smile and boyish looks.
Underneath the surface, he's as tough as nails, and he'll run you down, whoever you are, on the racetrack.
On Sunday, 23-year-old Logano grabbed his first win for Penske Racing when he drove his No. 22 Ford to victory in the Pure Michigan 400 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series race at Michigan International Speedway.
He chased his childhood hero, Mark Martin, hard over the closing stages, taking the lead with three laps remaining after Martin's No. 55 Toyota ran out of fuel.
Most Read Stories
- Seattle's income tax on the wealthy is illegal, judge rules
- Analysis: Five reasons the Seahawks waived Dwight Freeney WATCH
- Retired Alabama cop on Roy Moore: 'We were also told to ... make sure that he didn't hang around the cheerleaders'
- Jobs that pay without a B.A.: the most lucrative fields in Washington state
- A Washington syrah was named second best wine in the world
Logano, who started on the pole, kept Cup veterans Kevin Harvick and Kurt Busch at bay — the two pursuers finishing second and third, respectively.
Logano moved from 16th in series points to 13th with three races remaining before the Chase for the Championship — NASCAR's playoff series — and he appears a good bet, considering his momentum, to make it.
"What a great time to win, being in Ford's backyard, being in Roger's (Penske) backyard. I'm glad to make the most of it," Logano said.
It was Logano's first win in 2013 and the third of his Cup career, which began full time at Joe Gibbs Racing in 2009.
Harvick kept the pressure on Logano and moved to fourth in points. Busch moved two spots to ninth.
Defending Cup champion and Penske driver Brad Keselowski led 17 laps in his No. 2 Ford but got caught out on pit strategy and cautions. He finished 12th and remains eighth in points.
Greg Biffle from Vancouver, Wash., finished ninth after winning the previous two Cup races at Michigan. He is in 10th place in points. Kasey Kahne from Enumclaw placed seventh and is 11th in points.
• Ron Capps won the Lucas Oil NHRA Nationals at Brainerd (Minn.) International Raceway for his third Funny Car victory of the season. Spencer Massey won the Top Fuel division, and Mike Edwards topped the Pro Stock field.
• Rookie Marc Marquez from Spain passed two-time motorcycle world champion Jorge Lorenzo of Spain midway through the Indianapolis Grand Prix and pulled away for a 3.495-second victory.


text:
Late last week I encountered behaviour from Google that I had not seen before. It was related to my habit of not signing into Google automatically; I only sign in when I want to use Google+ (I know; but I have quite a few followers there and use it from time to time). Nor do
…continue reading Blocked from Google search: agree our terms or else go away


text:
TOM TUCKER SOUTHERN STYLE Soda Bottle Cap PITTSBURGH PA
Sold for:
Start Free Trial
or Sign In to see what it's worth.
- Sold Date:
- Source: eBay
mmm... soda You are bidding on a Tom Tucker "Southern Style" soda cork lined bottle cap from Tom Tucker Beverage Co, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I've never heard of this flavor. Hmmm...judging by the colors, this might be a lime soda, lime rickey, or ginger ale. KILLER GRAPHICS!!! It's in good condition(see pic). $.99 starting bid and NO reserve! Winning bidderto pay $1.25 S&H to the US. S&H outside the US may be slightly higher. I will combine all purchases the best I can to $ave on shipping cost. I accept PayPal, Bidpay, money orders, andchecks(from US buyers). Please check out my other bottle cap auctions. Good Luck! Make your plans now for CROWNVENTION 2008 in the spring.
Pay for this online auction using BidPay ® - Seller BidPay ID:
Pay for this online auction using BidPay ® - Seller BidPay ID:


