On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 02:30:27 -0500, RCE wrote:


You know what? None of this matters. For every proven crook running a
company, I'll find you an honest, hard working example.

Personally, I'd expect you could find hundreds of honest businessmen for
each crook, but there lies the problem. As you know, it's quite
competitive out there. Competing with crooks isn't a level playing field.
If we don't punish the crooks far more heavily than we do, even an honest
businessman is tempted to shade the edges. What did Ebbers get? 25
years for an $11 billion fraud and there was talk that it was a "stiff"
sentence. If I'd lost my retirement and was forced to eat cat food
during my Golden Years because of some fat cat's greed, I'd be thinking
he'd better be spending heavily on security.

It all depends on
one's personnel perspective of the world and business. If you tend to be
of the cynical bent, you are going to find conspiracy and deceit behind
every door. If you're a glass half full type your going to gravitate
towards the belief that the system can work, despite Herculean problems.
I've always been more of the latter. Obviously others here are not.
Makes the world go 'round. In my life there have been more people telling
me I couldn't do something than those who encouraged me to try. I rarely
listened to the first group.

RCE

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:03:17 -0800, jps wrote:

Exxon, Chevron and Halliburton are having historically profitable
years.

Doe's this touch your brain at all?

i know my portfolio has done quite well in the oil sector.

You cannot deny them a profit, but it is obvious the oil company's are
fleecing us.




What's really interesting is that the price of gasoline has also
skyrocketed in Iraq.

What's it up to now? Two dimes per gallon?

If you think about it (and I know that can be a challenge), you'll
realize that the absolute price doesn't matter, considering the
circumstances.

I don't know the exact percentage, but the majority of Iraqi provinces are
peaceful places that are eager to join the modern civilized world.
They're unaffected by the daily violence that occurs mainly in the Sunni
triangle. Those folks are paying 40 cents per gallon for the same gasoline
that costs us $3/gallon. So what do they have to whine about?

If :
1) Your livelihood depends on fuel
and
2) Your income remains the same or goes down, and the price of fuel triples
and
3) You can't raise your prices quickly for any number of reasons

.....it may be a problem.

"jps" wrote in message
...

Sure we can, if we listen to you faggot-assed treehuggers, stick daisies
in our exhaust pipes and convert everything to windpower (except around
Hyannisport, of course.

You think JimH is a faggot-assed treehugger?

Whew, you just blew any claim to February 29th cerebral function, as I'm
sure several of us had already suspected.

jps

Freddy's new here. He has a short attention span, so he can't stick around a
conversation long enough to make any sense. Ignore him. He'll be gone in 24
hours, and then waiting for another golden opportunity to say something
weird.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...


We have a cure for the energy problem. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! But the
enviro's got the building of same, outlawed.

No knee-jerk reactions, OK? Forget Yucca Mountain.

As it stands now, we are unable to control nuclear waste. I did not say
"dispose of". I said "CONTROL", meaning assure that is secured against
misuse. When we can do that, then MAYBE we can build nuclear power plants
the was Starbucks builds coffee shops.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...


We have a cure for the energy problem. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! But the
enviro's got the building of same, outlawed.

No knee-jerk reactions, OK? Forget Yucca Mountain.

As it stands now, we are unable to control nuclear waste. I did not say
"dispose of". I said "CONTROL", meaning assure that is secured against
misuse. When we can do that, then MAYBE we can build nuclear power plants
the was Starbucks builds coffee shops.

What do France and Japan do with their nuclear waste? I believe that 80% of
France's electricity is generated from nuclear power plants and I believe
that Japan's is somewhere above 30%.

"Don White" wrote in message
...
jps wrote:
In article ,
says...

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in
news

And folks can choose to stop buying newspapers. Not true of gasoline.

Bull****, asswipe.


JohnH, are you going to step in here to calm this peckerhead down? Why
is it that you're so quick to offer the preamble to the left and not so
quick in name-callers like this.

For Christ's sake, he just called JimH a faggot treehugger. I just about
fell out my chair!!!

jps


Yes...never a netcop around when you need one!

