Snow Warning!!!
 

We just got dumped with a butt-load last night, way more than the
amount that was forecast. It's still snowing. And it's all heading
East.

Snow Warning!!!
 

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
We just got dumped with a butt-load last night, way more than the
amount that was forecast. It's still snowing. And it's all heading
East.



OK I cant wait for the jokes about this remark

Snow Warning!!!
 

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
We just got dumped with a butt-load last night, way more than the
amount that was forecast. It's still snowing. And it's all heading
East.


And which part of the world would you be in? You know, but unless you say,
no one else will.

Snow Warning!!!
 

Dave wrote:
"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...

We just got dumped with a butt-load last night, way more than the
amount that was forecast. It's still snowing. And it's all heading
East.



And which part of the world would you be in? You know, but unless you say,
no one else will.


Frank's up in the North West. Finally saw snow yesterday morn and it
melted within a couple of hours here on Long Island. I see Bush is
finally admitting to the existance of global warming but said **** all
to the Kyoto agreement. Big business has him in their pocket. When will
business figure out they can make money protecting the environment?

Snow Warning!!!
 

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:36:26 -0500, jim wrote
in :

Dave wrote:
"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...

We just got dumped with a butt-load last night, way more than the
amount that was forecast. It's still snowing. And it's all heading
East.



And which part of the world would you be in? You know, but unless you say,
no one else will.


Frank's up in the North West. Finally saw snow yesterday morn and it
melted within a couple of hours here on Long Island.


Weren't you in the 70's just a couple weeks ago?


I see Bush is
finally admitting to the existance of global warming but said **** all
to the Kyoto agreement. Big business has him in their pocket. When will
business figure out they can make money protecting the environment?


At the risk of sounding like a Republican, business follows the
markets, and the current markets are driven by the "buy-now-pay-later"
mentality of the current generation. So if you want to change business
priorities you need to change consumer priorities. And cheap gasoline
has a higher priority than the environment.

Funny though, the solution is so simple: fusion. The government should
be dumping every last penny into research into fusion research. It
would be like having a chunk of the Sun right here on Earth, to tap
for as much energy as we need for the next thousand years. That's the
future if the human race is going to survive; the only question is
whether we will choose to do it now or later.

Snow Warning!!!
 

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:36:26 -0500, jim wrote
in :


Dave wrote:

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...


We just got dumped with a butt-load last night, way more than the
amount that was forecast. It's still snowing. And it's all heading
East.



And which part of the world would you be in? You know, but unless you say,
no one else will.



Frank's up in the North West. Finally saw snow yesterday morn and it
melted within a couple of hours here on Long Island.



Weren't you in the 70's just a couple weeks ago?


The city was but out here on the island temps are much colder especially
near the Pine Barrens which is devoid of pavement which retains heat.


I see Bush is
finally admitting to the existance of global warming but said **** all
to the Kyoto agreement. Big business has him in their pocket. When will
business figure out they can make money protecting the environment?



At the risk of sounding like a Republican, business follows the
markets, and the current markets are driven by the "buy-now-pay-later"
mentality of the current generation. So if you want to change business
priorities you need to change consumer priorities. And cheap gasoline
has a higher priority than the environment.

Funny though, the solution is so simple: fusion. The government should
be dumping every last penny into research into fusion research. It
would be like having a chunk of the Sun right here on Earth, to tap
for as much energy as we need for the next thousand years. That's the
future if the human race is going to survive; the only question is
whether we will choose to do it now or later.




Agreed with fusion. The Brookhaven National Laboratory is right around
the corner but I doubt they are doing anything in that regards. I do
know they have a 1/2 mile underground ring doing atom smashing.

Snow Warning!!!
 

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:36:26 -0500, jim wrote
in :

Dave wrote:
"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...

We just got dumped with a butt-load last night, way more than the
amount that was forecast. It's still snowing. And it's all heading
East.



And which part of the world would you be in? You know, but unless you say,
no one else will.


Frank's up in the North West. Finally saw snow yesterday morn and it
melted within a couple of hours here on Long Island.


Weren't you in the 70's just a couple weeks ago?