text:
Dr. Mickey and Kim Muse of "Strengthening Church Ministries" were guests at Bethany Baptist Church, Sunday. Dr. Muse gave an explanation of the purpose and plan for that ministry. Across America, thousands of church doors have closed because pastors are discouraged and resign or the church comes to an agreement to close for lack of attendance, or the church is unable to find a pastor. When churches close, new Christians are left with a shaken faith, some left with bitterness, and missionary support fails.
Dr. Muse and the men he trains can go into a struggling church and provide the encouragement and counseling needed to keep church doors open. They can help a church develop a plan of action that begins with a self-evaluation. There is training in soul-winning, leadership, spiritual warfare. Materials are available for pastors and churches to become healthy functioning churches. In some cases pastors that have been ready to quit the ministry have been encouraged to stay, souls have been saved, and the church have begun to grow.
The Muses sang a special song before he brought a message on the "Seven Habits of Holiness." Scriptures like 1 Peter 1:15-16 and 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8 call for holiness. Because God is holy we should be holy. We do not obtain salvation by habits of holiness, because salvation is not by works, but by grace. Holiness should be the outgrowth of salvation. As a Christian matures he should become more like Christ in his practices. Jesus did not do away with the law, but he fulfilled the law. If we want to be like Jesus our walk and our talk will change.
One "habit of holiness" will be a "love for scripture." Godly people love holiness and holiness can't be separated from the Bible. Jeremiah and other writers saw the scriptures as necessary food.
Another habit of holiness will be "lasting supplication." The instruction to pray without ceasing is not taken as a burden, but is a delight and it is a privilege to talk to the holy God. Prayer does not have to be formal and well stated. God accepts the insufficient, stumbling prayer of any sincere heart.
Being "longsuffering" is a habit of holiness. Jesus suffered. Christian who follow Jesus and oppose popular but ungodly activities will pay a price. We are told to deny self and "bear a cross" if we would identify with Christ.
"Leaning on the Spirit of God" is a necessary habit of holiness. The Christian walk is one step at a time. It only takes one step out of the Spirit to be in the flesh. Submission to God given authority is possible only if we are willing to yield in every area of our life.
"Longing for the house of God" was an attribute of King David and is a habit of holiness for today's Christian. Christians love the fellowship of other Christians. Church is also a place for instruction in righteousness. It is even more important as the day of the Lord approaches.
Becoming holy is a learning experience, a process of sanctification. A new Christian may need to quit some harmful habits. Some things may be such a part of their environment that it is hard, but as time goes on the person who yields everything to God, reads his Bible, and prays will find that those things lose their hold.
"Loyalty for service" is a habit of holiness that will grow as the Christian matures. Instead of saying, "I have paid my dues," they will look for new ways to serve God with what talents the Lord gives. There will be less interest in worldly things and a desire to be closer to God. Holiness is not a far-fetched idea. God commanded holiness and he would not require something that we could not do.


text:
The Pathfinder is better able to find the shortest route. With this Perk, your travel time on the world map is reduced by 25% for each level."— in-game description, Fallout
Pathfinder is a Fallout, Fallout 2, Fallout Tactics and J.E. Sawyer's Fallout Role-Playing Game perk.
With each level of this perk, your travel time on the world map and the drain on the Highwayman's battery is reduced by 25%.
- The Fallout 2 manual erroneously states that the Outdoorsman requirement is 60%.
- The perk is not applied to allies in J.E. Sawyer's Fallout Role-Playing Game, so you'll arrive ahead of the rest of your party.
Behind the scenesEdit
The image for this perk is a reference to the DC Comics superhero Flash.


text:
The computer dummy is here again. I've been trying to find downloads of Richard II (Hollow Crown) and all the links I've checked out are 1 GB or more, far too big for my computer to handle. The smallest size that I was able to find was for a 480p MKV. I want to find out what will happen if I convert it to DVD. Would it fill the center of the TV screen (Letterbox format) or will it be smaller? I don't want to download the file yet until I find out how it would appear on my TV when I convert it to DVD.
Any information would be greatly appreciated!


