Fan in Chicago

O great - now I am the one in need of a sarcasm antenna

Dude, the post was sarcastic {Somebody had to tell him}

Actually, I saw the Consumer Reports and replaced my Corolla with a Mazda 3 (made in Japan) last year primarily because the reliability ratings were as good as a Corolla but the 3 had more style, drivability and a significantly superior interior. Also, the Toyota dealers were too arrogant and could not get me a Matrix with stick and ABS whereas the Mazda dealer went out of his way to make sure I got the exact car I wanted. 1 year and NO issues yet - love the 3.

I have the best experience with Toyotas (Corollas specifically). But have had numerous problems with my 2000 Odyssey. Not sure what happened, but they screwed up on this one. Ofcourse, my definition is totally relative but I have had 3 automatic door problems in the first 2 years, transmission crapping out (covered by Honda voluntarily extending the warranty), EGR valve crapping out (again covered by 'extended' warranty) and several brake jobs. My Corollas have been totally trouble free for their first 7-8 years of ownership. Sorry to hijack the thread.

In what, tough guy ? Running a car company ?

Depends on their strategy - at what point is it better to make a step change in production in the consuming nation versus importing. Also JIT refers to the assembly process - reduce the time between needing parts for assembly and their delivery to the plant site. That reduces inventory & storage while streamlining the overall car assembly process.

Good one. had read the news but did not think of this.

This issue was discussed in this thread: http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=46635

What would that accomplish save for an opportunity to vent your frustration ? They are humans too looking out for the best for themselves and their families, like everyone else. I bet many of them are illiterate enough to not know what type of illegal activity they are engaging in. I am all for deporting illegals but certainly not violence against them. Violence only begets more and there is always an opportunity to think about ground-level solutions before resorting to strong-arm tactics.

Thanx, CTM. Feel free to engage me in any energy-related topic.

If you mean the oil shale deposits, I have not studied the situation much. A bit less confident here than on the other topics. I believe the reserves are indeed plentiful but technology to draw oil from it is far from economically viable right now. Sort of like the Canadian oil sands were a few years back. I have heard that with current technology, it starts being viable with oil at $120/barrel. It is chemically very messy and we might see serious efforts to improve that technology as oil passes $100/barrel. But as with everything, we will never know how much of that oil is really recoverable until it becomes atleast partially commercial. Sorry I don't know this in much detail.

I had ranted about Kennedy's hypocrisy in this thread (about 2/3 way down). http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=45441&st=80 Wind power is a bit complicated though not too much. I can write a longwinded article but will try to make it short. Building wind farms today does not make inherent economic sense compared to building a gas-fired or coal-fired power plant. What this means is that the cost is too high and the payback due to the ACTUAL electricity generated is not good. The only reason wind farms are being built in the recent past (in the US) is due to tax subsidies. I had done a quick analysis and it looks like they can make sense without subsidies if natural gas prices stay consistently above ~$11/MMBTU (currently $7.2/MMBtu). Sure gas prices spike in winter but they have to stay that way in summer (peak power demand) and most of the year to help wind look attractive. Problem with wind is that it doesn't blow all of the time (duh) and you still need a base-load generating plant using gas or coal or nuclear. Which means you are double investing (almost). While conventional plants have uptime of ~90%, effectiveness of wind plants is 10-20% (the percent of time it is actually generating what it is supposed to). Advantage is that when it does generate, you are not burning a fossil fuel thus cutting back on consumption of that fuel and not polluting the environment. Does it cause environmental damage ? Maybe, but studies from both sides of the debate are largely biased so no one knows for sure. My personal opinion is that the number of birds killed in this blender-in-the-sky is miniscule compared to natures own forces (predators etc.) I am sure a scientific and unbiased study will prove that the emissions reduced wil balance out the ill effects of a few chopped up birds. Bottom line - everything boils down to economics and wind, as of today, is not inherently economical. We are better off going with nuclear or clean coal technology (IGCC) for future power plants. Back to the topic of the Kennedy's. My beef with their protest is that on the one hand politicians start screaming for weaning us off the dependence on foreign oil (and in the future foreign gas). And on the other hand, they protest wind farms. The only reason is that instead of seeing the pristine sunrise through their sozzled eyes, they will see giant fans. To preserve their aesthetic view, they are willing to sacrifice the well intentioned efforts of those working to make Cape Cod wind a reality.

I agree. But, you know what - if we find that the dline is doing fine, the sequence will be - 'yeah but, we don't have any WRs to catch any balls', - Fix WRs, 'yeah but we don't have an oline to let the Qb throw' - - Fix OL .... You get the point.

At least I got 10 minutes worth of work done at the office.

Dang- missed 3: exports, language and immigration The CSI question may have been a control question - see if significantly larger % of people answer that question correctly compared to the other questions. (And I am a CSI fan and no I don't think it is comparable to the idiotic American Idol)

O what a fool I am !! Current project at work must have gotten to me. {cowering in a corner and hiding his face deep}

So you are picking the Pats to go the SB again and lose ? You miserable little traitor !

I am now convinced that Mart's source was soprano3695 and he is now back peddling to avoid looking like an a$$ in the national media as compared to the friendly confines of the TBD board.

Yep - $225 million in stock-based compensation. Wonder what Schein and Cross are getting (in stock comp that is).

In other news, Sirius reported today that its first-quarter loss more than doubled to $459 million.

The strawman is not that we allegedly neglected the defense over the years, but that we chose defense over the two QB prospects for a reason. I see nothing wrong with the approach we took this year. I have not gone through all the postings and opinions on the draft, so can you give me a link to your take ?

Isn't it a general opinion that OL players take longer to develop than DL ? Then this draft must be seen in light of our past two drafts where we loaded up on Offense. If Peters and Preston have matured enough to nail down starting spots, then we are doing fine. Optimistic view of things will go this way: OL has been addressed with Peters, Preston from past drafts and bolstered by Reyes and Fowler from free agency. DL has all necessary players though Denney is a question mark. Secondary is fine with some veterans and players from this years draft to develop under them. Offensive skill players are all average to good (we know what they are and no question marks save for the all important QB spot). Special teams is intact and hence, great. In summary, if we get 2-3 starters from this years draft, we have done well. I know I am making a lot of conclusions from little data but we HAVE 'addressed' all need positions.

Lets all take a deep breath - draft has just started

Methinks a trade for NC has been done and we will get Bunkley or somebody else. Just a hunch ...

You actually mean Ultra low sulfur diesel for on-road consumption. On road has been low in sulfur for a while but ULSD drops the limit down to 15 ppm which will be by Sept 1 in California and Oct 15 for the rest of the country. As you probably know, the less the output sulfur required, the harder it gets to take it out during processing. Logistical challenge for ULSD is that when diesel is transported by pipes, it will pick up old deposited sulfur and what comes out at the back end will most certainly be much higher than what went in at the refinery. I think the industry is going by making 8 ppm at the refinery to get 15 ppm at the retail outlets ! Huge investments have gone into meeting this mandate. It is good for the environment no doubt, but the public must be made aware of the level of spending that big bad oil does for meeting the specs. I think the biggest mistake the oil industry did over the years is not devoting adequate attention and effort to public relations.