I see Bush is
finally admitting to the existance of global warming but said **** all
to the Kyoto agreement. Big business has him in their pocket. When will
business figure out they can make money protecting the environment?


At the risk of sounding like a Republican, business follows the
markets, and the current markets are driven by the "buy-now-pay-later"
mentality of the current generation. So if you want to change business
priorities you need to change consumer priorities. And cheap gasoline
has a higher priority than the environment.

Funny though, the solution is so simple: fusion. The government should
be dumping every last penny into research into fusion research. It
would be like having a chunk of the Sun right here on Earth, to tap
for as much energy as we need for the next thousand years. That's the
future if the human race is going to survive; the only question is
whether we will choose to do it now or later.

not every penny with any kind of crash program you get lots of waste
and bad results (witness our efforts to buy our way out of the
vproblems we sufer from in Homeland security and there I am not sure we
are being ripped off so much as pushinng from intersting prototype to
production WAY too fast)

but even fuision isn't needed that badly serious pursuit of Fission
tecjh we already have could make a BIG difference but fission like
fusion seems to suffer to suffer from the fact that the word bomb got
attached to them

indeed in college I work on Nuclear magnetic resoance scanner we had
BIG trouble geting funding till some bright eye got the idea of Calling
it Magentic Resonace scaning, then funding and production fast. indeed
I currently suspect we have had that tech years before if the word
"nuclear" had not appeared in our grant proposals

Snow Warning!!!
 

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:36:26 -0500, jim wrote
in :

Dave wrote:
"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...

We just got dumped with a butt-load last night, way more than the
amount that was forecast. It's still snowing. And it's all heading
East.



And which part of the world would you be in? You know, but unless you
say,
no one else will.


Frank's up in the North West. Finally saw snow yesterday morn and it
melted within a couple of hours here on Long Island.


Weren't you in the 70's just a couple weeks ago?


I see Bush is
finally admitting to the existance of global warming but said **** all
to the Kyoto agreement. Big business has him in their pocket. When will
business figure out they can make money protecting the environment?


At the risk of sounding like a Republican, business follows the
markets, and the current markets are driven by the "buy-now-pay-later"
mentality of the current generation. So if you want to change business
priorities you need to change consumer priorities. And cheap gasoline
has a higher priority than the environment.

Funny though, the solution is so simple: fusion. The government should
be dumping every last penny into research into fusion research. It
would be like having a chunk of the Sun right here on Earth, to tap
for as much energy as we need for the next thousand years. That's the
future if the human race is going to survive; the only question is
whether we will choose to do it now or later.





No need to do it until we have to. Why leave the oil in the ground as long
as you can sell it.

Snow Warning!!!
 

"jim" wrote in message
...
Frank Gilliland wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:36:26 -0500, jim wrote
in :


Dave wrote:

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
m...


We just got dumped with a butt-load last night, way more than the
amount that was forecast. It's still snowing. And it's all heading
East.



And which part of the world would you be in? You know, but unless you
say, no one else will.



Frank's up in the North West. Finally saw snow yesterday morn and it
melted within a couple of hours here on Long Island.



Weren't you in the 70's just a couple weeks ago?


The city was but out here on the island temps are much colder especially
near the Pine Barrens which is devoid of pavement which retains heat.


I see Bush is finally admitting to the existance of global warming but
said **** all to the Kyoto agreement. Big business has him in their
pocket. When will business figure out they can make money protecting the
environment?



At the risk of sounding like a Republican, business follows the
markets, and the current markets are driven by the "buy-now-pay-later"
mentality of the current generation. So if you want to change business
priorities you need to change consumer priorities. And cheap gasoline
has a higher priority than the environment.

Funny though, the solution is so simple: fusion. The government should
be dumping every last penny into research into fusion research. It
would be like having a chunk of the Sun right here on Earth, to tap
for as much energy as we need for the next thousand years. That's the
future if the human race is going to survive; the only question is
whether we will choose to do it now or later.
Agreed with fusion. The Brookhaven National Laboratory is right around the
corner but I doubt they are doing anything in that regards. I do know they
have a 1/2 mile underground ring doing atom smashing.