text:
Issue No. 02 - Feb. (1981 vol. 30)
pp: 161-164
Stephen R. Mcconnel , Department of Electrical Engineering, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Daniel P. Siewiorek , Departments of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
This is an elaboration of the paper "Synchronization and Matching in Redundant Systems" by Davies and Wakerly [1]. The design of voters for synchronization is strongly dependent on the signaling convention used. This correspondence presents voter designs for three different signaling conventions (transition, level, and pulse). The issue of improved voter performance is also addressed.
voters, Asynchronous signaling conventions, fault tolerant computing, synchronization, triple modular redundancy (TMR)
Stephen R. Mcconnel, Daniel P. Siewiorek, "Synchronization and voting", IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. 30, no. , pp. 161-164, Feb. 1981, doi:10.1109/TC.1981.6312184


text:
In some strange way, the top screen of my 3DS has gotten stuck beyond the maximum screen brightness. The screen is so bright that it generates significant heat even while in sleep mode. The brightness control only changes the bottom screen, and even at the brightest setting, it's still not quite as bright as the top screen. I've tried many things; turning it off and on, removing the game card or SD card, and even removing the battery (which only reset some of my settings). The only thing I can think of left to do is a factory reset, which I am very hesitant to do. The problem is, when you turn the system off or put it in sleep mode, it remembers what brightness you had it on. But now, it's stuck on a brightness setting that doesn't exist. I need to find a way to trick it into forgetting. It started after I accidentily knocked my Ridge Racer 3D game card out and put it back in (while the game was running) during sleep mode. Anyone else had a similar problem / any suggestions? At this point, I blame Namco... >.>
Edited on by Gioku
Electric Prune Juice Games | Kirby Wiki | Colors! 3D | deviantART | Nintendo Friends
Fluttershy, Rarity, and Vinyl Scratch fan :3
I am now an eShop Guru!
Waiting For: Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS, Pokémon Alpha Sapphire & Omega Ruby
The Flutterloggery
3DS Friend Code: 3394-4319-1146 | Nintendo Network ID: Fluttershy_Gioku


text:
Federal circuit appeals court rejects industry challenges
By Summit Voice
SUMMIT COUNTY —The EPA will be able to move ahead with setting limits on greenhouse gases after the federal appeals court for the District of Columbia last week rejected a legal challenge from industry and a handful of states.
Pending a possible appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the EPA can continue to gradually reign in pollution from industry, cars, trucks and power plants that's a clear threat to health and human safety, according to the agency's original endangerment finding that set the stage for greenhouse gas regulation.
The court ruled that the EPA used the best available science to act under its congressionally established mandate to protect the environment.
Today's ruling is a strong validation of, in the Court's own words, the "unambiguously correct" approach we have taken in responding to the 2007 Supreme Court decision," said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. "I am pleased that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that EPA followed both the science and the law in taking common-sense, reasonable actions to address the very real threat of climate change by limiting greenhouse gas pollution from the largest sources."
In 2007 the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases are a form of air pollution that the EPA must determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
The agency subsequently developed an Endangerment Finding that clearly outlines the threat of greenhouse gases, as well as rules governing emissions from light duty vehicles.
The agency also developed a tailoring Rule, which sets greenhouse gas emission thresholds to define when permits under the New Source Review Prevention Significant Deterioration and title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities.
"This is a welcome decision in favor of clean air for our kids and families—and against big polluters," said Howard Fox, co-counsel for Environmental Defense Fund, and part of a team of attorneys defending EPA's health and environmental protections.
"Polluting industries such as big coal and big oil oppose action to limit climate change, refusing to modernize and resisting newer technologies. This case underscores these industries' dogged resistance to safeguards designed to protect the public's health and the environment," Fox said.
"Notably, the automobile industry did not join these misguided challenges, but instead opposed these big industrial polluters' efforts to overturn the standards that apply to cars," he said.
"Scientists recognize the strong link between burning fossil fuels like coal and global warming. Among many impacts, rising temperatures worsen smog that triggers asthma attacks and other lung ailments. We hope this decision reinforces the EPA's resolve to move forward with standards to rein-in carbon pollution and other harmful gases from new and existing sources."