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 06:30:20 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:


We have a cure for the energy problem. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! But the
enviro's got the building of same, outlawed.

Nuclear is not a cure. It may be part of the solution, but it is not a
cure. With new technologies, such as a Pebble Bed Reactor, safety
concerns have been eliminated or, at least, substantially reduced.
However, there is still nuclear waste to deal with. Burying waste in
Yucca Mountain is, essentially, sweeping it under the carpet. Also,
uranium reserves are finite. 50 years, or so, with present technologies,
but that would be expected to lengthen with more advanced technologies.
Nuclear could provide a solution for our lifetimes, but eventually it to
would end. We need to think in terms of sustainable energy.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 06:30:20 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:


We have a cure for the energy problem. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! But the
enviro's got the building of same, outlawed.

Nuclear is not a cure. It may be part of the solution, but it is not a
cure. With new technologies, such as a Pebble Bed Reactor, safety
concerns have been eliminated or, at least, substantially reduced.
However, there is still nuclear waste to deal with. Burying waste in
Yucca Mountain is, essentially, sweeping it under the carpet. Also,
uranium reserves are finite. 50 years, or so, with present technologies,


Whatever happened to breeder reactors? They are supposed to produce more
fuel than they use.

RCE

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 07:43:04 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


What do France and Japan do with their nuclear waste? I believe that 80%
of France's electricity is generated from nuclear power plants and I
believe that Japan's is somewhere above 30%.

They haven't solved the problem, either. France reprocesses the nuclear
waste. This retrieves the energy it can, and condenses the waste. It
then, either "stocks" it, or ships it abroad.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...gs/french.html

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31466

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...


We have a cure for the energy problem. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! But the
enviro's got the building of same, outlawed.

No knee-jerk reactions, OK? Forget Yucca Mountain.

As it stands now, we are unable to control nuclear waste. I did not say
"dispose of". I said "CONTROL", meaning assure that is secured against
misuse. When we can do that, then MAYBE we can build nuclear power plants
the was Starbucks builds coffee shops.

What do France and Japan do with their nuclear waste? I believe that 80%
of France's electricity is generated from nuclear power plants and I
believe that Japan's is somewhere above 30%.




I don't know what they do with it. In some cases, they (and other countries)
got fuel from us, and for some years, there's been an effort underway to
have them voluntarily return the spent fuel so (in theory) we can store it
safely. The program's moving too slowly, not because of any political
resistance, but simply because politicians are too busy with more exciting
things that hold the public's interest.

The February 2006 issue of Scientific American contains the best article
I've ever seen on the subject. It's definitely worth your effort to run out
and find it today. I'd summarize it for you, but I haven't finished reading
it. My son keep sticking the magazine in his book bag and taking it to
school to read during lunch.

Excerpt from web site - but it's hardly the juicy part:

Thwarting Nuclear Terrorism
Many civilian research reactors contain highly enriched uranium that
terrorists could use to build nuclear bombs
By Alexander Glaser and Frank N. von Hippel
The atomic bomb that incinerated the Japanese city of Hiroshima at the close
of World War II contained about 60 kilograms of chain-reacting uranium. When
the American "Little Boy" device detonated over the doomed port, one part of
the bomb's charge--a subcritical mass--was fired into the other by a
relatively simple gunlike mechanism, causing the uranium 235 in the combined
mass to go supercritical and explode with the force of 15 kilotons of TNT.
The weapon that devastated Nagasaki a few days later used plutonium rather
than uranium in its explosive charge and required much more complex
technology to set it off.

Despite the production of more than 100,000 nuclear weapons by a few nations
and some close calls during the succeeding 60 years, no similar nuclear
destruction has occurred so far. Today, however, an additional fearful
threat has arisen: that a subnational terrorist organization such as al
Qaeda might acquire highly enriched uranium (HEU), build a crude gun-type
detonating device and use the resulting nuclear weapon against a city. HEU
is uranium in which uranium 235, the isotope capable of sustaining a nuclear
chain reaction, has been concentrated to levels of 20 percent or more by
weight....continued at Scientific American Digital