The problem with fusion is containing it. It takes more energy to contain it
than it generates.

Snow Warning!!!
 

"Jimmie D" wrote in message
...

"jim" wrote in message
...
Frank Gilliland wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:36:26 -0500, jim wrote
in :


Dave wrote:

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
m...


We just got dumped with a butt-load last night, way more than the
amount that was forecast. It's still snowing. And it's all heading
East.



And which part of the world would you be in? You know, but unless you
say, no one else will.



Frank's up in the North West. Finally saw snow yesterday morn and it
melted within a couple of hours here on Long Island.



Weren't you in the 70's just a couple weeks ago?


The city was but out here on the island temps are much colder especially
near the Pine Barrens which is devoid of pavement which retains heat.


I see Bush is finally admitting to the existance of global warming but
said **** all to the Kyoto agreement. Big business has him in their
pocket. When will business figure out they can make money protecting
the
environment?



At the risk of sounding like a Republican, business follows the
markets, and the current markets are driven by the "buy-now-pay-later"
mentality of the current generation. So if you want to change business
priorities you need to change consumer priorities. And cheap gasoline
has a higher priority than the environment.

Funny though, the solution is so simple: fusion. The government should
be dumping every last penny into research into fusion research. It
would be like having a chunk of the Sun right here on Earth, to tap
for as much energy as we need for the next thousand years. That's the
future if the human race is going to survive; the only question is
whether we will choose to do it now or later.
Agreed with fusion. The Brookhaven National Laboratory is right around
the
corner but I doubt they are doing anything in that regards. I do know
they
have a 1/2 mile underground ring doing atom smashing.

The problem with fusion is containing it. It takes more energy to contain
it
than it generates.

(kind of like Mark Morgan's posts...)

Snow Warning!!!
 

On 20 Jan 2007 19:11:19 -0800, "an_old_friend"
wrote in .com:

snip
not every penny with any kind of crash program you get lots of waste
and bad results (witness our efforts to buy our way out of the
vproblems we sufer from in Homeland security and there I am not sure we
are being ripped off so much as pushinng from intersting prototype to
production WAY too fast)


There have been lots of crash programs that have been hugely
successful; one of them put a man on the moon.


but even fuision isn't needed that badly serious pursuit of Fission
tecjh we already have could make a BIG difference but fission like
fusion seems to suffer to suffer from the fact that the word bomb got
attached to them

indeed in college I work on Nuclear magnetic resoance scanner we had
BIG trouble geting funding till some bright eye got the idea of Calling
it Magentic Resonace scaning, then funding and production fast. indeed
I currently suspect we have had that tech years before if the word
"nuclear" had not appeared in our grant proposals


True, it has the dogma of being "nuclear". That's a public perception
issue. But in case you haven't noticed, public perception is easily
manipulated -- that's how politicians get elected.

Snow Warning!!!
 

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:53:33 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote in
:

snip
No need to do it until we have to.


We have to -now-. I could list a jillion reasons but it's late....
Have you ever seen the movie "Eric the Viking"? Remember the scene
where the island sinks?


Why leave the oil in the ground as long
as you can sell it.


Why bother punching holes in the ground for crud of diminishing
quality when you can manufacture synthetic substitutes that are
cheaper, more profitable, functionally superior, and better for the
environment?

Snow Warning!!!
 

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:56:39 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote in
:

snip
The problem with fusion is containing it. It takes more energy to contain it
than it generates.


If it were easy we'd be doing it already.

Snow Warning!!!
 

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:56:39 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote in
:

snip
The problem with fusion is containing it. It takes more energy to contain
it
than it generates.


If it were easy we'd be doing it already.



No, not until we have used the oil up. But in this case it may be impossible
to do. It has been suggested that controling a fussion reaction would take a
new technolgy that would actually make fussion obsolete.

Snow Warning!!!
 

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:53:33 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote in
:

snip
No need to do it until we have to.


We have to -now-. I could list a jillion reasons but it's late....
Have you ever seen the movie "Eric the Viking"? Remember the scene
where the island sinks?


Why leave the oil in the ground as long
as you can sell it.


Why bother punching holes in the ground for crud of diminishing
quality when you can manufacture synthetic substitutes that are
cheaper, more profitable, functionally superior, and better for the
environment?




Because there is money to be made, the reasons you give is just wishful
thinking, they are not cheaper, superior, or more profitable, yet. and
better for the environment is even questioable.

Snow Warning!!!
 

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:48:26 -0500, wrote in
:

snip
True, it has the dogma of being "nuclear". That's a public perception
issue. But in case you haven't noticed, public perception is easily
manipulated -- that's how politicians get elected.

but that takes one thing MONEY

and nobody has figured how to make that much money in the short term


Assuming you are right, how much money would it take? How hard is it
to convince people that a source of nearly unlimited energy is right
around the technological corner? Who would shy away from opportunities
that, until now, were only dreams? Who really cares if a few die-hard
investors lose their fortunes because they refuse to accept change?

The fortunes that will be made, in all stages of the development of
fusion energy, are going to drop Bill Gates into the middle-class tax
bracket. All that will be required is a little motivation and a little
imagination. And if you don't have that then you aren't going to make
your fortune anyway.

Snow Warning!!!
 

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:27:10 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote in
:


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:53:33 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote in
:

snip
No need to do it until we have to.


We have to -now-. I could list a jillion reasons but it's late....
Have you ever seen the movie "Eric the Viking"? Remember the scene
where the island sinks?


Why leave the oil in the ground as long
as you can sell it.


Why bother punching holes in the ground for crud of diminishing
quality when you can manufacture synthetic substitutes that are
cheaper, more profitable, functionally superior, and better for the
environment?




Because there is money to be made, the reasons you give is just wishful
thinking, they are not cheaper, superior, or more profitable, yet.


They will be all of those things when fusion provides a source of
nearly unlimited energy.


and
better for the environment is even questioable.


Think positive, Jimmie!!!

Snow Warning!!!
 

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:19:31 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote in
:


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:56:39 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote in
:

snip
The problem with fusion is containing it. It takes more energy to contain
it
than it generates.


If it were easy we'd be doing it already.



No, not until we have used the oil up. But in this case it may be impossible
to do. It has been suggested that controling a fussion reaction would take a
new technolgy that would actually make fussion obsolete.


All the more reason to get moving on the research.

Snow Warning!!!
 

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:27:10 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote in
:


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:53:33 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote in
:

snip
No need to do it until we have to.


We have to -now-. I could list a jillion reasons but it's late....
Have you ever seen the movie "Eric the Viking"? Remember the scene
where the island sinks?


Why leave the oil in the ground as long
as you can sell it.


Why bother punching holes in the ground for crud of diminishing
quality when you can manufacture synthetic substitutes that are
cheaper, more profitable, functionally superior, and better for the
environment?




Because there is money to be made, the reasons you give is just wishful
thinking, they are not cheaper, superior, or more profitable, yet.


They will be all of those things when fusion provides a source of
nearly unlimited energy.

But for whom?


and
better for the environment is even questioable.


Think positive, Jimmie!!!

Snow Warning!!!
 

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:48:26 -0500, wrote in
:

snip
True, it has the dogma of being "nuclear". That's a public perception
issue. But in case you haven't noticed, public perception is easily
manipulated -- that's how politicians get elected.

but that takes one thing MONEY

and nobody has figured how to make that much money in the short term


Assuming you are right, how much money would it take? How hard is it
to convince people that a source of nearly unlimited energy is right
around the technological corner? Who would shy away from opportunities
that, until now, were only dreams? Who really cares if a few die-hard
investors lose their fortunes because they refuse to accept change?

The fortunes that will be made, in all stages of the development of
fusion energy, are going to drop Bill Gates into the middle-class tax
bracket. All that will be required is a little motivation and a little
imagination. And if you don't have that then you aren't going to make
your fortune anyway.



It is still wishful thinking that the solution is right around the corner
and the question is who will benifit from all this new wealth. You can rest
assured some form of enrgy will be their just in time to replace all the
oil.

Snow Warning!!!
 

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 09:04:15 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote in
:


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:48:26 -0500, wrote in
:

snip
True, it has the dogma of being "nuclear". That's a public perception
issue. But in case you haven't noticed, public perception is easily
manipulated -- that's how politicians get elected.

but that takes one thing MONEY

and nobody has figured how to make that much money in the short term


Assuming you are right, how much money would it take? How hard is it
to convince people that a source of nearly unlimited energy is right
around the technological corner? Who would shy away from opportunities
that, until now, were only dreams? Who really cares if a few die-hard
investors lose their fortunes because they refuse to accept change?

The fortunes that will be made, in all stages of the development of
fusion energy, are going to drop Bill Gates into the middle-class tax
bracket. All that will be required is a little motivation and a little
imagination. And if you don't have that then you aren't going to make
your fortune anyway.



It is still wishful thinking that the solution is right around the corner


We won't know until we try.


and the question is who will benifit from all this new wealth.


You're kidding, right? Who -won't- benefit?


You can rest
assured some form of enrgy will be their just in time to replace all the
oil.


Now -that- is wishful thinking. If, as you say, the solution -isn't-
just around the corner then the technology may not be there when it is
needed -- all the more reason to get started -now-!!!

Snow Warning!!!
 

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 09:04:15 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote in
:


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:48:26 -0500, wrote in
:

snip
True, it has the dogma of being "nuclear". That's a public perception
issue. But in case you haven't noticed, public perception is easily
manipulated -- that's how politicians get elected.

but that takes one thing MONEY

and nobody has figured how to make that much money in the short term


Assuming you are right, how much money would it take? How hard is it
to convince people that a source of nearly unlimited energy is right
around the technological corner? Who would shy away from opportunities
that, until now, were only dreams? Who really cares if a few die-hard
investors lose their fortunes because they refuse to accept change?

The fortunes that will be made, in all stages of the development of
fusion energy, are going to drop Bill Gates into the middle-class tax
bracket. All that will be required is a little motivation and a little
imagination. And if you don't have that then you aren't going to make
your fortune anyway.



It is still wishful thinking that the solution is right around the corner


We won't know until we try.


and the question is who will benifit from all this new wealth.


You're kidding, right? Who -won't- benefit?



We all benifit from current energy sources but some benifit a lot more than
others. Same will happen with any other new source and things will be set up
to make sure those who are reaping the rewards now will also benifit in the
future. Hell check your NG bill, you wil find you are paying for sunshine
in the winter.

Snow Warning!!!
 

From: (jim)
Dave wrote:
"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
We just got dumped with a butt-load last night, way more than the amount
that was forecast. It's still snowing. And it's all heading East.
And which part of the world would you be in?
-
You know, but unless you say, no one else will.




Frank's up in the North West. Finally saw

snow yesterday morn and it melted within a

couple of hours here on Long Island. I see

Bush is finally admitting to the existance of

global warming but said **** all to the Kyoto

agreement. Big business has him in their

pocket. When will business figure out they can
make money protecting the environment?


Did you catch the snow in Malibu? It wasn't just a dusting. I saw a clip
of a plow in the Malibu Hills with plenty of snow on the sides of the
street. Did you see Gore's film? His slideshow depicts several glaciers
and mountain ranges over the years with a photo taken every 10 or 20
years up to the present. Unless the photos are doctored, the evidence is
overwhelming and frightening.

Snow Warning!!!
 

From: (Frank*Gilliland)
At the risk of sounding like a Republican,

business follows the markets, and the current

markets are driven by the "buy-now-pay-later"

mentality of the current generation. So if you

want to change business priorities you need to
change consumer priorities. And cheap

gasoline has a higher priority than the

environment.

2.27 for reg. uneaded last week. As of this morning it's 2.13.

Snow Warning!!!
 

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:28:16 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote in
:


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
.. .
snip
You're kidding, right? Who -won't- benefit?



We all benifit from current energy sources but some benifit a lot more than
others. Same will happen with any other new source and things will be set up
to make sure those who are reaping the rewards now will also benifit in the
future.


And I thought -I- was paranoid....